PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOG Y BULLETIN
Cozzarelli et al. / MENTAL MODELS OF ATTACHMENT
General Versus Specific Mental Models of Attachment:
Are They Associated With Different Outcomes?
Catherine Cozzarelli
Kansas State University
Steven J. Hoekstra
Kansas Wesleyan University
Wayne H. Bylsma
American College of Physicians–
American Society of Internal Medicine
The present study examined the relationships between mental
models of attachment and both overall psychological adjustment
and relationship-related outcomes. Mental models were assessed
in the context of a specific relationship as well as for people in
general. Overall, partner-specific mental models had stronger
and more numerous associations with the outcome variables
than did general mental models. General models (especially
model of self) were most strongly associated with measures of
overall psychological adjustment. However, specific mental mod-
els were much more strongly associated with relationship-specific
outcomes such as feelings of romantic love or relationship satis-
faction than were general mental models. Self-esteem was more
strongly related to global psychological adjustment than was
model of self, but specific model of self was more strongly related
to outcomes in relationships. Trust was not related to any of the
dependent variables in the study.
Imajor
n the past decade, attachment theory has become a
perspective on adult romantic relationships. The
measurement of attachment styles, however, has con-
tinually posed both empirical and conceptual chal-
lenges. One issue that may have important implications
for measurement and theory is the level at which mental
models of attachment are assessed. Attachment theorists
are only recently beginning to explicitly acknowledge
that individuals may have multiple mental models of
attachment and that these mental models may differ in
their level of specificity (e.g., they may refer to people in
general or to a specific romantic partner). The primary
purpose of our study is to examine whether attachment
representations assessed with regard to people in gen-
eral and those assessed with reference to an individual’s
605
current romantic partner differ in the way they relate to
overall psychological adjustment and relationship-
related outcomes.
Construct overlap is another issue of concern when
measuring or theorizing about attachment styles or men-
tal models. Theoretical conceptualizations of attach-
ment and recent research have both suggested that men-
tal models of attachment may overlap significantly with
global constructs such as self-esteem and interpersonal
trust. Therefore, a secondary purpose of this article is to
examine the extent to which mental models of attach-
ment, assessed at both the general level and with refer-
ence to a specific relationship partner, are related to a
variety of outcome variables independently of their over-
lap with self-esteem and trust.
Brief Overview of Attachment Theory
The attachment theory approach to adult romantic
relationships is rooted in the work of John Bowlby (1969,
1973, 1980), which detailed the origins, functioning,
and implications of an innate attachment system
designed primarily to maintain the proximity of an
infant to her or his caregiver. As interactions with a care-
giver proceed, infants develop stable experience-based
beliefs about themselves as lovable or worthwhile (men-
Authors’ Note: This study was supported in part by a grant from the Na-
tional Institute of Mental Health (No. 5RO3MH53599-02) to the first
and third authors. Correspondence concerning this article may be
addressed to Catherine Cozzarelli, Department of Psychology, Kan-
sas State University, 468 Bluemont Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506; e-mail:
psycozz@ksu.edu.
PSPB, Vol. 26 No. 5, May 2000 605-618
© 2000 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
606 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
tal model of self) and about the responsiveness and
accessibility of others (mental model of others). A funda-
mental tenet of attachment theory is that these mental
models influence thoughts, emotions, and behaviors
automatically and are self-perpetuating; they are the
mechanisms by which an attachment style (or typical
mode of responding in attachment-relevant situations)
is thought to be maintained over time (Rothbard &
Shaver, 1994).
Based on this assumption of continuity, Hazan and
Shaver (1987) proposed that attachment processes simi-
lar to those characterizing attachment to primary care-
givers during childhood should govern an individual’s
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in romantic relation-
ships. Numerous studies have supported Hazan and
Shaver’s initial proposition, showing that individuals’
recollections of parental relationships are consistent
with their attachment style in adulthood and that attach-
ment styles are related to satisfaction and adjustment in
romantic relationships (e.g., Collins & Read, 1990; Kirk-
patrick & Davis, 1994; Simpson, 1990), the overall posi-
tivity of individuals’ self-views (e.g., Bartholomew & Hor-
owitz, 1991), disclosure in relationships (e.g., Feeney &
Noller, 1990; Mikulincer & Nachshon, 1991), caregiving
under stress (e.g., Kobak & Hazan, 1991; Simpson,
Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992), perceptions of social support
and social conflict (e.g., Cozzarelli, Sumer, & Major,
1998), as well as many other variables (see Shaver, Col-
lins, & Clark, 1996).
In 1991, Bartholomew and Horowitz constructed a
measure of attachment styles organized around the posi-
tivity/negativity of beliefs about the self (as worthy vs.
unworthy of love) and others (as trustworthy and avail-
able vs. unreliable and rejecting). When crossed, these
two dimensions produce the four attachment classifica-
tions assessed in Bartholomew and Horowitz’s measure:
(a) the secure attachment style (positive models of both
self and others), which is characterized by a general com-
fort with closeness and trust in others; (b) the preoccu-
pied attachment style (negative model of self combined
with a positive model of others), which reflects a sense of
unlovability but a belief that others are generally trust-
worthy and available; (c) the dismissing style (positive
model of self and negative model of others), character-
ized by a belief in one’s lovability but a general distrust of
others or the expectation that they will be unreliable or
rejecting; and (d) the fearful style (negative self and
other models), which is typified by the belief that one is
unlovable and that others are unreliable or rejecting.
Multiple Attachment Representations
Although researchers often discuss attachment as if
individuals have only one attachment style, theoretical
accounts of attachment processes point out that indi-
viduals may simultaneously hold multiple mental mod-
els of attachment (e.g., Baldwin & Fehr, 1995; Collins &
Read, 1994; Shaver et al., 1996). For example, psycholo-
gists have shown that an individuals’ attachment style
with one parent does not necessarily predict his or her
style with regard to the other parent (Baldwin, Keelan,
Fehr, Enns, & Koh-Rangarajoo, 1996; Bridges, Connell,
& Belsky, 1988; Lamb, 1978; see Fox, Kimmerly, &
Schafer, 1991, for a review) or his or her attachment style
in relation to a romantic partner (Baldwin et al., 1996).
And, it is likely that the situation is even more complex
because adults may have different working models for
each of the different roles they occupy (e.g., son, lover,
father, friend) (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991;
Bretherton, Biringen, Ridgeway, Maslin, & Sherman,
1989). Collins and Read (1994) have argued that an indi-
vidual’s various mental models are structured as a hierar-
chical network of attachment representations, with gen-
eral models of self and others at the top of the hierarchy
and more specific mental models at lower levels, whereas
Baldwin et al. (1996) suggest that the structure of rela-
tionship knowledge may look more like a tangled web
than a hierarchy.
Despite the plausibility of the existence of multiple
mental models, measures of attachment styles are typi-
cally presented and/or used without any explicit consid-
eration of the specificity of the attachment object that is
referred to in the measure. A review of the literature
reveals that in practice, most research has assessed
attachment styles in terms of general others or relation-
ships and not in terms of specific relationship partners.
In some cases, existing measures simply intermix refer-
ences to people in general and to more specific others,
usually romantic partners. For example, Hazan and
Shaver’s (1987) three-category measure specifically
instructs respondents to describe the “way you generally
are in love relationships,” and the attachment style
descriptions themselves refer variously to “others,” “any-
one,” “love partners,” and “my partner.” Bartholomew
and Horowitz’s (1991) popular four-category measure
contains references only to close “others” in general, and
Simpson et al. (1992) instruct respondents to complete
their measure with reference to “romantic partners in
general” (see also Pietromonaco & Feldman Barrett,
1997). In addition, regardless of how attachment styles
are measured, attachment researchers often use these
styles or mental models to predict a wide variety of out-
comes, paying scant attention to the level of specificity
with which either the attachment or outcome variables
are assessed. Thus, attachment styles have been related
to relationship-specific behaviors and outcomes (e.g.,
seeking or providing social support, conflicts with a
romantic partner, relationship satisfaction, commit-
ment, relationship longevity) as well as to indices of gen-
 Cozzarelli et al. / MENTAL MODELS OF ATTACHMENT
eral adjustment or adaptive functioning such as anxiety,
depression, loneliness, eating disorders, alcohol prob-
lems, and physical symptoms (see Shaver & Hazan, 1993,
for a review).
We believe that it is important to distinguish the cor-
relates and effects of general mental models about “peo-
ple” from those of specific mental models about a
romantic partner. Logically, mental models assessed at
different levels of specificity are likely to be related to dif-
ferent outcomes (see also Shaver et al., 1996). A similar
conceptual point has been made repeatedly in the psy-
chological literature on attitudes, where it has been dem-
onstrated that dependent variables will generally be best
predicted by independent variables measured at the
same level of specificity (e.g., Brannon, 1976; Fishbein &
Ajzen, 1975). Generally speaking, global predictors can
be expected to relate to a wide array of general out-
comes, whereas specific outcomes will be better pre-
dicted by variables assessed at the same level of specific-
ity. Consistent with this argument, Davis, Morris, and
Kraus (1998) found that global and relationship-specific
social support best predicted outcomes that were
assessed at the same level of specificity as the support
measure.
The same general logic should hold true for the rela-
tionships between general and partner-specific mental
models and global and relationship-specific outcomes.
To address this issue in the current study, we assessed the
relationships between both general and partner-specific
mental models and a set of outcome variables, including
relationship-specific outcomes and global indices of psy-
chological well-being. We hypothesized that working
models assessed with respect to a specific romantic part-
ner would be more strongly related to relationship-
relevant outcomes (e.g., relationship satisfaction, feel-
ings of romantic love) than would working models
assessed at a more general level. In contrast, we pre-
dicted that mental models about people in general
would be more strongly related to overall psychological
functioning (e.g., psychological well-being, life satisfac-
tion, depression) than would mental models of one’s
romantic partner.
Construct Overlap With Self-Esteem and Trust
Another issue that needs to be addressed more fully in
the attachment literature is the extent to which the
apparent effects of attachment styles or mental models
are due to their overlap with related constructs. Concep-
tual accounts of attachment styles suggest that model of
self overlaps with global self-esteem, and empirical stud-
ies indicate that these two constructs are indeed related.
For example, Griffin and Bartholomew (1994) showed
that a latent variable representing model of self over-
lapped almost perfectly with a latent variable represent-
607
ing the self-concept (for which self-esteem was a marker
variable). In the realm of stress and coping, Cozzarelli et al.
(1998) demonstrated that controlling for self-esteem
substantially reduced the relationship between mental
model of self and psychological adjustment subsequent
to an abortion. Similarly, conceptual definitions of men-
tal model of others and of interpersonal trust (e.g., Rem-
pel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985) suggest that these variables
should also overlap (see also Mikulincer, 1998). Empiri-
cal support for this proposition was found by Sumer, Coz-
zarelli, and Burns (1996), who showed that a latent vari-
able representing model of other and a latent variable
representing interpersonal trust were strongly related
(see also Lipschultz, Wall, Scotilla, Bylsma, & Cozzarelli,
1995, for corroborating evidence).
Given this evidence, it is increasingly important to
consider the degree to which mental models differ from
and have relationships with outcome variables that can-
not be attributed to these long-standing, global con-
structs. We believe that such overlap may be especially
likely when attachment styles or mental models are
assessed at the general level, as has frequently been the
case in the adult attachment literature. General beliefs
about the availability or trustworthiness of other people
would logically bear a stronger resemblance to a disposi-
tional measure of trust than would beliefs about the
trustworthiness of another person in a specific context
or relationship. If this reasoning is correct, attachment
styles or mental models would only have sizable, unique
relationships with outcome variables when they are
assessed at the more specific level; when assessed gener-
ally, these variables would have little to offer above and
beyond existing dispositional measures.
To address the issue of construct overlap, we exam-
ined the relationships between general and partner-
specific mental models, a set of relationship-specific and
global outcome variables, and trust and self-esteem. We
expected to find that trust and self-esteem would be
more highly correlated with general mental models than
with partner-specific mental models. We also explored
the relationships between general and partner-specific
mental models and the set of outcome variables, holding
trust and self-esteem constant. We expected to find sub-
stantial overlap between trust/self-esteem and general
mental models in relation to all of the outcome variables,
but especially global outcomes such as life satisfaction or
depression. In contrast, we did not expect to find that
the relationships between partner-specific mental mod-
els and any of the outcome variables would be much
attenuated when partialing out the effects of self-esteem
and trust.
In summary, we made the following five predictions
with respect to general and partner-specific mental mod-
els of attachment: (a) general mental models were ex-
608 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
pected to be more strongly related to global outcomes
(e.g., overall psychological well-being, life satisfaction)
than were partner-specific mental models, (b) partner-
specific mental models were expected to be more
strongly related to relationship-specific outcomes (e.g.,
relationship satisfaction, feelings of love) than were gen-
eral mental models, (c) self-esteem and trust were
expected to be more highly correlated with general than
partner-specific mental models, (d) holding self-esteem
and trust constant was expected to substantially attenu-
ate the relationships between general mental models
and all of the outcome variables, and (e) holding self-
esteem and trust constant was not expected to substan-
tially attenuate the relationships between partner-
specific mental models and the outcome variables. In
testing these hypotheses, we used Bartholomew and
Horowitz’s (1991) measure of attachment styles. Thus,
we implicitly adopted their working definition of model
of self as the extent to which one views the self as worthy
of love and support and their definition of model of oth-
ers as the extent to which people are seen as trustworthy
and available versus unreliable and rejecting.
METHOD
Participants
The participants were 112 undergraduates from Kan-
sas State University (24 men, 56 women) and Pennsylva-
nia State University (9 men, 23 women) who volunteered
to complete a set of questionnaires to fulfill a course
requirement.1 The mean age of participants was 19.7
years (SD = 3.4), with 87% of participants between 18 and
21 years. All participants were required to be currently in
a romantic relationship and to have been in that rela-
tionship for at least 1 month. Participants reported
knowing their partner an average of 33 months (range =
1 month to 15 years) and to have been romantically
involved with their partner for an average of 20 months
(range = 1 month to 10 years). Of the participants, 50%
were in the 1st year of their relationship and 95% of par-
ticipants were in the first 5 years of their relationship.
Materials and Procedure
Participants were asked to complete a variety of scales,
including measures of attachment style, self-esteem,
trust, global adjustment, and relationship-specific out-
come measures. Because of the questionnaire’s length,
testing occurred in two sessions, the second occurring
approximately 2 weeks after the first. In the first session,
global and relationship-specific attachment styles were
assessed, as was self-esteem and interpersonal trust.
These measures were embedded within a counterbal-
anced set of attachment-related scales that were adminis-
tered for purposes unrelated to the present study. In the
second session, global adjustment and relationship-
specific outcomes were assessed, also in counterbal-
anced order. These scales are described more fully
below. Participants were tested in groups of 5 to 10 and
were debriefed after the second session.
Attachment measures. Two different forms of Bartholo-
mew and Horowitz’s (1991) Relationship Questionnaire
(RQ) were used to access participants’ attachment styles.
One of these referred to how participants feel about peo-
ple in general, whereas the second referred to how par-
ticipants feel about their current romantic partner. The
RQ consists of short prototypical descriptions of each of
the four attachment styles—secure, dismissing, preoccu-
pied, and fearful. Participants are asked to indicate the
degree to which each prototype is descriptive of them on
7-point rating scales ranging from 1 (this is not like me) to
7 (this is very much like me). They then indicate which of
the four prototypes describes themselves best.
The first form of the scale was worded in the tradi-
tional way (as per Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Grif-
fin & Bartholomew, 1994), referring to relationships
with people in general. This version will be hereafter
referred to as the general measure of attachment styles.
On this measure, 49% of the participants reported being
secure, 25% being dismissing, 8% being preoccupied,
and 18% being fearful. Other research (Bartholomew &
Horowitz, 1991; Brennan & Bosson, 1998) has found
roughly equivalent numbers of secures but slightly fewer
dismissings and more preoccupieds and fearfuls.
The second version of the RQ was worded so as to
refer to the participant’s relationship with his or her cur-
rent romantic partner. For example, the descriptor for
secure was changed from “It is easy for me to become
emotionally close to others. I am comfortable depend-
ing on others and having others depend on me. I don’t
worry about being alone or having others accept me” to
“It is easy for me to become emotionally close to my part-
ner. I am comfortable depending on him or her and hav-
ing him or her depend on me. I don’t worry about being
alone or having my partner not accept me.” This version
will be hereafter referred to as the relationship-specific
measure of attachment styles. When measured in this
relationship-specific way, 55% of the participants
reported being secure, 20% being dismissing, 14%
being preoccupied, and 11% being fearful. A chi-square
test of independence revealed no significant differences
between the distributions that were obtained using the
global and relationship-specific attachment question-
naires, χ2(4) = 4.55, p > .05.
Mental models of attachment were calculated for
both the global and relationship-specific attachment
measures, following the procedure outlined by Griffin
and Bartholomew (1994). Model of self was calculated
by summing the ratings of the two attachment styles with
 Cozzarelli et al. / MENTAL MODELS OF ATTACHMENT
a positive model of self (secure and dismissing) and sub-
tracting the sum of the ratings on the two attachment
styles with a negative model of self (preoccupied and
fearful). Likewise, model of other was calculated by sum-
ming the ratings of the two attachment styles with a posi-
tive model of other (secure and preoccupied) and sub-
tracting the sum of the ratings of the two attachment
styles with a negative model of other (dismissing and
fearful).2 Using this procedure, mental model scores can
range from –12, indicating a very negative mental
model, to +12, indicating a very positive mental model.
Scores on the partner-specific mental models (M = 4.56,
SD = 4.07, for model of self; M = 1.78, SD = 3.26, for model
of other) were slightly more positive than the respective
scores on the general mental models (M = 1.96, SD =
3.34, for model of self; M = .81, SD = 3.9, for model of
other), although the two forms of both mental models
were significantly correlated (general/specific models
of self, r = .41, p < .001; general/specific models of other,
r = .25, p < .01).
Relationship-specific outcome measures. Relationship sat-
isfaction was assessed using a scale from Hendrick
(1988) that consists of seven statements, each rated on a
7-point rating scale. Sample items include “How good is
your relationship compared to most?” or “How many
problems are there in your relationship?” We obtained a
mean of 5.7 in our sample (SD = 1.14), indicating rela-
tively high satisfaction. The reliability coefficient was .92.
The Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) scale (Aron,
Aron, & Smollan, 1992) is a single-item, pictorial scale.
There are seven Venn diagrams, each with two circles in
varying degrees of overlap, ranging from totally independ-
ent/nonoverlapping to mutually inclusive. One circle in
each pair is labeled “self,” and the other is labeled
“other.” The participant is instructed to select the pair of
circles that best describes his or her relationship with his
or her romantic partner. The mean on this measure was
5.3 (SD = 1.6) out of a possible 7, indicating that partici-
pants felt that their current romantic partner was a
strong part of their self (the self and other circles were
approximately 50% to 60% overlapping). Aron et al.
(1992) reported good alternate form (r = .95) and test-
retest reliability (r = .85) for this measure. Perhaps
because of its unusual format, only 83 of our participants
correctly completed this measure. Accordingly, all analy-
ses involving the IOS scale are based on a reduced n.
Sternberg’s (1988) Triangular Love (TL) scale was
used to measure characteristics of participants’ romantic
relationships. The TL scale consists of three, 15-item
subscales: Intimacy (e.g., “I receive considerable emo-
tional support from X”), Passion (e.g., “I especially like
physical contact with X”), and Commitment (e.g., “I
have confidence in the stability of my relationship with
X”). To complete the scale, participants rate the degree
609
to which they agree with each statement on a rating scale
ranging from 1 (not at all) to 9 (extremely). Responses to
the items comprising each subscale were averaged.
Because scores on the three subscales were highly inter-
correlated (rs ranged from .84 to .90), we combined
them to create a single romantic love index. The mean
romantic love score in our sample was 7.38 (SD = 1.50)
and the alpha for the combined scale was .98.
Psychological adjustment measures. A short form of the
Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (Beck, 1976) was used
to assess depression. The short form of the BDI is a 13-
item Guttman scale; for each item, participants are given
a choice of four statements of decreasing intensity, and
their score is based on the strongest statement they
endorse in each set. For example, a participant would
earn a score of 3 for selecting “I can’t do any work at all,”
a 2 for “I have to push myself very hard to do anything,” a
1 for “It takes extra effort to get started at doing some-
thing,” and a 0 for “I can work about as well as before.”
The mean total score on this scale (out of a possible score
of 36) was 3.5 (SD = 4.6), with a highly skewed distribu-
tion (Mdn = 2, mode = 0, range = 0 to 25, 84% of the total
scores were lower than 5), indicating that most partici-
pants were not depressed. Cronbach’s alpha for the BDI
was .88.
We assessed life satisfaction using a measure by
Diener, Emmons, Larson, and Griffin (1985). Partici-
pants rated the extent of their agreement to five items
(e.g., “I am satisfied with my life”) on scales ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The ratings were
then averaged across items. The mean score for our sam-
ple was 5.0 (SD = 1.3), with a reliability coefficient of .88.
The Positive Well-Being scale is an abbreviated ver-
sion of a scale by Ryff (1989; see Major, Zubek, Cooper,
Cozzarelli, & Richards, 1997, for more information on
this scale). This 18-item measure assesses autonomy,
environmental mastery, personal growth, positive rela-
tions with others, purpose in life, and self-acceptance on
7-point, Likert-type scales. Rather than analyzing
subscales separately, participants’ ratings for all 18 items
were averaged. Participants were moderately high in
positive well-being (M = 4.8, SD = .57, range = 3.6-6.0).
The reliability coefficient for this measure was .83.
Mental model covariates. Self-esteem was measured
using the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Inventory
(Rosenberg, 1965). This measure consists of items such
as, “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself,” rated on
scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree). Items are reverse-scored as necessar y and
responses across the 10 items are then averaged. Respon-
dents generally reported high self-esteem, with a mean
of 5.6 (SD = 1.1), and the scale showed respectable reli-
ability (α = .88).
610 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

TABLE 1: Correlation Matrix

Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. General model
of self .— .41*** .07 –.06 .13 .16 –.11 .28** .25** .20* –.02 .13
2. Specific model
of self .— .11 .04 .20* .11 –.19 .52*** .41*** .46*** .44*** .35***
3. General model
of other .— .25** .12 .31** –.18 .11 .12 .01 .10 .04
4. Specific model
of other .— .07 –.03 –.08 .08 .05 .23 .33** .31***
5. Self-esteem .— .18 –.48*** .47*** .45*** .25** .25* .23*
6. Trust .— –.19* .11 .17 .06 .02 .02
7. Depression .— .52*** –.61*** –.29** –.27* –.28**
8. Well-being .— .61*** .49*** .40*** .46***
9. Life satisfaction .— .46*** .38*** .36***
10. Relationship
satisfaction .— .79*** .87***
11. IOS .— .80***
12. Romantic love .—

NOTE: IOS = Inclusion of Other in the Self scale. N for most of the correlations ranges from 105 to 112; however, correlations with the IOS scale
have an N that ranges from 74 to 83.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Rosenberg’s Faith in People scale (Rosenberg, 1957)
was used to assess interpersonal trust. The Faith in Peo-
ple scale consists of five items asking about the nature of
humankind (e.g., “If you don’t watch yourself, people
will take advantage of you”). Participants responded to
each item on a 7-point scale. The scale ranges from 1
(strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree) for three of the
items; two items have endpoints that correspond more
directly to the text of the item. For example, participants
are asked to respond to the question, “Some people say
that most people can be trusted. Others say you can’t be
too careful in your dealings with people. How do you
feel about it?” on a scale ranging from 1 (most people can
be trusted) to 7 (you can’t be too careful). Responses to the
five items were averaged. Responses tended to be mod-
erate rather than extreme (M = 3.78, SD = 1.0). The
scale’s reliability coefficient was somewhat low but
acceptable (α = .73).
RESULTS
A correlation matrix including all the variables in the
study is presented in Table 1. As we expected, general
and partner-specific mental models were modestly cor-
related for both model of self and model of other
(although the magnitude of this correlation was some-
what higher for model of self, Fisher’s z = 1.89, p = .058).
Participants’ sex and the amount of time they had
been in their current relationship were evaluated as
potential covariates. Because neither variable systemati-
cally covaried with attachment style or any of the depend-
ent variables in this study, sex and relationship duration
were not included in the analyses that follow.3
Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to
determine the degree to which general and partner-
specific mental models of attachment were related to the
relationship-specific and global psychological adjust-
ment outcomes. Two hierarchical regression analyses
were conducted for each of the outcome variables. In the
first of these analyses, general models of self and others
were entered as predictor variables in the first step of the
regression, partner-specific models of self and other
were entered as predictors in the second step, and the
interactions between the general mental models and
between the specific mental models were entered third
(see Tables 2 and 3). In the second regression analysis
for each outcome variable, the order in which the men-
tal model variables were entered was reversed: partner-
specific models of self and other were entered first, gen-
eral models of self and others were entered second, and
the interactions were again entered third (see Tables 2
and 3). The first step of these regression analyses allowed
us to draw conclusions about the relationships between
the specific and general mental models and the outcome
variables when only one type of mental model (general
or specific) was used as a predictor variable. The second
step allowed us to examine the unique or individual rela-
tionships between the two types of mental models and
the outcome variables while accounting for the shared
variance between the general and specific mental mod-
els. To clarify interpretation of the results, scores on the
 Cozzarelli et al. / MENTAL MODELS OF ATTACHMENT 611

TABLE 2: Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Global Psy- TABLE 3: Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Relation-
chological Adjustment From Partner-Specific and Gen- ship Specific Outcomes From Partner-Specific and Gen-
eral Mental Models of Self and Other eral Mental Models of Self and Other

Well- Life Relationship Romantic

a
Beingb Satisfactionc a
Measure Depression Measure Satisfaction IOSb Lovec

Series 1 Series 1
Step 1 Step 1
General model of self –.09 .27* .24 General model of self .16 –.01 .09
General model of other –.17 .12 .11 General model of other .06 .10 .10
2 2
R change .04 .09** .07* R change .03 .01 .02
Step 2 Step 2
Specific model of self –.15 .49*** .36*** Specific model of self .46*** .55*** .35***
Specific model of other –.04 .09 .03 Specific model of other .22* .30** .30**
2 2
R change .02 .20*** .11** R change .23*** .33*** .19***
Step 3 Step 3
General Self × Other interaction .07 .00 –.04 General Self × Other interaction –.04 .02 .02
Specific Self × Other interaction .16 .05 .02 Specific Self × Other interaction .21* .01 .17
2 2
R change .03 .00 .00 R change .03† .00 .02
2 2
Total R .09 .29*** .18** Total R .29*** .34*** .24***
Series 2 Series 2
Step 1 Step 1
Specific model of self –.18 .52*** .40*** Specific model of self .46*** .44*** .34***
Specific model of other –.07 .10 .04 Specific model of other .21* .32*** .30***
2 2
R change .04 .28*** .17** R change .26*** .30*** .21***
Step 2 Step 2
General model of self –.04 .07 .09 General model of self –.01 –.24* –.04
General model of other –.15 .04 .08 General model of other –.04 .00 .01
2 2
R change .02 .01 .01 R change .00 .04† .00
Step 3 Step 3
General Self × Other interaction .07 .00 –.04 General Self × Other interaction –.04 .02 –.02
Specific Self × Other interaction .16 .05 .02 Specific Self × Other interaction .21* .01 .17
2 2
R change .03 .00 .00 R change .03† .00 .02
2 2
Total R .09 .29*** .18*** Total R .29*** .34*** .24***

NOTE: The regression coefficients are shown for the step at which they
were entered into the equation.
a. n = 107.
b. n = 105.
c. n = 111.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
mental models scales were centered prior to these
regression analyses (see Aiken & West, 1991).
Psychological Adjustment Outcomes
When entered as the first step in the regression analy-
ses, the block of general mental model variables was sig-
nificantly related to well-being and life satisfaction (but
not depression), accounting for 9% and 7% of the vari-
ance in these adjustment measures, respectively. Exami-
nation of individual beta weights revealed that in both
cases, this effect was solely attributable to general model
of self. Specifically, individuals with a positive general
model of self were higher in well-being (β = .27) and
higher in life satisfaction (β = .24) than were those with a
negative general model of self. (Neither general model
of others nor the interaction between the two general
mental models was related to any of the psychological
adjustment variables.) Interestingly, when entered as the
first step in the regression analyses, the block of partner-
NOTE: IOS = Inclusion of Other in the Self scale. The regression coef-
ficients are shown for the step at which they were entered into the equa-
tion.
a. n = 110.
b. n = 83.
c. n = 108.
†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
specific mental model variables was also significantly
related to well-being (R2 = .28) and life satisfaction (R2 =
.17). Again, examination of the betas revealed that this
effect was due solely to model of self. Specifically, indi-
viduals with a positive partner-specific model of self were
higher in well-being (β = .52) and life satisfaction (β =
.40) than were individuals with a negative partner-
specific model of self. As was true of the general mental
model, neither the partner-specific model of other nor
the interaction between the two partner-specific mental
models was related to any of the psychological adjust-
ment variables.
These analyses suggest that both general and
partner-specific model of self are related to overall psy-
chological health. However, the significant betas for
partner-specific model of self were typically larger in
magnitude than the corresponding betas for general
model of self (.52 vs. .27 and .40 vs. .24), suggesting that
612 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
the specific mental model was the relatively stronger pre-
dictor. This conclusion is buttressed by examination of
the second step of the regression analyses. When the
block of specific mental model variables was entered on
the first step of the regression analyses, the block of gen-
eral mental model variables did not generate a signifi-
cant increase in the variance accounted for in any of the
psychological adjustment variables (see Table 2). How-
ever, when entered in the second step, the block of spe-
cific mental model variables accounted for an additional
20% of the variance in well-being and 11% of the vari-
ance in life satisfaction, above and beyond the variance
accounted for by the block of general mental models
(see Table 2). Thus, once the variance shared by the two
types of mental models (6% to 8%) was partialed out,
only partner-specific model of self was uniquely related
to the psychological adjustment variables.
Relationship-Specific Outcomes
When entered in the first step of the regression analy-
ses, the block of partner-specific mental model variables
was significantly related to all of the relationship-specific
outcomes (see Table 3), accounting for between 21%
and 30% of the variance in these variables. Examination
of the significant beta weights reveals that this effect was
due to the impact of both model of self and model of
other. Individuals with a more positive partner-specific
model of self reported greater relationship satisfaction,
inclusion of other in the self, and feelings of romantic
love than did individuals with a negative partner-specific
model of self. The same was true for partner-specific
model of other, although the magnitudes of these effects
were somewhat smaller than was the case for model of
self. In contrast, when entered in the first step of the
regression analyses, the block of general mental model
variables was not significantly related to any of the
relationship-specific outcomes (see Table 3).
The superiority of the specific mental models over the
general mental models as predictors of relationship-
specific outcomes can also be seen when both general
and specific mental models are included in the regres-
sion analyses. With the block of general mental model
variables entered in the regression equation at the first
step (see Table 3), the addition of the block of specific
mental model variables resulted in highly significant
increases in the amount of variance explained in all of
the relationship-specific outcomes (R2 change ranged
from .19 to .33). With all of the mental model variables
included in the regression equation, both partner-
specific model of self and other remained significant as
predictors of relationship satisfaction, IOS, and roman-
tic love. The betas associated with these effects were
nearly identical to those that were obtained when gen-
Figure 1 The interaction of partner-specific models of self and other
as a predictor of relationship satisfaction.
eral mental models were not included in the regression
equation.
Finally, the block of interaction variables was margin-
ally significant as a predictor of relationship satisfaction.
Examination of the betas reveals that this effect was due
to a significant interaction between the specific mental
models. To probe this interaction, we followed the pro-
cedures outlined by Aiken and West (1991). Two simple
regression lines were plotted, showing the regression of
model of other on relationship satisfaction for individu-
als with positive and negative models of self. Positive
model of self and positive model of other were repre-
sented by scores that were 1 standard deviation above 0,
and negative model of self and negative model of other
were represented by scores that were 1 standard devia-
tion below 0, with a 0 score representing an individual
whose model was neither positive nor negative. Exami-
nation of Figure 1 reveals that individuals with positive
models of both self and other (i.e., secures) were the
most satisfied with their relationships. Specifically,
among individuals with a positive model of self, as model
of other became more positive, relationship satisfaction
increased, t(104) = 3.84, p < .01, whereas individuals with
a negative model of self reported consistent ratings of
relationship satisfaction regardless of their model of
other, t(104) = 1.05, p > .05.
Regression Analyses Including Self-Esteem and Trust
Recall that we had predicted that trust and self-esteem
would be more highly correlated with general mental
models than with partner-specific mental models. A
glance at Table 1 reveals that trust was more strongly
related to general model of others (r = .31, p < .01) than
to partner-specific model of other (r = –.01, p > .10). A
Fisher’s z test revealed that the difference between these
two correlations was indeed significant (z = 3.41, p < .01).
Contrary to our predictions, however, general model of
 Cozzarelli et al. / MENTAL MODELS OF ATTACHMENT
self (r = .13, p > .10) was not more highly correlated with
self-esteem than was specific model of self (r = .20, p < .05;
Fisher’s z = .75, p > .10).
To test the degree to which mental models of attach-
ment are proxy variables for self-esteem and trust, the
regressions we described earlier were repeated, control-
ling for self-esteem and trust. These variables were
entered as covariates in Step 1 of each regression analy-
sis. Because these analyses did not alter the conclusions
we have already drawn about the relative strengths of the
general versus specific mental models as predictor vari-
ables, we focus our discussion below on the relationships
between mental models and self-esteem/trust.
Psychological adjustment variables. The block of covari-
ates was significantly related to all three psychological
adjustment variables, explaining between 21% and 24%
of the variance in these measures. Inspection of the
betas, however, reveals that these significant effects are
due solely to the impact of self-esteem. As might be
expected, higher self-esteem was related to lower levels
of depression (β = –.45), higher levels of well-being (β =
.45), and increased life satisfaction (β = .43). Recall that
in the analyses without the covariates, when entered in
the first step of the regressions, both the general and the
specific mental model variable blocks were significant as
predictors of well-being and life satisfaction. With the
covariates in the equation, the block of general mental
model variables was only significant in predicting well-
being (R 2 change = .05). In contrast, with the covariates
in the equation, the block of specific mental models was
still related to both well-being (R 2 change = .20) and life
satisfaction (R 2 = .10). Thus, as we hypothesized, control-
ling for self-esteem and trust reduced the impact of gen-
eral mental models of attachment in these analyses but
did not significantly diminish the impact of partner-
specific mental models.
Finally, recall that in the analyses without the covari-
ates, when both the general and the specific mental
model variables were entered as predictors of psycho-
logical adjustment, only partner-specific model of self
was uniquely related to the outcome variables. With self-
esteem included in the regressions, partner-specific
model of self was still significant as a predictor of both
well-being and life satisfaction, although the magnitudes
of these betas were somewhat reduced by the presence of
the covariates. Interestingly, with all of the mental model
variables included in the equation, the betas for self-
esteem were still significant as well. In fact, in two of
three cases, inspection of the betas suggests that self-
esteem is a slightly stronger predictor than specific
model of self. The betas for self-esteem and specific
model of self were –.42 (p < .001) and –.09 (p > .10),
respectively, for depression; .35 (p < .001) and .43 (p <
.001) for well-being; and .37 (p < .001) and .29 (p < .01)
613
for life satisfaction. Thus, the obtained relationships
between specific model of self and these outcome vari-
ables could not be completely attributed to the overlap
between model of self and self-esteem. However, self-
esteem proved to be somewhat more strongly related to
psychological adjustment than specific model of self.
Whereas self-esteem was clearly related to psychologi-
cal adjustment, trust was not related to any of the adjust-
ment indices.
Relationship-specific outcomes. The block of covariates
was a significant predictor of relationship satisfaction
(R 2 = .06) and a marginal predictor of IOS (R 2 = .06) and
romantic love (R 2 = .05). Again, examination of the betas
revealed that all of these effects were due to the signifi-
cant impact of self-esteem. Higher self-esteem was
related to increased relationship satisfaction (β = .23),
increased closeness (β = .25), and greater perceptions of
romantic love (β = .22). Trust was not significantly
related to any of the relationship-specific outcomes.
Recall that in the regression analyses without the covari-
ates, partner-specific (but not general) mental models
were significantly related to all of the relationship-
related outcome variables. As we had hypothesized, this
was still the case, even when controlling for self-esteem
and trust. In fact, the betas for the specific mental mod-
els that were obtained in the regressions with the covari-
ates included were almost identical to those that were
obtained when the covariates were omitted. Interest-
ingly, with all of the mental model variables included in
the regression equations, self-esteem was no longer sig-
nificantly related to IOS (β = .11, p > .10) or romantic
love (β = .14, p > .10) and was only marginally related to
relationship satisfaction (β = .15, p < .10). Thus, in this
case, not only were the effects of specific model of self
not attributable to its overlap with self-esteem but self-
esteem was less strongly related to these outcome vari-
ables than was model of self.
Finally, the interaction between the specific mental
models that was obtained in predicting relationship sat-
isfaction was still significant when self-esteem and trust
were included in the regression equations.
Summary
In summary, model of self (whether general or
partner-specific) was related to both life satisfaction and
positive well-being; however, the magnitudes of these
relationships were stronger for the specific mental
model. Model of other was generally unrelated to overall
psychological adjustment. Specific mental models were
much more strongly related to relationship-specific out-
comes than were general mental models. Both specific
model of self and specific model of other were related to
a wide variety of relationship-specific outcomes. In addi-
tion, self-esteem was more strongly related to global psy-
614 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
chological adjustment than was specific model of self,
but specific model of self was more strongly related to
outcomes in relationships. Trust was not related to any of
the outcome variables.
DISCUSSION
Multiple Mental Models
The results of the current study are consistent with
the suggestion that individuals can have different mental
models for different relationships (e.g., Bartholomew &
Horowitz, 1991; Collins & Read, 1994; Shaver et al.,
1996) and, more specifically, that one’s general attach-
ment style may not be redundant with one’s style in a par-
ticular relationship (see also Baldwin et al., 1996). In this
study, we found that individuals’ mental models of their
current relationship were only modestly correlated with
their more overarching or general mental models of
attachment. Presumably, general mental models reflect
an average assessment of the self and others across rela-
tionships, and relationship-specific beliefs about the self
and one’s partner would logically represent only one
fraction of this overall assessment. It will be interesting
for future research to test more directly the assumption
that general mental models can be derived from a sum-
mation of relationship-specific mental models. To exam-
ine this issue, researchers could assess simultaneously
participants’ mental models of each of their important
attachment figures. Interestingly, in a recent study, Davis
et al. (1998) found that global perceptions of social sup-
port could not be derived by summing individuals’ per-
ceptions of support across various specific relationships.
These authors argued instead that global support func-
tions in a trait-like fashion and largely reflects an indi-
vidual’s overarching tendency to see the self and the sur-
rounding social world in a positive or negative way.
Perhaps general mental models of attachment function
similarly.
The Relationships Between
Mental Models and the Outcomes Variables
We hypothesized that partner-specific mental models
would be more strongly related to relationship-related
outcomes than would general or overarching mental
models (see also Shaver et al., 1996). The results of this
study clearly corroborate this hypothesis. Specific mod-
els of both self and other were related to all three of the
relationship-related outcome measures that we included
in the study (relationship satisfaction, inclusion of oth-
ers in the self, feelings of romantic love), and the interac-
tion between the two specific mental models was related
to relationship satisfaction as well. In contrast, general
mental models were not significantly related to any of
the relationship-related outcomes. Given that the global
and specific forms of the attachment measure contain
the same content (comfort with relationships, desire for
intimacy, etc.) but differ only in their level of specificity
as to the target of attachment, these results clearly sup-
port our contention that measures will be most strongly
associated when they are assessed at the same level of
specificity. However, it must also be acknowledged that
feelings of intimacy, and so forth, when assessed with ref-
erence to one’s partner, bear a conceptual resemblance
to some of the relationship-related outcome variables.
This conceptual overlap may, in part, account for the
strength of the relationships between these two sets of
variables.4
We had also hypothesized that general mental models
would be more strongly related to global psychological
functioning than would specific mental models. Surpris-
ingly, although both general and specific model of self
were related to well-being and life satisfaction, in the
hierarchical regression analyses, the general mental
model was a poorer predictor than the specific mental
model. Indeed, most of the effects of the general model
were due to shared variance with the more specific
model of self measure. Thus, a researcher who uses a
general measure of attachment styles may well find that
scores on this measure will be significantly related to
global psychological functioning; however, such results
may largely reflect the hidden operation of specific men-
tal models about individual intimates.
We were surprised by the poor performance of the
general mental model variables in this study. The paucity
of significant associations involving these variables may
perhaps be a function of the particular dependent mea-
sures we chose to use. It is possible, for example, that
general mental models of attachment would relate more
strongly (and uniquely) to global outcomes that are
clearly relationship-oriented (e.g., general perceptions
of social support, loneliness) than to measures of overall
psychological functioning such as the ones we used here.
Alternatively, the weak performance of the general mod-
els may reflect the fact that the individuals in our sample
were in romantic relationships of some duration. Gener-
ally, strong relational bonds have been shown to be one
of the best predictors of happiness and well-being
(Bowlby, 1979; Hazan & Shaver, 1994; Meyers & Diener,
1995). For example, studies have consistently shown a
relationship between being married and better mental
health and physical well-being (Fincham, 1998). Indeed,
some have argued that relationships are more important
than money, career, and religion in contributing to an
overall sense that life is meaningful (Duck, 1998). Thus,
the overall psychological adjustment of those in rela-
tively stable or long-term relationships may become dis-
proportionately influenced by feelings about their part-
 Cozzarelli et al. / MENTAL MODELS OF ATTACHMENT
ner. Abstract beliefs or expectations about people in
general may assume a secondary role in such cases.
Overall, in this study, there were no instances in which
the general mental models were more strongly associ-
ated with the outcome variables than were the specific
mental models. This raises the issue of whether there are
any situations in which general mental models would be
expected to be more strongly related to people’s
thoughts, feelings, and behavior than more
relationship-specific mental models. Several authors
have made the point that individuals’ responses in an
attachment-relevant situation will be most affected by
the mental models that are most accessible to the indi-
vidual in that situation (Baldwin et al., 1996; Shaver et al.,
1996). Although general mental models can be concep-
tualized as representations of an individuals most fre-
quently experienced attachment pattern (Baldwin et al.,
1996), specific mental models should be primed when
the individual is thinking about or acting in the context
of a particular relationship. Thus, it is likely that when
interacting with others who are well-known, people will
typically rely on mental models specifically based on
those individuals and relationships. General mental
models may be most likely to come into play in situations
where an individual is interacting with someone new or
does not currently have close relationships with others.
In cases such as these, the individual would not have
available a more specific set of mental models and would
be expected to rely on generalized past interactions as a
guide in the current situation. Similarly, if an individu-
al’s friend or partner does something that he or she has
never done before (e.g., provoke jealousy, behave in an
unresponsive fashion), general mental models may
again influence the affected person’s responses.
Construct Overlap
Model of self and self-esteem. We had hypothesized that
self-esteem would be more highly correlated with gen-
eral model of self than with specific model of self. This
hypothesis was not supported; self-esteem was related
at roughly the same magnitude to both forms of model
of self.
We had also hypothesized that holding self-esteem
constant would reduce the relationships between gen-
eral model of self and the outcome variables but that this
would not be the case for partner-specific model of self.
Overall, this hypothesis was supported. The few signifi-
cant effects of general model of self were weakened with
the addition of self-esteem to the regression equations.
These results are in line with those reported by Cozza-
relli et al. (1998). In their study, the relationships
between general model of self and variables relevant to
adjustment to abortion were substantially reduced by
partialing out the effects of self-esteem. In contrast to the
615
clear overlap between self-esteem and general model of
self, in the hierarchical regression analyses we con-
ducted in this study, partner-specific model of self and
self-esteem had largely independent effects. In fact, the
betas for specific model of self were only minimally
reduced when self-esteem was added to the regression
analyses. That specific model of self and global self-
esteem have independent or unique relationships with
other variables is not surprising. Relationship-specific
model of self is probably more akin to a domain-specific
self-esteem measure than it is to overall or global self-
esteem. That is, global self-esteem has been hypothe-
sized to represent a sum or average of how an individual
feels about himself or herself across a wide variety of
domains. How one feels about the self in the context of a
particular relationship (or domain) may simply be one
of many contributors to how one feels about the self
overall.
The hierarchical regression analyses also allowed us
to compare the influence of the general mental models,
specific mental models, and self-esteem. With all three
sets of variables in the regression equations, specific
model of self and self-esteem were both independently
associated with the psychological adjustment variables;
however, the general mental models were not. Specific
model of self was somewhat more strongly related to
well-being than was self-esteem but it was less strongly
related to life satisfaction and, unlike self-esteem, it was
not related to depression. When examining
relationship-related outcomes, a different picture
emerged from our data. Specific model of self clearly
had the strongest relationships with these outcome vari-
ables. It was related to all of the relationship-specific out-
come variables, whereas self-esteem was only marginally
related to one (relationship satisfaction) and general
model of self was not related to any of these dependent
measures.
Taken together, this evidence suggests that both spe-
cific model of self and self-esteem have unique and
nonoverlapping relationships with overall psychological
adjustment, although these relationships are somewhat
stronger for self-esteem. Thus, if a researcher’s goal is to
predict an individual’s overall psychological functioning
and he or she can only assess a limited number of vari-
ables, using self-esteem as a predictor would likely
account for more variance in adjustment than would
using model of self. However, if participant time and
questionnaire space are not an issue, assessing model of
self as well as self-esteem will likely explain some addi-
tional variance, at least with regard to global indices of
quality of life. When predicting relationship-related out-
comes, researchers should clearly use relationship-
specific attachment measures.
616 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
Model of others and trust. We had predicted that trust
would be more highly correlated with general model of
others than with specific model of other. This hypothesis
was supported. In fact, the correlation between trust and
specific model of other was not significant. We had also
hypothesized that when trust was entered into the
regression analyses as a covariate, the effects of general
but not specific model of others would be reduced.
Given that general model of others had no significant
effects, the part of the hypothesis relating to these men-
tal models could not be supported. However, as
expected, partner-specific model of other was related to
the relationship-related outcomes and the magnitudes
of these effects were not reduced by the presence of trust
in the regression equations. This was not surprising
given that trust and specific model of others were uncor-
related and that trust was not related to the relationship-
specific outcome variables. These effects are likely due to
the fact that our trust measure asked about trusting peo-
ple in general. The effects of global trust such as this
would not be expected to reproduce the effects of trust-
ing one’s partner, who could well be perceived as more
or less trustworthy than people in general. In future
research, it would be informative to use a person-specific
trust measure such as the Specific Interpersonal Trust
Scale (Johnson-George & Swap, 1982) or the Trust Scale
(Rempel et al., 1985) as a covariate. Presumably, such a
measure would overlap much more with an individual’s
mental model of his or her partner and might reduce the
relationships between partner-specific model of other
and relationship-relevant outcomes.
Model of Self Versus Model of Others
Although we had not anticipated it, in our regression
analyses, model of self had more numerous and gener-
ally stronger effects than did model of others. Model of
self was related to some of the psychological adjustment
measures, but this was not the case for model of others or
the interaction between the two mental models. Model
of others was related to the relationship-relevant out-
comes, but only when assessed at the specific level. Thus,
model of self was related to a wide variety of feelings
about the self and intimate relationships but the role of
model of others was much more circumscribed. Because
few studies have directly compared the correlates or
effects of model of self and model of others, it is difficult
to know if our results are generalizable. However, some
studies do yield evidence that is roughly consistent with
our findings. For example, Cozzarelli et al. (1998) exam-
ined the relationships between general mental models
and postabortion well-being and distress. Model of self
was related to both psychological outcomes, but model
of others was not. (The two mental models did interact in
predicting well-being, however.) Lipschultz et al. (1995)
found, in contrast, that model of others was more
strongly related to relationship outcomes than was
model of self. Thus, pending further research, we would
speculate that model of others is primarily related to how
people feel about their relationships and that when this
mental model is related to overall mental health, it is
likely to be in the form of an interaction with model of
self. Model of self appears to not only be related to how
individuals feel about their relationships but to have a
strong association with their overall psychological func-
tioning as well.
Caveats and Future Research
In this article, we sought to examine the relationships
between mental models of attachment and both psycho-
logical adjustment and relationship-related outcomes.
However, the mental models measure that we used,
although it has been shown to be valid, is clearly not
ideal. Measuring mental models directly would be more
desirable but not necessarily easy, especially given the
fact that there seems to be no consensus as to what
exactly comprises mental models. Some formulations of
mental models (e.g., Collins & Read, 1994; Shaver et al.,
1996) have been quite complex and include things such
as goals, behaviors, unconscious urges, and psychologi-
cal defenses, whereas the implicit definition of mental
models derived from the Bartholomew and Horowitz
(1991) measure is, of necessity, simpler. Because many of
the predictions that researchers make about the impact
of adult attachment styles are predicated on the work-
ings of mental models, the field of attachment research
would greatly benefit from both a clarification of the
mental models construct and the development of a
direct measure of these models.
The current study also could have been improved by
the use of a more diverse group of participants, espe-
cially older individuals with more experience in relation-
ships. Such individuals would logically have very well-
developed mental models about their partners and these
models would likely be even more influential than the
specific mental models held by the participants in our
study. It would also be interesting to see whether the gen-
eral mental models of individuals who do not have a
romantic partner show stronger associations with overall
psychological adjustment than the general mental mod-
els of individuals with a romantic partner (such as our
research participants). Finally, we believe that this study
is only the necessary first step in exploring the differen-
tial correlates and impact of general and relationship-
specific mental models. Future research should extend
this study and should examine a broader array of out-
come variables (e.g., global perceptions of support,
relationship-specific perceptions of trust, loneliness) to
more clearly delimit the utility of various types of attach-
 Cozzarelli et al. / MENTAL MODELS OF ATTACHMENT
ment measures. Such an endeavor should make use of
multiple methods of data collection (e.g., interviews,
behavioral observation) and should seek to go beyond
the questionnaire methodology that we used here.
Conclusions
Overall, partner-specific mental models were more
strongly related to a variety of outcome variables than
were general mental models, especially when those out-
comes were related to the functioning of romantic rela-
tionships. In addition, in our regression analyses, the
effects of partner-specific model of self were not redun-
dant with those of self-esteem and in some cases were
stronger. Although general mental models were signifi-
cantly related to a few of the outcome measures we used,
self-esteem typically demonstrated stronger associations
with these variables. Based on this set of results, we strongly
recommend the use of relationship-specific measures of
attachment over the more common general measures,
especially in cases where the researcher is interested in
the functioning or outcomes of a particular relationship.
Overall, our results suggest that general measures of
attachment may be of fairly limited utility. They overlap
to some extent with other dispositional measures (e.g.,
Cozzarelli et al., 1998; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994;
Shaver & Hazan, 1993) and in this study they did not do a
particularly good job of explaining how people will
feel/behave in a particular relationship. Why have these
commonly used measures generated so much in the way
of research results? Our feeling is that this is likely due to
the fact that general mental models (or attachment
styles) correlate with more specific mental models and
are related to global dispositional variables that affect
psychological adjustment. Accordingly, general mental
models inherently share some variance with other vari-
ables that have been successfully related to a very wide
array of outcomes. But it may well be the case that except
for individuals who are not currently involved in a spe-
cific relationship, these global attachment measures
would always be of limited utility and that greater
explanatory precision would be achieved by using
attachment measures that are more precisely tailored to
the relationship of interest. We also conclude (as does
Baldwin et al., 1996) that conceptualizing attachment
styles as stable dispositional variables obscures much
variability across relationships and that focusing instead
on the particular mental models that are accessible or
activated in a given situation may be a more fruitful
approach.
NOTES
1. Comparisons between the two samples revealed no differences
on any of the variables in the study; therefore, subsequent analyses col-
lapsed across the two groups.
617
2. We chose to explore the effects of mental models rather than the
more traditional attachment styles because doing so allowed us to
explicitly contrast the effects of model of self and model of others and
because this procedure allowed us to examine the construct overlap
issue in a clearer manner. However, we also examined the effects of
categorical attachment style on all of our dependent variables. These
analyses yielded conclusions that did not differ substantively from
those we report in the body of the article.
3. Although relationship length was not correlated with any of the
outcome variables in the study, we thought it possible that this variable
might moderate the associations between general/specific mental
models and the relationship-related outcome variables. To address this
issue, we examined all possible interactions of this type. The interac-
tion between relationship length and specific model of self was margin-
ally associated with love (β = .26, p = .07). The pattern of this interaction
suggested that although reports of love decreased slightly over time for
all participants, this effect was more pronounced for individuals with a
positive model of self. No other interactions were significant.
4. Relatedly, it is possible that the association between the specific
mental models and the relationship-related outcome variables is at
least partly due to overlap in the items that comprise the two sets of
measures. To address this issue, we compared the items on the attach-
ment scales with those comprising the relationship satisfaction and
romantic love measures. The items comprising the relationship satis-
faction measure were judged to be nonoverlapping with those com-
prising the attachment measures. However, three of the items in the
love scales were judged to be somewhat similar in wording to portions
of the attachment measures. Accordingly, we dropped these items and
reran all of our analyses. The patterns of results that we report in the
body of this article were completely unchanged by this procedure.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpret-
ing interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the
self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596-612.
Baldwin, M. W., & Fehr, B. (1995). On the instability of attachment style
ratings. Personal Relationships, 22, 247-261.
Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, M.P.R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh-Rangarajoo,
E. (1996). Social-cognitive conceptualizations of attachment work-
ing models: Availability and accessibility effects. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 71, 94-109.
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(2), 226-244.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York:
International Universities Press.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. I. Attachment. Middlesex, UK:
Penguin.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. II. Separation: Anxiety and
anger. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London:
Tavistock.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. III. Loss. New York: Basic
Books.
Brannon, R. (1976). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior. In B. Sei-
denberg & A. Snadowsky (Eds.), Social psychology (pp. 145-197).
New York: Free Press.
Brennan, K. A., & Bosson, J. K. (1998). Attachment-style differences in
attitudes toward and reactions to feedback from romantic partners:
An exploration of the relational bases of self-esteem. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 699-714.
Bretherton, I., Biringen, Z., Ridgeway, D., Maslin, C., & Sherman, M.
(1989). Attachment: A parental perspective. Infant Mental Health
Journal, 10, 203-221.
Bridges, L. J., Connell, J. P., & Belsky, J. (1988). Similarities and differ-
ences in infant-mother and infant-father interaction in the strange
situation: A component process analysis. Developmental Psychology,
24, 92-100.
618 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
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.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1994). Cognitive representations of attach-
ment: The content and function of working models. In K. Bartholo-
mew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 5,
pp. 53-90). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Cozzarelli, C., Sumer, N., & Major, B. (1998). Mental models of attach-
ment and coping with abortion. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 74, 453-467.
Davis, M. H., Morris, M. M., & Kraus, L. A. (1998). Relationship-specific
and global perceptions of social support: Associations with well-
being and attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
468-481.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larson, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satis-
faction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75.
Duck, S. (1998). Relating to others. Chicago: Dorsey.
Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of
adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 58, 281-291.
Fincham, F. D. (1998). Marital quality. In E. A. Blechman & K. D.
Brownell (Eds.), Behavioral medicine and women: A comprehensive
handbook (pp. 108-112). New York: Guilford.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior:
An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fox, N. A., Kimmerly, N. L., & Schafer, W. D. (1991). Attachment to
mother/attachment to father: A meta-analysis. Child Development,
62, 210-225.
Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other:
Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attach-
ment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 430-445.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Conceptualizing romantic love as an
attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,
511-524.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational
framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry,
5, 1-22.
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93-98.
Johnson-George, C., & Swap, W. C. (1982). Measurement of specific
interpersonal trust: Construction and validation of a scale to assess
trust in a specific other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43,
1306-1317.
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Davis, K. E. (1994). Attachment style, gender, and
relationship stability: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 66, 502-512.
Kobak, R. R., & Hazan, C. (1991). Attachment in marriage: The effects
of security and accuracy of working models. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 60, 861-869.
Lamb, M. E. (1978). Qualitative aspects of mother-infant and father-
infant attachments. Infant Behavior and Development, 1, 265-275.
Lipschultz, W., Wall, J. J., Scotilla, S., Bylsma, W. H., & Cozzarelli, C.
(1995, June). Attachment self and other models predict relationship qual-
ity better than attachment styles. Paper presented at the annual meet-
ing of the American Psychological Society, New York.
Major, B., Zubek, J. M., Cooper, M. L., Cozzarelli, C., & Richards, C.
(1997). Mixed messages: Implications of social conflict and social
support within close relationships for adjustment to a stressful life
event. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1349-1363.
Meyers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science,
6, 10-19.
Mikulincer, M. (1998). Attachment working models and the sense of
trust: An exploration of interaction goals and affect regulation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1209-1224.
Mikulincer, M., & Nachshon, O. (1991). Attachment styles and pat-
terns of self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
321-331.
Pietromonaco, P. R., & Feldman Barrett, L. (1997). Working models of
attachment and daily social interactions. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73, 1409-1423.
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close rela-
tionships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95-112.
Rosenberg, M. (1957). Occupations and values (pp. 25-35). Glencoe, IL:
Free Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Rothbard, J. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Continuity of attachment across
the lifecourse: An attachment-theoretical perspective on personal-
ity. In M. B. Sperling & W. H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults:
Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 31-71). New York: Guilford.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the
meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, 1069-1081.
Shaver, P. R., Collins, N., & Clark, C. L. (1996). Attachment styles and
internal working models of self and relationship partners. In G.J.O.
Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships:
A social psychological approach (pp. 25-61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Shaver, P. R., & Hazan, C. (1993). Adult romantic attachment: Theory
and evidence. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in
personal relationships (Vol. 4, pp. 29-70). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Simpson, J. A. (1990). The influence of attachment style on romantic
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 971-980.
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.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triangle of love: Intimacy, passion, commitment.
New York: Basic Books.
Sumer, N., Cozzarelli, C., & Burns, M. (1996, May). A direct measure of
mental models of attachment. Poster presented at the 68th annual con-
vention of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.
Received July 6, 1998
Revision accepted February 3, 1999