成人依附的測量：成人世界中不同依附對象的測量差異與關連

The Measurement of Adult Attachment: Difference and Relation between the Different Objects in the Adult World

10.30074/FJMH.200703_20(1).0002

孫頌賢(Sung-Hsien Sun)；修慧蘭(Hui-Lan Hsiu)

成人依附 ； 成人依附光譜假說 ； 依附對象 ； 依附轉換模式 ； adult attachment ； the hypothetical continuum of adult attachment measures ； attachment objects ； a model of attachment transfer processes

中華心理衛生學刊

20卷1期（2007 / 03 / 01）

31 - 51

繁體中文

研究目的：本研究欲比較關係特質取向(有指定對象，包括父、母、愛情)與個人特質取向(無特定對象)等兩種測量成人依附風格的差異性，並依據成人依附光譜假說與依附轉換模式，探討所得測量結果之間一維光譜的關連性，以及愛情依附與個人特質依附風格與親子依附風格之相關。研究方法：研究樣本共計185名大學生，男性59人，女性125人，平均年齡約19.95歲。以Bartholomew成人依附短文描述句為研究工具，請受試者依不同對象進行歸類，並以卡方檢定與MDS分析。研究結果：1.有無特定對象的依附風格歸類結果具差異性；2.光譜假說未獲得支持，但愛情依附風格與個人特質依附風格兩者分別與親子依附風格的分類結果有關連。研究結論：若依附測量需針對特定對象卻以無特定對象方式進行測量，會有高估不安全依附歸類的現象；個人特質上的不安全依附歸類結果與親子的不安全依附有關，愛情關係上的安全依附歸類結果則與親子的安全依附有關。

Purpose: Bartholomew has integrated Bowlby's theory of internal working models in a four category classification scheme. Four prototypical adult attachment styles were measured in this study, including secure, preoccupied, fearful, and dismissing attachment styles. However, in the past, most of adult attachment researches ignored the difference between with-specific-object and without-specific-object measures. Therefore, the past results of adult attachment category had been criticized their over-evaluated or underevaluated trend. This study attempted to compare the difference between the two ways of measuring the adult attachment styles: relationship character approach (with specific objects, e.g., father, mother, or a dating partner) and individual character approach (without specific objects). Based on the hypothetical continuum of adult attachment (Bartholomew & Shaver, 1998) and the model of attachment transfer processes (Hazan & Shaver, 1994), this study also tried to investigate the one-way continuum correlation between the results of the different measurements, and the correlation among the results from dating relationship attachment styles, individual attachment styles, and parental attachment styles. The figure of hypothetical continuum of adult attachment indicated that when appropriate comparisons were drawn, one would find considerable evidence for convergence across various measures of adult attachment. This study supposed that the results of the measurements of adult attachment category with specific objects would be different from the measurements of adult attachment category without specific objects. Besides, according to the model of attachment transfer processes, the results of category in parental attachment styles would be positive correlated with the results of category in dating relationship attachment styles, and the results of category in parental attachment styles would be also positive correlated with the results of category in personal attachment styles. Methods: The study sample consisted of 185 college students, including 59 males and 125 females, and their average age was 19.95 years. None of them were from single family, and 61.6% students were living with their parents. Bartholomew's paragraph-long description form was used to categorize adult attachment styles. In addition, we conducted chi-square test and MDS to analyze the data. Results: First, there were differences between the results of the measurements of adult attachment category with specific objects and the measurements of adult attachment without specific objects. Second, the hypothetical continuum of adult attachment measures was not supported by MDS. Finally, there were positive correlations between dating relationship attachment styles and parental attachment styles, and between personal attachment styles and parental attachment styles. Conclusions: The article concluded with a discussion of unclear questions about adult attachment that rose from various measurement perspectives. First, this study supported that insecure parental attachment would be over-evaluated if without specific-object measurement of attachment styles was used to measure with-specific-object attachment styles. There is no 'best choice' between the two measured approaches. If one adult attachment research investigates specific situation (e.g., love relationship, peer relationship, mentor relationship, or parental relationship), the research will suggest that the way of measuring the adult attachment styles should use relationship character approach (with specific objects). Second, according to the model of attachment transfer processes, attachment style in personal character and in dating relationship were both positive correlate with attachment styles in parental relationships. More specifically, the insecure attachment style in personal character was positive related to the insecure attachment style in parental attachment, and the secure style in dating relationship was positive related to the secure style in parental attachment. In addition, implication for adult attachment measures in adult relationships was discussed. Research limitation was also explicated.

1. Bartholomew, K.,Horowitz, L. M.(1991).Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,61,226-244.
2. Bartholomew, K.,Shaver, P. R.,J. A. Simpson,W. S. Rholes(1998).Method of assessing adult attachment: Do they converge?.Attachment theory and close relationship,25-45.
3. Berlin, L. J.,Cassidy, J.(2001).Enhancing early child-parent relationships: Implications of adult attachment research.Infant and Young Children,14(2),64-76.
4. Collins, N. L.,Read, S. J.(1990).Adult attachment, working models and relationship quality in dating couples.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,58,644-663.
5. Duemmler, S. L.,Kobak, R.(2001).The development of commitment and attachment in dating relationships: Attachment security as relationship construct.Journal of Adolescence,24,401-415.
6. Feeney, J. A.,J. Cassidy,P. R. Shaver(1999).Adult romantic attachment and couple relationships.Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical application,355-377.
7. Fraley, R. C.,Waller, N. G.,J. A. Simpson,W. S. Rholes(1998).Adult attachment patterns: A test of the typological.Attachment theory and close relationship,77-114.
8. George, C.,Kaplan, N.,Main, M.(1985).An adult attachment interview: Interview protocol
9. Green, R. G.,Vosler, N. R.(1992).Issues in the assessment of family practice: An empirical study.Journal of Social Service Research,15(3/4),1-19.
10. Hazan, C.,Shaver, P. R.(1994).Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships.Psychological Inquiry,5(1),1-22.
11. Hazan, C.,Shaver, P. R.(1987).Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,59,270-280.
12. Johnson, S. M.,V. E. Whiffen(2003).Introduction to attachment: A therapist`s guide to primary relationships and their renewal.Attachment processes in couple and family therapy,3-17.
13. Johnson, S. M.,Whiffen, V. E.(2003).Attachment processes in couple and family therapy
14. Lewis, M.(1994).Does attachment imply a relationship or multiple relationships?.Psychological Inquiry,5(1),47-51.
15. Pinsof, W. M.(1992).Toward a scientific paradigm for family psychology: The integrative process systems perspective.Journal of Family Psychology,5(3/4),432-447.
16. Solomon, R. H.(1971).Mao`s revolution and the Chinese political culture
17. Teyber, E.(2000).Interpersonal process in psychotherapy: A relational approach
18. Weiss, R. S.(1994).Is the attachment system of adults a development of Bowlby`s attachment system of childhood?.Psychological Inquiry,5(1),65-67.
19. 王慶福(2000)。當男孩愛上女孩：人際依附風格類型搭配、愛情關係與關係適應之研究。中華輔導學報，8，117-201。
20. 何春慧(2000)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文。
21. 林秀娟(1999)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學輔導研究所碩士論文。
22. 邱碧慧(1994)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。中原大學心理研究所碩士論文。
23. 陳勤惠(2000)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立屏東師範學院教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
24. 費孝通(1948)。鄉土中國
25. 黃于娟(1994)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文。
26. 黃鈴喬(1998)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學輔導研究所碩士論文。
27. 葉光輝、葉啟政(2002)。關係主義」：論華人人際互動關係的要素、來源及變化歷程。從現代到本土，229-255。
28. 羅立人(1999)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學輔導學系碩士論文。

1. 陳慶福、王雅萱(2018)。焦慮依附風格個案在諮商初期的晤談感受、工作同盟與諮商滿意之關係研究。教育心理學報，50(2)，267-291。
2. 陳彤如(2017)。從客體關係看成人的安全感。諮商與輔導，383，30-33。
3. 戴嘉南、吳明隆、丁鈺珊(2014)。大學生家庭價值觀、人際關係依附風格與婚姻態度之相關研究─以高雄市為例。家庭教育與諮商學刊，17，1-31。
4. 董秀珠,楊連謙,陳秀蓉(2019)。婚姻治療中依戀創傷者的人我意義改變。應用心理研究，71，81-136。
5. 洪敏玲,阮馨瑩(2019)。一位來自單親家庭女教師之成長歷程與親密關係探究。學校行政，121，106-124。
6. 簡美華、林宥妡(2018)。兒時身體不當對待與成年女性之親密關係發展探究。亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊，14(1)，31-73。
7. 李欣潔,王櫻芬(2020)。公眾自我意識在年輕成人的父母依附與獨處經驗之中介角色分析研究。臺灣諮商心理學報，8(1)，1-30。
8. 孫頌賢、李宜玫(2009)。暴力的代間傳遞：原生家庭暴力經驗與依戀系統對大學生約會暴力行爲預測比較。家庭教育與諮商學刊，7，23-43。
9. 楊懿恬、高淑芳(2012)。原生家庭與親密關係對成人依附風格的影響。諮商與輔導，316，37-40+44。
10. 鄭中平、翟宗悌、鄔佩麗(2013)。以自重與尊重對方為導向之國中青少女戀愛關係團體諮商方案成效研究。輔導與諮商學報，35(2)，47-74。
11. (2024)。佛教情緒狀態量表之編製研究。本土心理學研究，61，3-44。
12. (2024)。同林鳥或各自飛：以APIMeM模式探討伴侶間成人依附、伴侶因應與復原力之關係。中華心理衛生學刊，37(2)，113-144。