PERSONALITY
10.1177/0146167205276865
Sibley et al. / RELIABILITY
AND SOCIALAND
PSYCHOLOGY
VALIDITY OF
BULLETIN
THE ECR-R
Reliability and Validity of the Revised Experiences
in Close Relationships (ECR-R) Self-Report Measure
of Adult Romantic Attachment
Chris G. Sibley
Ronald Fischer
James H. Liu
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Three studies examine the psychometric properties (i.e., the test-
retest reliability, convergent, and discriminant validity) of
Fraley, Waller, and Brennans Revised Experiences in Close
Relationships (ECR-R) self-report measure of romantic attach-
ment anxiety (model of self) and avoidance (model of others).
Longitudinal analyses suggest that the ECR-R provided highly
stable indicators of latent attachment during a 3-week period
(85% shared variance). Hierarchical linear modeling analyses
further validated the ECR-R, suggesting that it explained
between 30% to 40% of the between-person variation in social
interaction diary ratings of attachment-related emotions experi-
enced during interactions with a romantic partner and only
5% to 15% of that in interactions with family and friends.
Guidelines are offered regarding the conditions where highly reli-
able and precise measures of romantic attachment, such as the
ECR-R, are deemed necessary and where shorter, albeit slightly
less reliable measures, such as Bartholomew and Horowitzs
Relationship Questionnaire, may also be viable.
Keywords: romantic attachment; measurement; validity; reliability;
psychometrics
The attachment literature has documented a prolific
increase in the number of self-report measures of adult
attachment published in the years following Hazan and
Shavers (1987) seminal adaptation of Ainsworths infant
typology (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). Con-
sistent with Bowlbys (1969/1982, 1973, 1980) original
theorizing, research during the past two decades has
converged on a definition of adult attachment based on
two primary dimensions (Bartholomew & Horowitz,
1991; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Griffin &
Bartholomew, 1994a). These two dimensions are thought
to reflect attachment-related anxiety, or a model of the
1524
self, and attachment-related avoidance, or a model of
others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Brennan et al.,
1998; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994a, 1994b). According
to Fraley and Shaver (2000) attachment-related anxiety
reflects an individuals predisposition toward anxiety
and vigilance concerning rejection and abandonment,
whereas the avoidance dimension corresponds to dis-
comfort with closeness and dependency or a reluctance
to be intimate with others (pp. 142-143).
Although most researchers now agree that the attach-
ment behavioral system is composed of these two funda-
mental dimensions, internal working models, or cogni-
tive subsystems (Crowell, Fraley, & Shaver, 1999; Fraley &
Spieker, 2003; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003), various
researchers have raised concerns regarding how the
dimensions may be most accurately operationalized
using self-report measures (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan,
2000; Kurdek, 2002; see J. A. Feeney, 2002a; Shaver &
Mikulincer, 2002, for a discussion). Such concerns are
especially pertinent given the variety of alternative mea-
sures of anxiety and avoidance that have been developed
throughout the years (e.g., Bartholomew & Horowitz,
1991; Brennan et al., 1998; Collins & Read, 1990; Griffin
& Bartholomew, 1994b; J. A. Feeney, Noller, &
Hanrahan, 1994; Fraley et al., 2000; Simpson, Rholes, &
Nelligan, 1992). Detailed research assessing the reliabil-
ity and validity of many of these different measures
remains limited however (e.g., Brennan et al., 1998;
Authors Note: This research was supported by a research grant from
the Foundation for Research Science and Technology, New Zealand.
This article comprises part of Chris G. Sibleys doctoral dissertation,
completed under the supervision of James H. Liu and Ronald Fischer.
PSPB, Vol. 31 No. 11, November 2005 1524-1536
DOI: 10.1177/0146167205276865
2005 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
 Sibley et al. / RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE ECR-R
Kurdek, 2002). In their comprehensive review of the
area, Mikulincer and Shaver (2003) emphasized the
need for further research addressing this issue when
they stated that
much important work remains to be done in the area of
measuring attachment phenomena. The self-report
measures on which our research is based were created
through a combination of research on infants, intuition,
psychometrics, and convenience. . . . They were all based
on item writers exposure to the attachment literature,
but in most cases were not designed component-by-
component with a coherent theoretical framework in
mind. Given their relative crudeness, it is remarkable
how systematic and cumulative our research findings
have been. (pp. 140-141)
The present research details three studies that seek to
address the aforementioned concerns by assessing the
reliability, temporal stability, construct, discriminant,
and convergent validity of Fraley et al.s (2000) recently
developed 36-item Revised Experiences in Close Rela-
tionships (ECR-R) measure of romantic attachment.
Comparable analyses of Bartholomew and Horowitzs
(1991) widely used Relationship Questionnaire (RQ)
are also reported. Given its brevity and extensive use in
previous research, we argue that the RQ provides a
benchmark against which the psychometric properties
of more lengthy and comprehensive scales, such as the
ECR-R, may be evaluated.
Fraley et al. (2000) developed the ECR-R in an
attempt to foster consensus regarding the most appro-
priate method for assessing self-reported adult romantic
attachment. The ECR-R items were selected from an
exhaustive set of more than 300 attachment items previ-
ously collated by Brennan et al. (1998). Fraley et al.
(2000) analyzed these items using an innovative combi-
nation of classical psychometric techniques, such as fac-
tor analysis, and item response theory analysis. The ECR-
R therefore contains many similar and in some cases
identical items to those used in previous scales devel-
oped using more traditional psychometric methods,
such as the ECR questionnaire (Brennan et al., 1998)
and the Adult Attachment Questionnaire (AAQ;
Simpson et al., 1992).
The ECR-R differs from these earlier scales, however,
in that the combination of items included in the scale
provide a series of item discrimination values more
evenly distributed across the entire trait ranges of anxi-
ety and avoidance. Previous multi-item attachment
scales in contrast tend to contain series of items that are
highly intercorrelated (indicating that the items mea-
sure the same construct) but that say nothing about the
scales abilities to accurately differentiate underlying
trait levels across the trait range. As Fraley et al. (2000)
1525
demonstrated in their analyses of previous attachment
scales, it is therefore not uncommon for a scale to accu-
rately differentiate between individuals who score in the
high end of a trait range but fail to adequately differenti-
ate between individuals who score in the moderate or
low ends of the range. Undesirable response properties
of this type can in turn generate misleading inferences
concerning individual differences in trait stability and
change (Fraley et al., 2000, p. 364). Consistent with this
concern, comparison of the test information functions
of the anxiety and avoidance subscales of the ECR-R with
those of other popular scales from which its items were
garnered, such as the ECR and AAQ, demonstrated that
the ECR-R provided substantially more precise estimates
of latent attachment across the entire trait range (Fraley
et al., 2000). Simulation analyses conducted by Fraley
et al. further validated the ECR-R, confirming that its
improved item parameters yielded markedly more
stable test-retest estimates than those provided by the
aforementioned measures.
Subsequent research supports Fraley et al.s (2000)
initial work and suggests that the ECR-R also displays
adequate classical psychometric properties (e.g., Sibley
& Liu, 2004). Elaborating on Fraley et al.s exploratory
factor analyses, Sibley and Liu (2004) reported that the
ECR-R provided reliable and replicable self-report mea-
sures of romantic attachment anxiety and avoidance.
Consistent with Fraley et al.s simulation estimates, latent
indicators of the ECR-R anxiety and avoidance subscales
displayed test-retest correlations in the low .90s during a
6-week period (Sibley & Liu, 2004). These results suggest
that the ECR-R provides more stable test-retest estimates
of romantic attachment-related anxiety and avoidance
than those reported in previous research during compa-
rable time periods using earlier measures of attachment
(e.g., Collins & Read, 1990; Davila & Sargent, 2003).
The Present Research
Elaborating on preliminary research in this area (e.g.,
Sibley & Liu, 2004), three studies are detailed that exam-
ine the ECR-Rs performance across a wide range of clas-
sical psychometric criteria. Study 1 examines the tempo-
ral stability and factor structure of the ECR-R. Study 2
then uses Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to more
formally examine the factor structure of the ECR-R.
Finally, the third study examines the ECR-R using a dif-
ferent but equally important criterion set, that of conver-
gent and discriminant validity. Specifically, Study 3 uses
an experience sampling methodology to examine the
proportions of variance in general and attachment-
specific emotions experienced during social interac-
tions involving a romantic partner, family member, or
platonic friend predicted by the ECR-R. RQ measures of
romantic anxiety and avoidance are also included in
1526 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
Studies 1 and 3 to provide a baseline comparison against
which the ECR-R may be judged.
STUDY 1
According to Bowlby (1969/1982, 1973, 1980), work-
ing models of attachment are dynamic cognitive struc-
tures that are likely to change relatively slowly over time
through the incorporation and adaptation of new infor-
mation and experiences (Fraley, 2002). However, as
Baldwin and Fehr (1995) noted, the considerable levels
of short-term instability observed in both earlier categor-
ical measures of attachment style (e.g., Pistole, 1989)
and more recently developed continuous measures of
attachment-related anxiety and avoidance raise con-
cerns about the degree to which such changes may be
caused by (a) measurement error or (b) unexplained
but genuine change in working models (e.g., Lopez &
Gormley, 2002; Pierce & Lydon, 2001; Simpson, Rholes,
Campbell, & Wilson, 2003).
Elaborating on Sibley and Liu (2004), Study 1 exam-
ined the test-retest stability of the ECR-R and RQ across a
3-week period. Consistent with previous research (e.g.,
B. C. Feeney & Collins, 2001; Simpson, Rholes, &
Phillips, 1996), it was first hypothesized that ECR-R and
RQ measures of attachment anxiety and avoidance
would load on the same factors, indicating that both
scales assess attachment-related anxiety and avoidance.
Given that Fraley et al. (2000) reported that ECR-R mea-
sures of anxiety and avoidance displayed levels of stabil-
ity equivalent to rs between .94 and .95 under simulated
conditions where the underlying constructs were
assumed to be perfectly stable, Hypothesis 2 predicted
that latent ECR-R indices of these two constructs would
display similar levels of stability when examined across a
relatively short 3-week time period.
Method
Participants. Participants were undergraduate stu-
dents who received partial course credit for participa-
tion. Three hundred people (67% female; mean age =
22) participated during Phase 1 (51% were involved in a
romantic relationship). One hundred and seventy-two
of these people (72% female) also participated during
the second testing phase (47% of whom were
romantically involved).
Procedure and materials. Participants completed a sur-
vey containing both the RQ (Bartholomew & Horowitz,
1991) and ECR-R (Fraley et al., 2000) during two ses-
sions 3 weeks apart. Participants questionnaires were
matched using confidential identification numbers.
Bartholomew and Horowitzs (1991) RQ contained
descriptions of four attachment prototypes (secure, dis-
missing, preoccupied, and fearful). Participants rated
how accurately each prototype described their overall
experiences in romantic and love relationships on a
scale ranging from 1 (does not describe me at all) to 9
(describes me very well). Following the procedure outlined
by Griffin and Bartholomew (1994b), ratings of attach-
ment anxiety and avoidance were then calculated using
the formulae described in Table 1.
Fraley et al.s (2000) ECR-R contained 18 Likert-type
items assessing romantic attachment anxiety (M = 2.16,
SD = 1.08) and 18 items assessing romantic attachment
avoidance (M = 2.06, SD = 1.13; shown in Table 1). Items
were rated on a scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to
6 (strongly agree). Participants were instructed to please
take a moment to think about your overall experiences
in romantic/love relationships, including both your pre-
vious and current relationship experiences. Please
answer the following questions with these experiences in
mind when completing both the ECR-R and RQ.
People who completed only the first testing phase did
not differ from those who completed both phases on any
demographics or measures (Fs < 1).
Results
Preliminary analyses. ECR-R measures of anxiety and
avoidance were strongly positively correlated, r(298) =
.48, p < .001. RQ measures of anxiety and avoidance, in
contrast, were only weakly positively correlated, r(298) =
.20, p < .001. ECR-R and RQ measures of anxiety during
Time 1 were moderately positively correlated, r(298) =
.60, p < .001, as were measures of avoidance, r(298) = .62,
p < .001. These items were then entered into a principal
components exploratory factor analysis with direct
oblimin rotation. The eigenvalues displayed a steeply
decreasing trend that leveled out after the second value
(13.15, 4.97, 1.55, 1.48, 1.17, and 1.12), thus supporting
a two-factor solution that explained 48% of the scale vari-
ance. As can be seen in Table 1, the ECR-R items assess-
ing attachment avoidance and the RQ measure of avoid-
ance derived from prototype ratings loaded on the first
factor, whereas ECR-R and RQ measures of anxiety
loaded on the second factor.
To more explicitly test whether the ECR-R and RQ
assessed the same pair of attachment dimensions, com-
posite anxiety and avoidance scores were created for
both the ECR-R and RQ, and these four indices were
then analyzed using a second exploratory factor analysis
with direct oblimin rotation. This analysis yielded two
factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 that explained
83% of the variance. ECR-R and RQ composite measures
of attachment-related anxiety both loaded solely on the
first factor (loadings = .92 and .86, respectively), whereas
composite measures of attachment-related avoidance
both loaded solely on the second factor (loadings = .74
and .98, respectively).
 Sibley et al. / RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE ECR-R 1527

TABLE 1: Factor Loadings for the RQ and ECR-R Measures of Attachment-Related Anxiety and Avoidance (Study 1)

Measure Factor 1 Factor 2

RQ model of others (dismissing + fearful prototypes) (secure + preoccupied prototypes) .78

ECR-R attachment-related avoidance ( = .94)
I prefer not to be too close to romantic partners .77
I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down .75
I usually discuss my problems and concerns with my partner (r) .73
I tell my partner just about everything (r) .73
I get uncomfortable when a romantic partner wants to get very close .73
It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need (r) .70
I am nervous when partners get too close to me .70
Its easy for me to be affectionate with my partner (r) .70
Its not difficult for me to get close to my partner (r) .69
I am very comfortable being close to romantic partners (r) .68
I talk things over with my partner (r) .67
I feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and feelings with my partner (r) .67
I dont feel comfortable opening up to romantic partners .66
I find it relatively easy to get close to my partner (r) .65
I find it easy to depend on romantic partners (r) .65
I feel comfortable depending on romantic partners (r) .65
I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on romantic partners .54
My partner really understands me and my needs (r) .49

RQ model of self (preoccupied + fearful prototypes) (secure + dismissing prototypes) .54

ECR-R attachment-related anxiety ( = .93)
Im afraid that I will lose my partners love .88
I often worry that my partner will not want to stay with me .86
I worry that romantic partners wont care about me as much as I care about them .82
I often worry that my partner doesnt really love me .78
I often wish that my partners feelings for me were as strong as my feelings for him or her .74
When my partner is out of sight, I worry that he or she might become interested in someone else .72
When I show my feelings for romantic partners, Im afraid they wont feel the same way about me .66
I worry a lot about relationships .65
I find that my partner(s) dont want to get as close as I would like .65
My desire to be very close sometimes scares people away .63
I worry that I wont measure up to other people .62
It makes me mad that I dont get the affection and support I need from my partner .60
I rarely worry about my partner leaving me (r) .57
My romantic partner makes me doubt myself .56
Im afraid that once a romantic partner gets to know me, he or she wont like who I really am .52
I do not often worry about being abandoned (r) .52
Sometimes romantic partners change their feelings about me for no apparent reason .50
My partner only seems to notice me when Im angry .49

NOTE: (r) indicates that an item is reverse scored. Item loadings of less than .30 are not reported. RQ = Relationship Questionnaire; ECR-R = Re-
vised Experiences in Close Relationships questionnaire.

Overview of the models. The 3-week test-retest stability of
the RQ and ECR-R measures of anxiety and avoidance
were examined by estimating a path between Time 1 and
Time 2 measures of the same variables. Latent indicators
of ECR-R measures of anxiety and avoidance at each
time period were assessed using three parcels of six ran-
domly selected items each (see Bandalos & Finney, 2001,
for a discussion of item parceling). The estimation of
weighed latent variables using structural equation mod-
eling has considerable advantages over the use of the
observed means as it reduces the effects of measurement
error, thus providing a more accurate appraisal of the
underlying constructs. Given that the RQ provided only
a single indicator of attachment-related anxiety and
avoidance, RQ measures were entered as observed
variables.
Stability of the ECR-R. Analyses of the initial model in
which Time 1 latent ECR-R avoidance ( = .90, R2 = .84)
and anxiety ( = .92, R2 = .85) loaded on their respective
Time 2 measures indicated high levels of stability. Time 1
RQ measures were also included in this model but did
not load on any other variables.
Hu and Bentler (1999) argued that it is important to
consider both the Standardized Root Mean square
Residual (SRMR; a residual-based fit index) and one or
more indexes of comparative fit, such as the Root Mean
1528 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Goodness of

Fit Index (GFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), or Non-
Normed Fit Index (NNFI), when considering the overall
adequacy of a model. GFI, CFI, and NNFI indices of
more than .95 and RMSEA and SRMR values of less than
.06 and .08, respectively, are indicative of good fitting
models (Hu & Bentler, 1999). According to these crite-
ria, the initial (Step 1) model provided an acceptable fit
to the data, 2(71, n = 172) = 100.47, GFI = .92, NNFI =
.99, CFI = .99, SRMR = .03, RMSEA = .05.
RQ measures of anxiety and avoidance were then
specified as additional predictors of their respective
Time 2 ECR-R counterparts (see Figure 1). Consistent Figure 1 Model examining the stability of the ECR-R measures of
anxiety and avoidance for 3 weeks.
with predictions, Time 1 RQ measures failed to predict NOTE: For simplicity, manifest variables and the paths from manifest
additional variance in ECR-R measures of attachment, to latent variables are not shown. Dashed lines indicate nonsignificant
R2 < .01. This revised (Step 2) model, in which Time 1 paths. Standard errors are displayed in parentheses. ECR-R = Revised
Experiences in Close Relationships questionnaire; RQ = Relationship
RQ measures were included as additional predictors, Questionnaire.
provided fit indices that were comparable with the ear- **p < .01.
lier model at Step 1, 2(69, n = 172) = 99.44, GFI = .92,
NNFI = .99, CFI = .99, SRMR = .03, RMSEA = .05. The two
models were not significantly different according to a
chi-square difference test, 2d.ff(2) = 1.03, p > .05.
Stability of the RQ. A similar series of analyses were con-
ducted examining the stability of the RQ. Analyses of the
model in which Time 1 RQ measures of avoidance ( =
.71, p < .01, R2 = .50) and anxiety ( = .67, p < .01, R2 = .45)
loaded on their respective Time 2 measures indicated
low to moderate levels of stability.1 Time 1 latent ECR-R
anxiety and avoidance were also included in this model
but did not load on any other constructs. Fit indices for
this initial (Step 1) model approached acceptable levels,
2(31, n = 172) = 62.56, GFI = .93, NNFI = .98, CFI = .98,
SRMR = .07, RMSEA = .08. Figure 2 Model examining the stability of the RQ measures of anxi-
ety and avoidance for 3 weeks.
A second model (displayed in Figure 2), in which NOTE: For simplicity, manifest variables and the paths from manifest
Time 1 latent ECR-R anxiety and avoidance were allowed to latent variables are not shown. Standard errors are displayed in pa-
to load on their respective Time 2 RQ counterparts, was rentheses. RQ = Relationship Questionnaire; ECR-R = Revised Experi-
ences in Close Relationships questionnaire.
then examined (Step 2). As shown in Figure 2, Time 1 **p < .01.
latent ECR-R anxiety and avoidance predicted 5% and
6% of the variance in their respective RQ measures in fit of either the ECR-R (Figure 1) or RQ (Figure 2) mod-
addition to that already predicted by the RQ at Time 1. els. Alternative models in which Time 1 measures of
This revised model provided an excellent fit to the data, anxiety loaded on Time 2 avoidance and vice versa were
2(29, n = 172) = 28.99, GFI = .97, NNFI = 1.00, CFI = 1.00, also examined, but they provided markedly worse fit
SRMR = .03, RMSEA < .01. A chi-square difference test
indices than the hypothesized models in all cases
further indicated that this revised model fit the data sig-
(SRMRs > .15).
nificantly better than the first model, in which only RQ
measures were allowed to load on their respective Time Discussion
2 RQ counterparts, 2d.ff(2) = 33.57, p < .05.
For simplicity, the manifest variables and paths from Consistent with previous research, these results indi-
latent to manifest indicators are not shown in Figures 1 cated that the ECR-R and RQ assessed the same pair of
and 2. However, all paths from latent to manifest ECR-R attachment dimensions (e.g., Griffin & Bartholomew,
indicators in both of these models were highly signifi- 1994b). Consistent with Sibley and Liu (2004), both the
cant (s > .85, zs > 18.00). Post hoc model modification anxiety and avoidance subscales of the ECR-R displayed
indices using the Lagrange multiplier indicated that between 84% and 85% shared variance (equivalent to rs
there were no other paths that would have improved the of .90 to .92) for a 3-week period. RQ measures of these
 Sibley et al. / RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE ECR-R
same constructs displayed roughly two thirds this level of
stability, that is, 50% shared variance (equivalent to rs of
.70) for this same period. These estimates of the RQs sta-
bility are similar to those of other self-report measures
assessed across similar time frames (rs between .60 and
.70; e.g., Davila, Karney, & Bradbury, 1999; J. A. Feeney,
Alexander, Noller, & Hohaus, 2003; Lopez & Gormley,
2002). The ECR-R in contrast displayed more stable esti-
mates of global romantic attachment than those pro-
vided by other self-report measures assessed across com-
parable time periods (cf. Davila & Sargent, 2003).
The ECR-R stability estimates reported here and by
Sibley and Liu (2004) were comparable to those esti-
mated by Fraley et al. (2000) under simulated conditions
in which the underlying constructs were perfectly stable
(equivalent to rs of .94 to .95). Thus, although it is possi-
ble that some of the instability observed in the ECR-R
across this 3-week period may have been caused by mean-
ingful change in working models of attachment, we sus-
pect that the majority of the instability observed here was
most likely caused by measurement error akin to that
demonstrated in Fraley et al.s simulation analyses.
STUDY 2
Study 2 sought to elaborate on these results using
CFA. Relatively few studies have examined the factor
structure of earlier attachment scales using CFA, which
formally tests how well the data fit a hypothesized factor
structure (e.g., Baeckstroem & Holmes, 2001;
Lafontaine & Lussier, 2003; Sanford, 1997). As Kurdek
(2002) recently commented, for example, although
attachment style variables assessed by multiple items have
appeared with increasing frequency in the close relation-
ships literature, their psychometric properties have not
been extensively critically evaluated (pp. 827-828).
Such comments are particularly true of the ECR-R.
We are aware of only one study previously assessing the
factor structure of the ECR-R using techniques such as
CFA (i.e., Sibley & Liu, 2004). This issue is especially per-
tinent given the relatively lenient item loading criterion
used by Fraley et al. (2000) when selecting the initial
ECR-R item pool and the use of item response theory
analysis, which assessed anxiety and avoidance as sepa-
rate unidimensional constructs when selecting the final
scale items.
Method
Participants. Participants were 478 undergraduate stu-
dents (70% female, mean age = 20) who participated for
partial course credit. Forty-five percent of participants
were involved in a romantic relationship, and an addi-
tional 5% were married.
1529
Procedure and materials. Participants completed ECR-R
measures of romantic attachment anxiety ( = .93, M =
2.06, SD = 1.00) and avoidance ( = .94, M = 1.95, SD =
.99; Fraley et al., 2000), which followed the procedures
outlined in Study 1.
Results
CFA was used to examine whether the ECR-R ade-
quately fit the hypothesized two-factor solution repre-
senting attachment-related anxiety and avoidance.
These analyses used the partial disaggregation proce-
dure outlined by Bagozzi and Heatherton (1994), in
which items assessing anxiety and avoidance were each
parceled into six groups of three randomly selected items.
The hypothesized two-factor solution in which the six
parcels assessing avoidance loaded on one latent factor
(s > .84, zs > 22.29) and the six parcels assessing anxiety
loaded on a second latent factor (s > .78, zs > 19.90) pro-
vided an excellent fit to the data, 2(53, n = 478) = 142.26,
GFI = .95, NNFI = .98, CFI = .98, SRMR = .04, RMSEA =
.06. Anxiety and avoidance were moderately positively
correlated ( = .45, z = 11.35).
An alternative single-factor solution in which parcels
assessing anxiety and avoidance loaded on a single latent
factor was also considered, 2(54, n = 478) = 3,623.12,
GFI = .44, NNFI = .53, CFI = .61, SRMR = .23, RMSEA =
.37. This model provided a significantly poorer fit than
the hypothesized two-factor solution, 2d.ff(1) = 3,480.86,
p < .001.
Discussion
These results provide important additional informa-
tion on the psychometric properties of the ECR-R.
Together with Study 1 and previous research by Sibley
and Liu (2004), they show that the ECR-R accurately fits
the hypothesized two-factor solution representing
dimensions of attachment anxiety and avoidance.
STUDY 3
Study 3 examined the proportions of variance in gen-
eral and attachment-specific emotions in social interac-
tions involving a romantic partner, family member, or
close friend predicted by ECR-R measures of romantic
attachment. Event sampling methods, such as Wheeler
and Nezleks (1977) social interaction diary, provide a
relatively accurate way of assessing a range of emotions
in social interactions across a broad range of naturally
occurring contexts while avoiding retrospective biases
inherent in a variety of other self-report designs (Reis &
Gable, 2000). Diary methods of this type thus provide
one reliable external criterion that may be used to assess
the convergent and discriminant validity of measures of
attachment referring to a given relationship domain
(Tidwell, Reis, & Shaver, 1996).
1530 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
Attachment-related anxiety and avoidance have been
shown to predict a range of emotions and subjective per-
ceptions of others measured using social interaction
diary procedures, such as intimacy and overall percep-
tions of interaction quality (e.g., Bradford, Feeney, &
Campbell, 2002; J. A. Feeney, 2002b; Pierce & Lydon,
2001). These effects are relatively consistent across vari-
ous measures of attachment, such as the RQ and ECR.
Pierce and Lydon (2001), for example, reported that
global and relationship-specific RQ measures of attach-
ment anxiety and avoidance (referred to in their
research as models of the self and other) predicted 18%
and 17% of the variance in experiences of social interac-
tions with close others, respectively. Similar trends have
also been observed using less reliable and precise cate-
gorical measures of attachment style (e.g., Kafetsios &
Nezlek, 2002; Pietromonaco & Feldman Barrett, 1997;
Tidwell et al., 1996; see Fraley & Waller, 1998, for critique
of earlier categorical measures of attachment).
Study 3 examined three diary ratings: a standard mea-
sure of enjoyment widely used in previous diary research
(e.g., Tidwell et al., 1996) and two newly developed items
that assess state-based levels of attachment-related anxi-
ety and avoidance experienced during social interac-
tions. It was first hypothesized that ECR-R measures of
romantic attachment anxiety and avoidance would pre-
dict a substantial portion of the variance in respective
levels of anxiety- and avoidance-related emotions experi-
enced during social interaction with a romantic partner.
Given that the ECR-R was worded to refer to attachment
representations of the romantic relationship domain, it
was further hypothesized that ECR-R measures would be
only weakly, if not entirely unrelated, to comparable
diary measures of participants social interactions with
their most frequently recoded family member and close
friend. Failure to support this hypothesis could raise
concerns regarding the discriminant validity of the ECR-
R as a measure of ones models of romantic attachment.
Consistent with Study 1, RQ measures of romantic anxi-
ety and avoidance were also included in these analyses to
provide a baseline estimate of the variance predicted by
this shorter and more easily administered measure of
attachment.
Method
PARTICIPANTS
Participants were 82 (74% female; mean age = 21)
undergraduate students involved in a romantic relation-
ship who participated for partial course credit.
PROCEDURE AND MATERIALS
Retrospective Survey. Participants first completed the
ECR-R (Fraley et al., 2000) measures of romantic attach-
ment avoidance ( = .91, M = 2.03, SD = 1.16) and anxiety
( = .94, M = 1.75, SD = 1.01) along with the RQ
(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), as outlined in Study 1.
These measures were standardized as the ECR-R and RQ
were scored on different metrics.
As a validation check, two semantic differentials simi-
lar to those used in the social interaction diary to assess
state-based attachment anxiety and avoidance were also
included in the retrospective survey. These two items
referred to the overall perception of ones relationships
(similar to the items included in the ECR-R and RQ),
whereas the diary versions of these same items referred
to ones perceptions of a given social interaction (see
below for details). The general-worded version of the
item assessing anxiety ranged from 0 = I am not worried
about my romantic partners feelings toward me to 6 = I worry
about my romantic partners feelings toward me. The general-
worded item assessing avoidance was anchored by the
endpoints I am comfortable with the level of emotional close-
ness with my romantic partner (0) and I am uncomfortable
with the level of emotional closeness with my romantic partner
(6). These items were based on published definitions of
attachment-related anxiety and avoidance (e.g.,
Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Brennan et al., 1998;
Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003).
Social interaction diary. Immediately following comple-
tion of these measures, participants were administered a
variant of Wheeler and Nezleks (1977) social interac-
tion diary, which they completed for the next 2 weeks.
Consistent with Wheeler and Nezlek (1977), partici-
pants were asked to complete a diary entry for every
social interaction 10 min or longer in length. A detailed
tutorial outlined instructions for completing the diary
accurately. The importance of updating the diary as
often as possible with a minimum of two or three times a
day to improve the accuracy of ratings was stressed. Par-
ticipants were also contacted after the 1st week to assess
their performance and answer any additional queries.
Each social interaction diary record form contained
the standard descriptive measures outlined by Wheeler
and Nezlek (1977; e.g., date, time, gender, and initials of
each interactant). Participants also indicated their rela-
tionship to the interactants (e.g., romantic partner, fam-
ily member, or friend). If the interaction was with two or
more people, then participants were instructed to list
the interactants in order according to the amount of
time that they spent with each person during the interac-
tion. If a person fulfilled multiple relationship roles,
then participants were instructed to code the relation-
ship as the more interpersonally close of the two options
(e.g., if a person fulfilled the roles of both a romantic
partner and a friend or family member, then they were
instructed to code them as a romantic partner). The
friend and family member most frequently recorded by
 Sibley et al. / RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE ECR-R
each participant were identified using a unique set of
initials recorded for each interactant.
Consistent with the general-worded versions of the
semantic differentials described earlier, social interac-
tion anxiety was rated on a scale ranging from 1 = I was
not worried about this persons feelings toward me to 7 = I wor-
ried about this persons feelings toward me. Avoidance during
interactions was anchored by the endpoints I was comfort-
able with the level of emotional closeness (1) and I was uncom-
fortable with the level of emotional closeness (7). Consistent
with Wheeler and Nezlek (1977), enjoyment was
anchored by the endpoints (1) very unpleasant to (7) very
pleasant. These items referred to the primary interactant
of each interaction. Higher scores indicated higher lev-
els of anxiety, avoidance, and enjoyment, respectively.
As a validity check, all participants were contacted by
an independent research assistant 1 month after com-
pleting the diary and personally handed a declaration
that they were asked to sign and post back to the
researchers using a postage paid envelope if and only if
they had maintained the social interaction diary regu-
larly (i.e., a minimum of once per day) and accurately
(i.e., made sure not to miss any interactions). The decla-
ration stressed that the researchers had absolutely no
interest in identifying individuals and simply wanted to
make sure that the data were as accurate as possible for
research purposes. Thus, if a signed declaration was not
received, their data would be excluded from all analyses.
Eleven people (4 male and 7 female) failed to return this
declaration and were therefore removed from the sam-
ple (this yielded the final sample of 82 participants on
which analyses were based).
DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA STRUCTURE AND ANALYSES
Of the total 6,347 social interactions recorded by the
82 participants included in the study, a romantic partner
was coded as the primary interactant in 1,954. Partici-
pants most frequently recorded friend was coded as the
primary interactant in 587 interactions, and their most
frequently recorded family member was coded as the
primary interactant in 512. The data therefore consisted
of the 3,053 social interactions in which one of these
three persons was recorded as the primary interactant.
These data may be conceived of as hierarchical or multi-
level in nature. The first (i.e., lower) level comprised the
multiple social interactions with a romantic partner,
family member, or friend recorded by each participant,
whereas the second (i.e., higher) level referred to each
participant. In this sense, social interactions (Level 1)
were nested within persons (Level 2).
Current research suggests that such data structures
may be most appropriately analyzed using Multilevel
Random Coefficient Modelling, often referred to as
hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Raudenbush &
1531
Bryk, 2002). As Nezlek (2003) noted, in one sense, HLM
may be thought of as calculating a separate regression
slope for each persons social interactions with their
romantic partner (i.e., within persons) and then treating
these slopes as the dependent variable in comparisons
across persons. However, HLM is superior to traditional
ordinary least squaresbased analyses of this type, as it
provides methods for simultaneously modeling the
error involved with sampling observations at multiple
levels, that is, both the between-person error (Level 2)
and the betweensocial interaction error (Level 1; see
Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002, for technical discussion of
this issue).
Results
Preliminary analyses. ECR-R measures of romantic
attachment anxiety and avoidance were strongly posi-
tively correlated, r(80) = .51, p < .001. RQ measures of
anxiety and avoidance in contrast were orthogonal,
r(80) = .04, p = .80. ECR-R and RQ measures of anxiety
were moderately positively correlated, r(80) = .69, p <
.001, as were measures of avoidance, r(80) = .45, p < .001.
Validation analyses were performed assessing the
relationship between the ECR-R items and two semantic
differentials similar to those used in the diary that were
reworded to refer to overall relationship perceptions.
The ECR-R and RQ items were entered along with the
general-worded versions of these two items into an
exploratory factor analysis with direct oblimin rotation.
The results supported a two factor solution, with eigen-
values and ECR-R and RQ item loadings similar to those
reported in Study 1. The semantic differential assessing
anxiety loaded at .86 on the ECR-R and RQ anxiety factor
and at .01 on the avoidance factor. The semantic differen-
tial assessing avoidance in contrast loaded at .62 on the
ECR-R and RQ avoidance factor and at .12 on the anxiety
factor. These results suggest that the semantic differen-
tial items used in the diary assessed the same dimensions
of attachment measured by the ECR-R and RQ.
Overview of the model. On average, each participant
recorded 23.83 social interactions in which their roman-
tic partner was the primary interactant (77% of these
were dyadic interactions; the remaining 23% were group
interactions that involved nonromantic others). Partici-
pants also reported an average of 6.24 and 7.16 interac-
tions with their most frequently recorded family mem-
ber and close friend (53% and 62% of these interactions
were dyadic, respectively). Eighty-nine percent of partic-
ipants reported that their most frequently recorded
friend was of the same gender. The majority (82%) of
participants reported that their most frequently
recorded family member was a parent.
Diary ratings of interactions with each of these three
persons were treated as Level 1 (social interaction level)
1532 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
variables that were nested within participants. ECR-R
and RQ measures of participants global romantic
attachment-related anxiety and avoidance were in turn
treated as Level 2 (person-level) variables. Following
Nezlek (2001, 2003), interactions with each of these
three persons were represented by three dummy-coded
(0, 1) variables, each of which indicated the presence or
absence of one of the three (mutually exclusive) catego-
ries. Following HLM conventions, the interaction-level
(Level 1), no intercept model may thus be expressed as
follows:
yij = 1j (romantic partner) + 2j (family member) +
3j (close friend) + rij (1.0)
where yij was the social interaction diary rating of interest
(subscripted i; i.e., anxiety, avoidance, enjoyment) by
each participant (subscripted j), and rij represented er-
ror. 1j, 2j, and 3j were random coefficients represent-
ing the mean of yij across social interactions with each of
the three different persons.
The relationship between Level 1 measures of anxi-
ety, avoidance, and enjoyment in social interactions with
a romantic partner, family member, or close friend and
Level 2 RQ and ECR-R measures of participants global
romantic anxiety and avoidance was assessed using two
nested models. This procedure is similar to standard
hierarchical multiple regression involving multiple
steps. RQ measures of attachment anxiety and avoidance
were entered at Step 1. The Level 2 ECR-R measures of
these same constructs were then entered at Step 2. The
Step 1 and Step 2 models for the assessment of interac-
tions involving a romantic partner, for example, may be
expressed as follows:
Step 1 1j = 00 + 01(RQ anxiety) +
02 (RQ avoidance) + u0j (2.0)
Step 2 1j = 00 + 01 (RQ anxiety) +
02 (RQ avoidance) + 03 (ECR-R anxiety) +
04 (ECR-R avoidance) + u0j (2.1)
where 1j was the random coefficient representing the
mean of yij (i.e., diary ratings of anxiety, avoidance, or en-
joyment) in interactions with ones romantic partner, 00
represented the intercept, 01 represented the effect of
RQ anxiety, 02 represented the effect of RQ avoidance,
03 represented the effect of ECR-R anxiety, 04 repre-
sented the effect of ECR-R avoidance, and u1j repre-
sented error. Identical Level 2 models examined the ef-
fects of the ECR-R and RQ in social interactions with a
family member (2j) or close friend (3j).
HLM analyses. Initial analyses of the baseline intercept
model (yij = 0j + rij) showed that 32% and 27% of the vari-
ance in diary ratings of anxiety and avoidance was at the
between-person level, respectively. In contrast, only 18%
of the variance in enjoyment in social interaction was
attributable to between-person differences. These
results suggest that attachment-related emotions experi-
enced during social interactions with well-known others
may be more trait like than more general positive
emotions, such as enjoyment.
The coefficients from Equation 2.1 and the cumula-
tive variance predicted at Steps 1 and 2 for social interac-
tions with a romantic partner, family member, and close
friend are presented in Table 2. These coefficients were
functionally equivalent to unstandardized regression
coefficients and may be interpreted along similar lines.
As shown in Table 2, the RQ measures of romantic
attachment (entered at Step 1) accounted for 10% to
15% of the between-person variance in feelings of avoid-
ance, anxiety, and enjoyment experienced during social
interactions with a romantic partner.2 The ECR-R mea-
sures of romantic attachment accounted for an addi-
tional 15% to 20% of the variance in these respective
measures when entered at Step 2. As expected, ECR-R
anxiety predicted attachment-related anxiety experi-
enced during social interactions ( = .46). ECR-R avoid-
ance predicted attachment-related avoidance experi-
enced during social interactions at a comparable
magnitude ( = .51). Enjoyment experienced during
social interactions was also predicted primarily by ECR-R
avoidance ( = .44). Across all three of these variables,
the variance explained by the RQ at Step 1 was also
explained entirely by the ECR-R. Overall then, the ECR-
R accounted for a sizable portion of the between-person
variation in the quality of social interactions with ones
romantic partner.
The predictive utility of the ECR-R and RQ were also
examined in social interactions involving a family mem-
ber and close friend. As shown in Table 2, the RQ pre-
dicted between 5% and 10% of the variance in diary rat-
ings of avoidance, anxiety, and enjoyment experienced
during social interactions with a family member. The
ECR-R predicted between 0% and 10% additional vari-
ance when entered at Step 2. The variance in ratings of
social interactions with a family member was also
explained by the RQ at Step 1 and was explained entirely
by the ECR-R.
The RQ measure of romantic anxiety also predicted
roughly 14% of the variance in ratings of social interac-
tions with a close friend. The ECR-R, however, failed to
predict additional variance in this case and tended to
account for slightly less variance in ratings of both anxi-
ety and enjoyment experienced during such interac-
tions (across all three ratings, the ECR-R predicted less
 Sibley et al. / RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE ECR-R 1533

TABLE 2: Coefficients and Cumulative Variance in Social Interaction Diary Ratings Explained by the RQ (Step 1) and ECR-R (Step 2) Measures
of Global Romantic Attachment (Study 3)

Avoidance Anxiety Enjoyment

Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative
a a a
Measure Coefficients Variance (%) Coefficients Variance (%) Coefficients Variance (%)

Social interactions with romantic partner

Step 1 RQ anxiety .04 .01 .02
Step 1 RQ avoidance .12 14.53 .14 21.47 .10 10.70
Step 2 ECR-R anxiety .09 .46** .11
Step 2 ECR-R avoidance .51** 32.51 .29 41.36 .44** 29.67
Social interactions with family member
Step 1 RQ anxiety .09 .02 .03
Step 1 RQ avoidance .39* 11.41 .20 5.88 .14 10.59
Step 2 ECR-R anxiety .20 .34* .09
Step 2 ECR-R avoidance .07 11.48 .02 18.28 .29 16.39
Social interactions with platonic friend
Step 1 RQ anxiety .01 .17 .08
Step 1 RQ avoidance .05 0.01 .09 14.10 .08 3.31
Step 2 ECR-R anxiety .02 .15 .12
Step 2 ECR-R avoidance .25 2.33 .03 13.82 .06 0.01

NOTE: Analyses were based on 3,053 observations collected from 82 participants. RQ = Relationship Questionnaire; ECR-R = Revised Experiences
in Close Relationships questionnaire.
a. coefficients displayed for Step 2.
*p < .05. **p < .001.

than 5% of the variance in social interactions with a
platonic friend).
The number of people present during each social
interaction was entered as an additional Level 1 predic-
tor but failed to alter any of the reported analyses. Simi-
larly, the entry of friends gender (opposite or same) did
not alter any of the reported analyses.
Discussion
As expected, ECR-R measures of romantic attach-
ment anxiety and avoidance predicted sizable portions
of the variance in respective diary ratings of anxiety and
avoidance experienced during social interactions with a
romantic partner (rs equivalent to roughly .50). Given
the ECR-Rs improved reliability and test information
functions (Fraley et al., 2000; Sibley & Liu, 2004), it is not
surprising that this multi-item measure predicted nota-
bly more between-participant variance in social interac-
tion ratings involving a romantic partner (30% to 40%)
than the RQ (10% to 20%). Furthermore, ECR-R mea-
sures were only weakly, and for the most part
nonsignificantly, related to diary ratings of anxiety,
avoidance, and enjoyment in social interactions with a
family member or close friend. Comparison of the
cumulative variance in ratings of social interactions
across these three relational contexts further indicates
that the ECR-R predicted more than twice as much vari-
ance in avoidance, anxiety, and enjoyment in social
interactions with a romantic partner as it did variance in
interactions with a family member and more than 3 to 4
times as much variance as it did in interactions with a
platonic friend.
Overall then, these results indicate that the ECR-R dis-
played suitable convergent and discriminant validity as a
measure of attachment representations of the romantic
relationship domain. This suggests that romantic attach-
ment, as operationalized by the ECR-R, reflects variation
in relationship-level models of romantic relationships
rather than variation in more global interpersonal dispo-
sitions that encompass other relationship types that
often also constitute attachments (Trinke & Bartholo-
mew, 1997). Comparison of trends in the cumulative
variance predicted by the RQ in contrast suggested that
versions of the RQ administered with the same instruc-
tions (i.e., to answer the questions with ones experi-
ences in romantic and love relationships in mind) may
not discriminate between models of romantic and non-
romantic relationship domains to the same degree.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
There has been considerable debate during the past
decade regarding the ways in which self-report measures
may most validly and reliably assess working models of
attachment. The present research contributed to this lit-
erature by documenting the short-term temporal stabil-
ity (Study 1), factor structure (Study 2), and convergent
and discriminant validity (Study 3) of Fraley et al.s
(2000) recently developed ECR-R self-report measure of
adult romantic attachment.
1534 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
As various researchers have noted, ones choice of
measurement instrument depends on numerous fac-
tors, including brevity and convenience on one hand
and reliability and comprehensiveness on the other
(e.g., Pierce & Lydon, 2001; Overall, Fletcher, & Friesen,
2003). Our results indicated that the extensive multi-
item ECR-R and briefer RQ assessed the same pair of
working models. The ECR-R and RQ differ somewhat in
their short-term temporal stability and convergent and
discriminant validity, however. In closing, we therefore
seek to offer some practical guidelines for judging when
highly reliable and precise measures of global romantic
attachment, such as the ECR-R, may be deemed neces-
sary and where shorter, albeit slightly less reliable mea-
sures, such as the RQ, may also be considered viable.
Our results indicate that the ECR-R is preferable in
conditions where one wishes to examine (a) subtle
attachment effects with limited power or relatively small
expected effect sizes and/or (b) use analyses or designs
that may exacerbate potential measurement error.
Researchers intending to examine longitudinal changes
in romantic attachment, for instance, are particularly
encouraged to use the ECR-R as the scale was designed
explicitly to reduce error encountered in the longitudi-
nal designs (Fraley et al., 2000). Indeed, Study 1 demon-
strated that not only did the ECR-R display markedly
more stable estimates of romantic attachment than the
RQ (85% vs. 50% shared variance), but the inclusion of
Time 1 ECR-R measures significantly improved the sta-
bility estimates of RQ measures by roughly 5%. This find-
ing indicates that a portion of the instability observed
when global models of romantic attachment were mea-
sured using the RQ may be due to measurement error
inherent in the RQ. Similarly, we recommend that
researchers wishing to examine the interactive (i.e.,
moderated) effects of romantic attachment avoidance
and anxiety should consider using the ECR-R where pos-
sible as analyses of this type are also known to exacerbate
potential measurement error (McClelland & Judd,
1993). Caveats of this type should also be kept in mind
when drawing conclusions from previous research that
assessed attachment using less reliable measures, such as
the RQ, and incorporated designs or analyses that may
exacerbate potential measurement error (e.g., Davila &
Cobb, 2003; Pierce & Lydon, 2001).
On the other hand, the RQ may be considered an
appropriate alternative when (a) it is administered con-
currently with other variables of interest, (b) one has a
clear expectation of the expected effect sizes (which
should be moderate to large), and (c) the relationship
domain being assessed matches the outcome domain of
interest (e.g., if one is assessing models of romantic rela-
tionships, one should focus on outcomes related to
romantic relationships). Our results indicate that
researchers using the RQ may be relatively confident
that the significant effects observed under such condi-
tions would also have been observed using more recent
measures of attachment. As indicated in Study 3, the RQ
may, however, attenuate estimates of effect size in some
cases, thus increasing the chances that small but genuine
effects may go unnoticed (i.e., the RQ may be more
prone to Type II than Type I errors, at least when the
attachment models and outcomes being considered are
of similar domains). Most notably, the RQ may be consid-
ered a viable alternative to more recent multi-item mea-
sures when time constraints, survey length, or item
repetition are pressing concerns.
One caveat worth noting is that the RQ was adminis-
tered prior to the ECR-R in Studies 1 and 3 to avoid
artifactually inflating the reliability of the RQ because of
possible priming effects. Estimates of the stability and
predictive validity of the RQ should thus be of a compa-
rable magnitude to the majority of previous research, in
which it was the sole measure of attachment used (cf.
Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994a; Pierce & Lydon, 2001).
Furthermore, if priming attachment-related cognitions
does indeed improve the validity of subsequently com-
pleted items, that is, if participants do indeed experi-
ence a warm-up phase when completing items assessing
attachment, then such effects should naturally be attenu-
ated in multi-item scales, such as the ECR-R.3
In sum, then, it appears that the ECR-R provides one
of, if not the, most appropriate self-report measure of
adult romantic attachment currently available. However,
similarly comprehensive measures assessing different
aspects of peoples attachment representations (e.g.,
their models of family and friends) or the superordinate
models theorized by Collins and Read (1994) to apply
to a wide range of relationships and situations (p. 58)
have yet to be developed. Until such a time, one of the
greatest conceptual strengths of many earlier measures,
most notably the RQ, is that they may be easily reworded
to assess models of different persons or different rela-
tionship domains. When it comes to assessing models of
romantic relationships, however, our results clearly indi-
cate that the ECR-R more accurately discriminates
between attachment-related emotions experienced in
interactions with romantic and nonromantic partners. It
remains to be seen, however, whether the ECR-R may be
suitably reworded to assess different aspects of
(nonromantic) working models or whether entirely new
scales are necessary. Furthermore, it appears that the
ECR-R provides a moderately positively correlated mea-
sure of anxiety and avoidance, which may be somewhat
inconsistent with recent models of attachment system
dynamics that operationalize anxiety and avoidance as
orthogonal cognitive subsystems (Mikulincer & Shaver,
2003). We encourage future researchers to address these
 Sibley et al. / RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE ECR-R
issues when developing and validating similarly compre-
hensive measures of the various global and specific
models of different relationship types theorized to
underlie cognitive representations of attachment.
NOTES
1. Test-retest correlations indicated that the secure (r = .55), preoc-
cupied (r = .64), dismissing (r = .64), and fearful (r = .76) prototypes
from which RQ indices of attachment-related anxiety and avoidance
were derived displayed comparable levels of stability.
2. Additional analyses examining the predictive utility of the four
RQ attachment prototypes indicated that on average, the four proto-
types predicted comparable amounts of variance in diary ratings of
social interactions to those predicted by RQ indices of attachment-
related anxiety and avoidance.
3. To assess the possible effects of item order, each ECR-R item was
entered into a separate HLM analysis predicting diary ratings. Results
indicated that the predictive utility of individual items assessing anxiety
and avoidance did not vary systematically according to the order in
which participants completed the items.
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Pat-
terns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Baeckstroem, M., & Holmes, B. M. (2001). Measuring adult attach-
ment: A construct validation of two self-report instruments. Scan-
dinavian Journal of Psychology, 42, 79-86.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach to rep-
resenting multifaceted personality constructs: Application to
state self-esteem. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 35-67.
Baldwin, M. W., & Fehr, B. (1995). On the instability of attachment
style ratings. Personal Relationships, 2, 247-261.
Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in struc-
tural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E.
Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural
equation modeling (pp. 269-296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and
anger. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and depres-
sion. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York:
Basic Books. (Original work published 1969)
Bradford, S. A., Feeney, J. A., & Campbell, L. (2002). Links between
attachment orientations and dispositional and diary-based mea-
sures of disclosure in dating couples: A study of actor and partner
effects. Personal Relationships, 9, 491-506.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report mea-
surement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A.
Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relation-
ships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working mod-
els, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 58, 644-663.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1994). Cognitive representations of
attachment: The structure and function of working models. In K.
Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relation-
ships: Vol. 5. Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 53-90). London:
Jessica Kingsley.
Crowell, J. A., Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Measurement of
individual differences in adolescent and adult attachment. In J.
Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,
research, and clinical applications (pp. 434-465). New York: Guilford.
Davila, J., & Cobb, R. J. (2003). Predicting change in self-reported
and interviewer-assessed adult attachment: Tests of the individual
1535
difference and life stress models of attachment change. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 859-870.
Davila, J., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1999). Attachment change
processes in the early years of marriage. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 76, 783-802.
Davila, J., & Sargent, E. (2003). The meaning of life (events) predicts
changes in attachment security. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 29, 1385-1395.
Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2001). Predictors of caregiving in adult
intimate relationships: An attachment theoretical perspective.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 972-994.
Feeney, J. A. (2002a). Attachment-related dynamics: What can we
learn from self-reports of avoidance and anxiety? Attachment and
Human Development, 4, 193-200.
Feeney, J. A. (2002b). Attachment, marital interaction, and relation-
ship satisfaction: A diary study. Personal Relationships, 9, 39-55.
Feeney, J. A., Alexander, R., Noller, P., & Hohaus, L. (2003). Attach-
ment insecurity, depression, and the transition to parenthood.
Personal Relationships, 10, 475-493.
Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Hanrahan, M. (1994). Assessing adult
attachment: Developments in the conceptualization of security
and insecurity. In M. B. Sperling & W. H. Berman (Eds.), Attach-
ment in adults: Clinical and developmental perspectives (pp. 128-152).
New York: Guilford.
Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood:
Meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of developmental mecha-
nisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 123-151.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: The-
oretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered
questions. Review of General Psychology, 4, 132-154.
Fraley, R. C., & Spieker, S. J. (2003). Are infant attachment patterns
continuously or categorically distributed? A taxometric analysis of
strange situation behavior. Developmental Psychology, 39, 387-404.
Fraley, R. C., & Waller, N. G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns: A test
of the typological model. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),
Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 77-114). New York:
Guilford.
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response
theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350-365.
Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994a). The metaphysics of mea-
surement: The case of adult attachment. In K. Bartholomew & D.
Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: Vol. 5. Attachment
processes in adulthood (pp. 17-52). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994b). Models of the self and
other: Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult
attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 430-445.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an
attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,
511-524.
Hu, L.- T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Kafetsios, K., & Nezlek, J. B. (2002). Attachment styles in everyday
social interaction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 719-735.
Kurdek, L. A. (2002). On being insecure about the assessment of
attachment styles. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19,
811-834.
Lafontaine, M.- F., & Lussier, Y. (2003). Bidimensional structure of
attachment in love: Anxiety over abandonment and avoidance of
intimacy. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 35, 56-60.
Lopez, F. G., & Gormley, B. (2002). Stability and change in adult
attachment style over the first-year college transition: Relations to
self-confidence, coping, and distress patterns. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 49, 355-364.
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of
detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 114, 376-389.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral sys-
tem in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal
processes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psy-
chology (Vol. 35, pp. 53-152). New York: Academic Press.
1536 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
Nezlek, J. B. (2001). Multilevel random coefficient analyses of event
and interval contingent data in social and personality psychology
research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 771-785.
Nezlek, J. B. (2003). Using multilevel random coefficient modelling
to analyze social interaction diary data. Journal of Social and Per-
sonal Relationships, 20, 437-469.
Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Friesen, M. D. (2003). Mapping the
intimate relationship mind: Comparisons between three models
of attachment representations. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 29, 1479-1493.
Pierce, T., & Lydon, J. E. (2001). Global and specific relational mod-
els in the experience of social interactions. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 80, 613-631.
Pietromonaco, P. R., & Feldman Barrett, L. (1997). Working models
of attachment and daily social interactions. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 73, 1409-1423.
Pistole, M. C. (1989). Attachment in adult romantic relationships:
Style of conflict resolution and relationship satisfaction. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 505-510.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models:
Applications to data analysis methods (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2000). Event-sampling and other methods
for studying everyday experience. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd
(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychol-
ogy (pp. 190-222). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sanford, K. (1997). Two dimensions of adult attachment: Further val-
idation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 133-143.
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related
psychodynamics. Attachment and Human Development, 4, 133-161.
Sibley, C. G., & Liu, J. H. (2004). Short-term temporal stability and
factor structure of the Revised Experiences in Close Relationships
(ECR-R) measure of adult attachment. Personality and Individual
Differences, 36, 969-975.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., Campbell, L., & Wilson, C. L. (2003).
Changes in attachment orientations across the transition to par-
enthood. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 317-331.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S., (1992). Support-seeking
and support-giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situa-
tion: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 62, 434-446.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close
relationships: An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 71, 899-914.
Tidwell, M.- C. O., Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. R. (1996). Attachment,
attractiveness, and social interaction: A diary study. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 71, 729-745.
Trinke, S. J., & Bartholomew, K. (1997). Hierarchies of attachment
relationships in young adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 14, 603-625.
Wheeler, L., & Nezlek, J. (1977). Sex differences in social participa-
tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 742-754.
Received September 16, 2004
Revision accepted March 1, 2005