Discriminant Validity of the Adult Attachment Interview

Abstract

The Adult Attachment Interview is a semi-structured interview developed to investigate adults' attachment representations. Subjects are asked to describe their parents as caregivers, explain these descriptions, describe how their parents typically responded to distress, and discuss their current relationships with their parents. They are also asked to describe any significant losses and/or instances of abuse during childhood. Scoring focuses on the accessibility of early experiences to memory and the coherence and plausibility of the subject's narrative. Discriminant validity is always an important issue with such measures because IQ and other cognitively loaded variables offer plausible alternative interpretations or represent important correlates that should be treated as covariates when the measure is used. In addition, complex, multifaceted interviews always pose the risk of assessing general social adjustment rather than a more narrowly defined construct. This study examines the discriminant validity of the AAI vis(-)à-vis intelligence, social desirability, discourse style, and general social adjustment in a sample of 53 native-English-speaking, married women with preschool children. They were assessed with the AAI, a written IQ test, the Social Adjustment Scale, the Employment Experience Interview (discourse style), and a measure of social desirability. There were modest but significant correlations with IQ scores and social adjustment. There was no relation between AAI classifications and discourse style or social desirability. These results substantially strengthen the case for interpreting the AAI as an attachment-related measure.

Is mind-mindedness trait-like or a quality of close relationships? Evidence from descriptions of significant others, famous people, and works of art

“…One possibility is that mind-mindedness may be a quality that applies specifically to close relationships. On this account, associated with attachment issues (Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 1993;Sagi et al, 1994) and with their style of discourse when interviewed about their employment experiences (Crowell et al, 1996). These findings suggest that individuals adopt discourse modes that are specific to their representations of relationships with significant others.…”

Reading Others' Emotions: The Role of Intuitive Judgments in Predicting Marital Satisfaction, Quality, and Stability.

“…Interviewers were extensively trained using standard procedures (Weissman & Paykel, 1974). In addition, during training, all interviewers independently scored five audio-tapes that were part of a separate study (Crowell et al, 1996) and scored by an expert SAS rater. All interviews were audiotaped, and 25 of the tapes were scored by all SAS interviewers to establish interrater reliability.…”

Disorganized reasoning in Holocaust survivors.

“…Intercoder reliability for the AAI using a fourway classification system (cannot classify or unresolved in one group, F, Ds, E) reached an agreement of 86% (kappa ϭ .76); reliability of the scales for unresolved loss and trauma was .89. It should be noted that in previous studies in Holland, Israel, and the United States, the psychometric characteristics of the AAI have proven to be excellent (BakermansKranenburg & Van IJzendoorn, 1993;Crowell et al, 1996;Sagi, Van IJzendoorn, Scharf, Koren-Karie, Joels, & Mayseless, 1994;Van IJzendoorn, 1995). The distribution of the main classifications for the AAI (secure-autonomous, insecure-dismissing, insecure-preoccupied, and insecurecannot classify) for the Holocaust and the control groups, respectively, was as follows: secure-autonomous, 16 (33%) versus 23 (46%); insecure-dismissing, 21 (44%) versus 23 (46%); insecure-preoccupied, 4 (8%) versus 2 (4%); and insecure-cannot classify, 7 (15%) versus 2 (4%).…”