Beeney Joseph E, Wright Aidan G C, Stepp Stephanie D, Hallquist Michael N, Lazarus Sophie A, Beeney Julie R S, Scott Lori N, Pilkonis Paul A
Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.
Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh.
Personal Disord. 2017 Jul;8(3):206-216. doi: 10.1037/per0000184. Epub 2016 Mar 17.
Though researchers have attended to disorganized attachment in infants and children, they have infrequently focused on the character of disorganized attachment in adults. In this study, we aimed to identify clusters of participants based on attachment levels and styles, seeking to better delineate severity and stylistic differences in disorganized attachment than has been previously articulated. We used a new assessment approach focused on a hierarchy of attachment organization, including secure, insecure (dismissive and preoccupied), rigid-controlling (hostile control and compulsive caregiving), and disorganized (contradictory, impoverished, and unresolved) levels of attachment. Clinical evaluators used information from diagnostic and attachment-based interviews to rate participants on each of these aspects of attachment. Latent class analysis (LCA) revealed a 4-class solution, including a secure (n = 33), insecure (n = 110), and 2 disorganized classes. One disorganized class (disorganized-oscillating) was characterized by elevations on contradictory and preoccupied styles (n = 77) and another (disorganized-impoverished) showed elevations on impoverished and dismissive styles (n = 53). The disorganized-oscillating class exhibited elevated personality disorder (PD) severity and general symptom severity, borderline personality disorder (BPD), histrionic, and antisocial dimensional scores, and the most severe identity disturbance compared with the other classes. The impoverished-dismissive class exhibited the highest avoidant and schizoid PD dimensional scores of the classes, and higher PD severity compared with the insecure and secure classes. These results highlight the possibility of identifying distinct classes of attachment organization, differentiated both by aspects of severity and interpersonal style. They also shed light on the manifestation of attachment disorganization in adults. (PsycINFO Database Record
尽管研究人员关注婴幼儿和儿童的紊乱型依恋，但他们很少关注成人紊乱型依恋的特征。在本研究中，我们旨在根据依恋水平和风格对参与者进行聚类，力求比以往更清晰地描绘紊乱型依恋在严重程度和风格上的差异。我们采用了一种新的评估方法，该方法聚焦于依恋组织的层次结构，包括安全型、不安全型（轻视型和痴迷型）、僵化控制型（敌对控制型和强迫性照料型）以及紊乱型（矛盾型、匮乏型和未解决型）依恋水平。临床评估人员利用诊断性访谈和基于依恋的访谈所获信息，对参与者在依恋的各个方面进行评分。潜在类别分析（LCA）揭示了一个四类解决方案，包括一个安全型类别（n = 33）、一个不安全型类别（n = 110）以及两个紊乱型类别。一个紊乱型类别（紊乱-摇摆型）的特征是矛盾型和痴迷型风格得分较高（n = 77），另一个（紊乱-匮乏型）则表现为匮乏型和轻视型风格得分较高（n = 53）。与其他类别相比，紊乱-摇摆型类别表现出更高的人格障碍（PD）严重程度、一般症状严重程度、边缘型人格障碍（BPD）、表演型和反社会维度得分，以及最严重的身份认同障碍。匮乏-轻视型类别在各类型中表现出最高的回避型和分裂型PD维度得分，并且与不安全型和安全型类别相比，其PD严重程度更高。这些结果凸显了识别不同依恋组织类别的可能性，这些类别在严重程度和人际风格方面都存在差异。它们还揭示了成人依恋紊乱的表现形式。（PsycINFO数据库记录
