Ii. The Latent Structure of the Adult Attachment Interview: Exploratory and Confirmatory Evidence

Childhood abuse and neglect, attachment states of mind, and non-suicidal self-injury

“…Composites for dismissing and preoccupied states of mind regarding childhood caregivers at age 26 years were created by averaging relevant rating scales, and both dismissing (α = .72) and preoccupied (α = .69) states of mind at 26 years demonstrated acceptable reliability. AAI dismissing and preoccupied dimensions have also demonstrated acceptable internal consistency across prior investigations of both normative (e.g., Haltigan, Roisman, & Haydon, 2014; Haltigan, Leerkes et al, 2014; Whipple et al, 2011) and at-risk populations (Macfie et al, 2014; Martin et al, 2017). …”

“…Intra-class correlations (ICCs) for AAI rating scales at age 19 years reflected good inter-rater reliability (ICCs between .73 and .95) based on a sample of 49 double coded cases. Results of an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using the 19 year AAI rating scales (note that fear of loss and metacognitive monitoring scales were excluded a priori from EFA due to low variance) yielded the same two factors as identified in prior research of the factor structure of the AAI in this (at age 26 years; Raby et al, 2017) and other (e.g., Haltigan et al, 2014) samples. Specifically, two dimensions were identified, one reflecting dismissing states of mind, which accounted for 28.96% of variance and comprised maternal idealization (loading = .61), lack of memory (loading = .51), and paternal idealization (loading = .41), and a second dimension reflecting preoccupied states of mind, which accounted for 23.83% of variance and comprised maternal anger (loading = .76), paternal anger (loading = .63), and unresolved abuse (loading = .53); there were no cross-loadings > .40 for any variables included in the EFA.…”

“…Derogation and unresolved loss scores were ultimately removed from the creation of state of mind composites due to loadings < .40 on both factors. Although the coherence of mind rating loaded primarily on the dismissing factor (.99), these ratings were excluded from composites in order to align with practices established in recent research (see Haltigan et al, 2014). Specifically, the coherence of mind scale is intended to be a summary rating on which participants are assigned low ratings if there is evidence of either dismissing or preoccupied discourse during the AAI—thus by definition this rating is not unique to either state of mind.…”

“…Four demographic variables used in prior reports regarding caregiving antecedents of adult social or psychological adjustment (e.g., Haydon, Roisman, Owen, Booth-LaForce, & Cox, 2014; Raby, Roisman, Fraley, & Simpson, 2015) were included to examine the robustness of focal associations; these were child sex, child ethnicity, maternal education, and childhood socioeconomic status (SES). The majority of the sample was White/non-Hispanic; thus, a binary variable representing ethnicity (1 = White/non-Hispanic, 0 = otherwise) was used.…”

“…Though a large corpus of empirical research has productively leveraged categorical approaches to coding the AAI (see Steele & Steele, 2008; Van IJzendoorn, 1995; Bakermans-Kranenburg & Van IJzendoorn, 2009 for reviews) and the CRI (Owens et al, 1995; Roisman, Collins, Sroufe, & Egeland, 2005; Treboux, Crowell, & Waters, 2004), a great deal of recent factor analytic and taxometric evidence suggests that the rating scales coded from the AAI and CRI actually reflect two relatively independent state of mind dimensions (Bernier, Larose, Boivin, & Soucy, 2004; Haltigan, Roisman, & Haydon, 2014; Haltigan, Leerkes et al, 2014; Larose & Bernier, 2001; Macfie et al, 2014; Martin et al, 2017; Raby, Labella, Martin, Egeland, & Roisman, 2017; Roisman, Fraley, & Belsky, 2007; Whipple, Bernier, & Mageau, 2011). More specifically, empirically-derived state of mind dimensions include dismissing states of mind , featuring minimization or denial of emotional distress and attachment needs within close relationships, and preoccupied states of mind , characterized by emotionally entangled or psychologically confused discussion of relational experiences, evidenced by passive or angry discourse and/or unresolved speech suggesting persistent rumination upon distressing experience.…”