PROCESS

The Brief Accessibility, Responsiveness, and

Engagement (BARE) Scale: A Tool for Measuring
Attachment Behavior in Couple Relationships
JONATHAN G. SANDBERG*†
DEAN M. BUSBY*†
SUSAN M. JOHNSON**
KEITARO YOSHIDA*

This article describes the purpose, reliability, validity, and potential clinical applica-
tions of the Brief Accessibility, Responsiveness, and Engagement (BARE) scale. In addi-
tion to focusing on the central attachment behaviors of accessibility and responsiveness,
this instrument highlights the key role of engagement in couple bonding. The BARE is a
short, systemic, self-report measure of attachment behaviors in couple relationships. Both
classical testing theory and Item Response Theory were used to test the psychometric
properties of the instrument. The BARE demonstrated appropriate reliability and validity
while maintaining its brevity and potential usefulness for clinicians and researchers. The
BARE also accurately predicted the key relationship outcomes of stability and satisfac-
tion. The data for this study were collected from the RELATE assessment (see www.
relate-institute.org).

Keywords: Couples Therapy; Attachment; Measurement

Fam Proc 51:512–526, 2012

CLINICAL RELEVANCE OF COUPLE ATTACHMENT IN ADULTHOOD

A ttachment theory, initially proposed by the ground-breaking observational and theo-

retical work of John Bowlby (1969) and the research of Mary Salter Ainsworth (1973),
describes an “inborn regulatory system” central to “social behavior” and the development
of “emotional stability, mental health, and satisfying, close relationships” in all human
beings (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, p. 28). These core attachment concepts, including
the inborn drive to seek and develop secure attachment relationships, have been estab-
lished over many decades and across ethnic, racial, and cultural differences (van IJzendo-
orn & Sagi-Schwartz, 2008). Bowlby (1973) described accessibility and responsiveness as

†
Equal authorship.
*School of Family Life, Brigham Young University, 266 TLRBBYU, Provo, UT 84602.
**University of Ottawa and Ottawa Couple and Family Therapy Institute.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jonathan G. Sandberg, School of Family
Life, Brigham Young University, 266 TLRB BYU, Provo, UT 84602. E-mail: jonathan_sandberg@byu.edu.
In the version of the BARE tested in this article, the term “Even when we are apart” was in the stem for
question 4 and question 10, but this stem was recently removed due to theoretical problems in that respon-
siveness is not something that is only important or different when people are apart. The two versions of
the question were, for all practical purposes, statistically equivalent.

512
Family Process, Vol. 51, No. 4, 2012 © FPI, Inc.
doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01422.x
SANDBERG, BUSBY, JOHNSON, & YOSHIDA / 513
key behaviors in relationships that largely determine a person’s state of security, anxiety,
or distress. Strong attachment bonds can provide a safe haven and a secure base for a
person, which help to “buffer against the effects of stress and uncertainty,” as well as
“promote the confidence necessary to risk, learn, and continually update models of self,
others, and the world” (Johnson, 2003, p. 5).
Researchers have shown that the presence of an attachment figure in adulthood, such
as a romantic partner, can also produce feelings of security, relief, and additional positive
affect; the absence of such a figure most often leads to distancing (avoidance) or hypervigi-
lant (anxiety) behaviors (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). In the absence of secure attach-
ment, both avoidant and anxious behaviors serve the same purpose, which is to help a
person manage the experience of insecurity that accompanies the threat of isolation, loss,
or abandonment (Johnson, 2003).
A large body of couple research has shown that “relational quality is higher for individ-
uals who are securely attached, and for those whose partners are securely attached”
(Feeney, 2008, p. 468). In addition, attachment anxiety or avoidance has been associated
with numerous mental and physical health problems, including depressive symptoms,
mental illness and violence, pain severity, and functional recovery from chronic fatigue
and fibromyalgia (Hammill, 2010; Mcevoy, 2005; Reis & Grenyer, 2004; Tremblay &
Sullivan, 2010). The purpose of this study is to highlight the importance of specific behav-
iors central to couple bonding, as well as to propose a new approach to measuring these
behaviors that can be easily used in clinical practice or research.
Beyond specific attachment styles, researchers have identified key behaviors in cou-
ple relationships that are central to forming strong attachment bonds (Feeney, 2008;
see also Cordova & Scott, 2001, and Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998, for
excellent descriptions of specific behaviors that influence closeness in couple relation-
ships). As Bowlby (1973) originally proposed, accessibility and responsiveness are key
measurable behaviors in relationships that largely determine a person’s state of secu-
rity, anxiety, or distress (see also Mikulincer & Goodman, 2006). If a partner is to
become a comforter and protector, accessibility alone (physical, emotional, and psycho-
logical) will not be enough in the absence of nurturing and soothing. When a partner
in distress is able to present specific requests for closeness and connection in a manner
that makes it likely to occur, and the other partner reaches out in comforting and
soothing ways, new bonding events can occur (Johnson, 2004). These bonding moments
can be described as engagement, the third key measurable marker of attachment
(Johnson, 2008).

HOW TO MEASURE BEHAVIOR THAT FACILITATES COUPLE ATTACHMENT

Despite growing interest in couple attachment among both clinicians and researchers,
defining and measuring this systemic concept remains a challenge. Using the Adult
Attachment Interview as a guide, a number of researchers have developed a marital or
couple attachment interview (see Alexandrov, Cowan, & Cowan, 2005, for an excellent
review). Also, Wampler, Riggs, and Kimball (2004) developed the Adult Attachment
Behavior Q-Set to code couple interaction data and classify behavior in terms of attach-
ment style. These approaches to measuring couple level attachment rely primarily on a
categorical classification, with distinct boundaries between archetypal secure, anxious,
and avoidant styles. The purpose of these measures is to understand attachment styles
within relationships more than to identify and highlight behavior that facilitates bonding
among couples. This lack of focus on systemic interaction, or actual experience between
partners, prevents existing measures from identifying and describing behaviors that
promote and maintain attachment at a couple level.

Fam. Proc., Vol. 51, December, 2012

514 / FAMILY PROCESS

Therefore, research on clinically relevant behavior and experiences that lead to attach-
ment bonding, including behavior that can be facilitated in session, would provide empiri-
cal and theoretical depth to the study of attachment. In order for this research to move
forward, there is a need for a brief self-report measure that can assess key attachment
system behaviors (accessibility, responsiveness, and engagement), and that can be easily
and quickly administered and scored by the average clinician or researcher. In this study,
we present and evaluate the reliability and validity of a new measure called the Brief
Accessibility, Responsiveness, and Engagement (BARE) Scale.

METHODS
Drawing from the work of Susan Johnson (2008), an initial pool of items (30 in total)
was created to measure the three constructs of accessibility, responsiveness, and engage-
ment. These items were then administered to a pilot sample of approximately 100 under-
graduate students in an exclusive relationship with a partner to evaluate the initial
reliability and factor structures of the scales. Based on these findings, several items were
omitted; others were revised or rewritten for each construct, resulting in a 12-item scale
with two items for each construct in which individuals rated both themselves and their
partners. These items were then inserted into the RELATE instrument in 2009 (Busby,
Holman, & Taniguchi, 2001), and administered to the thousands of couples who use this
instrument each year. The sample and results from this study were obtained from those
who completed RELATE in 2009 and 2010.

Quota Sample
A quota sample (Cozby, 2009) was developed from the larger RELATE sample because
more participants take RELATE from the western United States, where there is a higher
percentage of Caucasians than is the case in other areas of the country. This quota sam-
pling technique is a commonly used method to improve haphazard samples (Cozby, 2009),
and has been used with earlier versions of the RELATE data in previously published arti-
cles (Busby, Gardner, & Taniguchi, 2005; Busby, Holman, & Niehuis, 2009). It is accom-
plished by selecting out all the members of the smallest underrepresented group, in this
case the African-American group, and then selecting out random subsamples of the other
groups, so that the percentages of all the racial groups are closer to national norms (US
Census Bureau, 2008).
The sample used in this study consisted of 1,459 participants. Fifty-nine percent of the
sample described themselves as women, and 41% men. Sixty-seven percent of the sample
described themselves as Caucasian, 15% Hispanic, 12% African American, 4% Asian, 1%
Native American, and 1% as Bi-racial. In terms of self-descriptions regarding religious
affiliation, 50% selected Protestant, 25% Catholic, 11% as members of other religions,
with 14% listing “none” as their religious affiliation. Six percent of the sample had
earned a high school education or less, 38% had taken some college credit but had not
earned a Bachelor’s degree, 25% had earned a Bachelor’s degree, and 31% had taken
some graduate level education or earned a graduate degree. The average age of the sam-
ple was 32 years with a standard deviation of 11 years. Thirty-two percent of the partici-
pants were in a “serious dating relationship,” 36% were engaged, and 32% were married.
Seventeen percent of the sample had experienced a divorce previous to their current rela-
tionship. In terms of the length of their current romantic relationships from the time
they were dating exclusively to the time they completed RELATE, 10% had been in a
relationship for less than 6 months, 10% had been in a relationship from 6 months to
1 year, 17% had been in a relationship from 1 to 2 years, 24% had been in a relationship
from 3 to 5 years, 19% had been in a relationship from 6 to 10 years, 11% percent had

www.FamilyProcess.org
SANDBERG, BUSBY, JOHNSON, & YOSHIDA / 515
been in a relationship from 11 to 20 years, and the remaining 9% had been in a relation-
ship for more than 20 years. Ninety-six percent of the sample listed heterosexual as their
sexual orientation whereas two percent listed homosexual and two percent listed bisex-
ual as their sexual orientation.

Test–Retest Sample
A small sample of 62 participants took RELATE twice within 3 weeks, providing an
opportunity to evaluate test–retest reliability for the new BARE scales. This sample was
not a quota sample and the demographics for this group can be obtained by contacting the
authors.

Procedure
All participants completed an appropriate consent form prior to the completion of the
RELATE instrument, and all data collection procedures were approved by the institu-
tional review board at the first authors’ university. Individuals completed RELATE online
after being exposed to the instrument through a variety of sources. Thirty-five percent of
the sample participants were referred to the online site by their instructor in a class, 29%
of participants were directed to the site by a relationship educator or therapist, 9% of par-
ticipants were sent to the site by clergy, 23% of participants were referred to the site by a
friend or family member, and 4% of participants were referred by an ad they saw online or
in a print or by searching for RELATE on the web.

Analysis Strategy
The BARE instrument (see Appendix A for full version) was analyzed using both classi-
cal testing theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT) to explore reliability and validity
from a variety of angles. From the CTT approach, the BARE was evaluated for reliability
with the Cronbach’s and Test–Retest statistics. From the IRT approach the items and sub-
scales were evaluated for reliability, ability to distinguish different segments of the popu-
lation (separation), and fit of the hypothesized latent constructs to the data.
Construct Validity was explored with a confirmatory factor analysis to see if the sub-
scale items loaded most strongly on their respective scales. Concurrent validity was
explored through two methods: first, by exploring whether the BARE scores could predict
which couples were in a satisfied or dissatisfied relationship and whether they were in
a relationship characterized by high or low stability; second, by correlating the scores on
the BARE with established scales from the RELATE instrument evaluating Positive and
Negative Communication, Attachment Avoidance and Attachment Anxiety, Relationship
Stability, and Relationship Satisfaction.
RELATE Scales for Relationship Satisfaction, Stability, Communication, and Attachment
The following paragraphs describe the RELATE scales used to measure key variables
in the study. All Likert-based scales have demonstrated reliability and validity in previous
studies (Busby & Gardner, 2008; Busby, Ivey, Harris, & Ates, 2007; Busby et al., 2001).
The relationship satisfaction scale consisted of questions about how satisfied participants
were with seven different areas including time they spent together, love and physical inti-
macy experienced, the way conflict was resolved, communication, relationship equality,
and satisfaction with their overall relationship. The relationship stability scale consisted
of three questions that asked respondents how often they thought that their relationship
was in trouble, how often they thought of ending the relationship, and how often they had
broken up and gotten back together. The positive communication scale was a seven-item
measure designed to evaluate how well individuals were able to listen and understand

Fam. Proc., Vol. 51, December, 2012

516 / FAMILY PROCESS

their partner during communication and to discuss and express themselves clearly. The
negative communication scale consisted of seven items measuring criticism and contempt/
defensiveness. The attachment avoidance and anxiety scales came from an established
measure called the Adult Attachment Questionnaire (AAQ) published by Simpson and col-
leagues (Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996).

RESULTS
Classical Testing Theory (CTT)
Traditional means for testing reliability (Cronbach’s alpha and test–retest) were
employed in this study. Cronbach Alphas ranged from .66 to .85 for all six self and partner
A.R.E. scores. Test–retest scores ranged from .60 to .75 on the same sub-scales.

IRT analysis
Item Response Theory provides additional analyses of the BARE scales beyond what
CTT provides. In this study we used the Winsteps program version 3.68 (Linacre, 2009) to
analyze the scales. The IRT method used by Winsteps is Rasch modeling. Before reporting
the results, it is important to provide a few guidelines to help interpret the findings, as
this approach is relatively new in the literature (Funk & Rogge, 2007). Winsteps provides
two types of reliability statistics: person reliability and item reliability. Person reliability
evaluates the ability of the scale to differentiate participants on the measured latent trait
and the replicability of the placement of participants on that latent continuum (Wright &
Masters, 1982). According to the Winsteps manual, person reliability is more stringent
than Cronbach’s alpha, and tends to underestimate true reliability (Linacre, 2009). On the
other hand, item reliability indicates the width of a measures coverage; the lower the
value of the item reliability, the narrower the range of the latent trait continuum being
measured.
Person (or Item) separation indicates an estimate of the spread of persons (or items) on
the measured latent continuum (Wright & Masters, 1982). Person (or item) separation has
a range from zero to infinity, and ideally should be at least 1.25, which indicates that the
scale separates persons or items (or both) into at least two distinct groups (Linacre, 2009).
Table 1 contains the summary statistics for each of the RELATE subscales obtained in the
Rasch analyses, and shows that all the scales except Accessibility Self exceeded the 1.25
cutoff for separation.
Additional summary statistics called Rasch fit statistics were used to assess how well
the data fit the model. The outfit and infit statistics are typically reported as both mean-
square fit statistics (MNSQ) and as z-standardized fit statistics (ZSTD). MNSQ values
between 0.5 and 1.5 indicate a good fit (Linacre, 2009). MNSQ essentially indicates the
level of randomness in the data. For ZSTD, ±2.0 (i.e., 2 SD away from the mean, 0.0) is
often used as cutoff values for good fit. The results in Table 1 show that of the 48 MNSQ
and ZSTD scores, all but four of them demonstrated good fit, and these four statistics were
not for the same subscale.
The statistics in Table 1 illustrate that the IRT results are generally consistent with the
CTT results in that the scales have adequate reliability, are able to distinguish different
segments of the population, and fit the data well. Almost all of the reliability, separation,
and fit statistics are within the recommended range. The weakest scale according to these
results is the Accessibility Self scale, and the strongest is the Engagement Self scale.
The IRT analyses also provide important test information curves that give an estima-
tion of both the amount and range of information each scale provides on the latent

www.FamilyProcess.org
 TABLE 1
Rasch Summary and Fit Statistics for the BARE Scales

Fam. Proc., Vol. 51, December, 2012

Reliability Person level fit statistics (mean) Item level fit statistics (mean)
SANDBERG, BUSBY, JOHNSON, & YOSHIDA

Person Item Infit Outfit Infit Outfit

Scale Separation Reliability Separation Reliability MNSQ ZTSD MNSQ ZTSD MNSQ ZTSD MNSQ ZTSD

Accessibility 1.07 .53 1.73 .99 0.61 0.90 0.61 0.91 0.99 0.20 0.72 2.70
Responsiveness 1.31 .69 10.18 .99 0.77 0.40 0.81 0.40 0.95 0.90 0.87 1.40
Engagement 1.70 .74 9.97 .99 0.88 0.20 0.90 0.20 0.97 0.70 0.90 1.91
Accessibility(p) 1.75 .75 3.91 .94 0.63 0.70 0.63 0.70 0.98 0.40 0.73 2.70
Responsiveness(p) 1.60 .78 2.84 .98 0.84 0.50 0.85 0.50 0.99 0.10 0.85 2.10
Engagement(p) 1.62 .72 4.42 .95 0.88 0.40 0.89 0.40 0.98 0.40 0.89 2.40

Note. “(p)” = Partner Scales; MNSQ = Mean-Square Fit Statistic; ZSTD = z-Standardized Fit Statistic; Infit = Inlier-Pattern-Sensitive Fit Statistic;
Outfit = Outlier-Sensitive Fit Statistic.
/ 517
518 / FAMILY PROCESS

Accessibility Self Scale Responsiveness Self Scale

Engagement Self Scale Accessibility Partner Scale

Responsiveness Partner Scale Engagement Partner Scale

FIGURE 1. Information curves for the BARE scales

constructs being measured. In general, the more area underneath an information curve,
the better (Funk & Rogge, 2007). Figure 1 contains the test information curves for the six
scales of the BARE. These results indicate a moderate area of coverage for most scales.

www.FamilyProcess.org
SANDBERG, BUSBY, JOHNSON, & YOSHIDA / 519
This is better than expected as each scale only consisted of two correlated items. These
curves also suggest that the area toward the positive side of the X axis is typically covered
better than the negative side, meaning the areas of the scale correspond to higher scores
for the Accessibility, Responsiveness, and Engagement Self and Partner scales. Overall
the Engagement scales had the largest amount of information coverage under the curves,
whereas the Accessibility scale for the partner provided the least amount of information.

Validity
Construct validity
The construct validity of the BARE was analyzed using AMOS version 18, a Structural
Equation Modeling program. We followed the recommendations of McDonald and Ho
(2002) and Kline (2005) to report both absolute fit indexes and incremental fit indexes. The
analysis of the model indicated that the model was an excellent fit to the data. The sample
size for the SEM analysis was 1,183. The initial results demonstrated adequate fit and fac-
tor loadings, but the modification indices suggested that correlating two error terms
between the items for accessibility and responsiveness would improve the fit; conse-
quently, these error terms were correlated, and the results for this model are shown in
Figure 2. The chi-square for the model with self scales in Figure 2 with 4 degrees of free-
dom was 7.24 and was not significant (p = .124), the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) was .98, the
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was .99, while the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA) was .03. All these results suggest that the model is an excellent fit to the data.
All the factor loadings and correlations illustrated in Figure 2 were significant at
p < .01, and the size of the factor loadings suggest that the two items for each scale factor
together well. Although the correlations between the scales were strong as expected, the
model fit statistics and modification indices indicated that items did not cross load on the
wrong scales and did not substantially overlap.

FIGURE 2. Confirmatory factor analysis results for the BARE self scales

Fam. Proc., Vol. 51, December, 2012

520 / FAMILY PROCESS

FIGURE 3. Confirmatory factor analysis results for the BARE partner scales

Figure 3 contains the results for the BARE partner scales. The chi-square for the model
in Figure 3 with 5 df was 6.79 and was not significant (p = .236), the TLI was .99, the CFI
was, .99, whereas the RMSEA was .01. Again, all these results suggest the model was an
excellent fit to the data. In addition, the factor loadings were strong for the partner scales,
and although the correlations between scales were strong, the results did not indicate that
scale items loaded on the wrong scales. The results for both the self and partner scales
indicated that the construct validity was strong for the BARE scales.
Concurrent validity
Concurrent validity was evaluated by conducting a discriminant analysis where the
BARE scales were used to predict whether couples were in a low or high satisfaction or
stability group. The sample was divided into three equal groups based on their satisfaction
scores, and the low and high groups were used in the discriminant analyses. The low-satis-
faction group ranged from 0 to 3.29 on the Satisfaction scale, with a mean of 2.6, and the
high-satisfaction group ranged from 4.1 to 5, with a mean of 4.5. The same technique was
employed with the Relationship Stability scale. On the Stability scale (where higher scores
indicated less stability), the low-stability group ranged from 2.4 and above with a mean of
3.2, and the high stability group ranged from 0 to 1.7, with a mean of 1.2.
The overall Wilk’s lambda for the discriminant analyses with the Relationship Satis-
faction scale was significant, Λ = .37, v2(6, Ν = 806) = 802.23, p < .001, indicating that
the BARE scales differentiated between the high-satisfaction group and the low-satisfac-
tion group. The overall Wilk’s lambda for the discriminant analyses with the Relation-
ship Stability scale was significant, Λ = .53, v2(6, Ν = 806) = 401.59, p < .001, indicating
that the BARE scales differentiated between the high- and low-stability groups. The
results of pooled within-groups correlations between the predictors and the standardized
canonical discriminant functions demonstrate that the single best scale for discriminat-
ing between the high- and low-satisfaction and stability groups was the Engagement
Self scale followed by the Engagement Partner scale. With the remaining scales, the

www.FamilyProcess.org
SANDBERG, BUSBY, JOHNSON, & YOSHIDA / 521
TABLE 2
Participants Correctly Classified into Low- and High-Satisfaction and Stability Groups based on the
BARE scales

Original sample Cross-validated sample

Satisfaction Stability Satisfaction Stability

Low High Low High Low High Low High

Number of cases 344 380 243 291 342 380 242 290
Percentage 84.5 95.5 76.9 88.2 84.0 95.5 76.6 87.9
Overall%
89.9% 82.7% 89.7% 82.4%

partner scales had a much stronger ability than the self scales for discriminating
between the two groups.
When we tried to predict relationship satisfaction and stability group membership, we
were able to correctly classify 90% of our sample for the satisfaction variable and 83% of
the sample for the stability variable, compared to 50% who would be correctly classified
by chance alone (see Table 2). As is evident from Table 2, participants’ scores on the
BARE scales were substantially better than chance at predicting both the high and low
groups for satisfaction and stability, and even better at predicting participants in the
high groups.
Finally, to assess how well the classification procedure would predict in a new sample,
we estimated the percent of cases correctly classified using the leave-one-out technique
(cross-validation technique). This statistical approach is where one case is left out and
classified based on discriminant functions obtained on the remaining cases, and this pro-
cess is repeated until all cases have been left out once; therefore, the data used for classifi-
cation are not the same as the ones used in formulating the classification statistics
(Huberty, 1984). With this technique, we were able to estimate more accurately how well
the classification functions should predict with a new sample, even though we only had
one sample. With the leave-one-out technique, we obtained a 90% correct classification
rate for the satisfaction variable, and an 82% correct classification rate for the stability
variable, as indicated in Table 2 under the cross-validation section. This indicated that
our classification procedure was stable.
Concurrent validity was also evaluated by correlating the summed scores on the BARE
scales with established measures on the RELATE instrument that have been extensively
evaluated and used in published research for Relationship Satisfaction, Relationship
Stability, Positive and Negative Communication (Busby, Walker, & Holman, 2011; Busby
et al., 2001, 2007; Busby & Gardner, 2008), and established measures of Anxious and
Avoidant Attachment (Simpson et al., 1996). These correlations are listed in Table 3. All
correlations in Table 3 were significant at p < .01.
The correlations for the BARE scales and the relationship outcomes used in this
study provide solid evidence for the concurrent validity of the BARE instrument. The
scales are strongly correlated with relationship satisfaction, relationship stability, and
positive communication, for both self and partner. These correlations are large enough
to suggest that the BARE scales are tapping into important relationship issues, but are
not so large as to indicate they are simply alternative measures of the relationship out-
come scales. In general, the Engagement scales had slightly larger correlations with
the relationship outcomes, and the partner scales had stronger correlations than the
self scales.

Fam. Proc., Vol. 51, December, 2012

 522 /

TABLE 3
Correlations between the BARE Scales and Common Relationship Outcomes

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. Accessibility self 1
2. Accessibility partner .32 1
3. Responsiveness self .50 .36 1
4. Responsiveness partner .26 .65 .48 1
5. Engagement self .43 .60 .52 .64 1
6. Engagement partner .32 .60 .40 .61 .65 1
7. Rel. Satisfaction .35 .69 .49 .73 .74 .66 1
8. Rel. Instability .22 .46 .28 .48 .52 .46 .60 1
9. Poss. Comm. Self .44 .54 .57 .61 .66 .57 .73 .50 1
10. Poss. Comm. Partner .33 .67 .47 .73 .66 .68 .78 .56 .73 1
11. Neg. Comm. Self .33 .45 .35 .44 .49 .42 .58 .56 .55 .57 1
12. Neg. Comm. Partner .28 .50 .33 .56 .55 .49 .64 .56 .56 .64 .73 1
13. Nonanxious attachment .09 .42 .09 .40 .36 .43 .40 .44 .35 .40 .33 .36 1
14. Nonavoidant attachment .25 .24 .22 .17 .31 .21 .24 .26 .32 .26 .28 .23 .29 1

www.FamilyProcess.org
FAMILY PROCESS
SANDBERG, BUSBY, JOHNSON, & YOSHIDA / 523
The BARE scales were moderately correlated with attachment measures of anxiety
and avoidance. The Accessibility and Responsiveness scales for self had the weakest
correlations with the attachment measures and the Engagement Scales had the strong-
est relationship with the attachment measures. These attachment measures were
assessing the participants’ general style of attachment rather than their specific attach-
ment behaviors for the current relationship so we expected that these correlations
would be lower than measures assessing specific attributes or experiences in their
current relationship.
For the purposes of establishing initial normative data, the means and the standard
deviations on the BARE scales for the high- and low-satisfaction and stability groups were
calculated. The discriminant analysis procedure analyzes differences between these
groups using a Oneway Analysis of Variance. All the means in analysis were significantly
different, at p < .001, between the high- and low-satisfaction and stability groups (for a
complete table describing this analysis please contact the authors). Although all means on
the BARE scales are substantially different between the two groups, of particular note are
the almost 2-point differences on a 5-point scale for the low and high groups on the
Engagement scales. The Engagement scales seem to be particularly powerful at discrimi-
nating between low- and high-satisfaction and stability groups.

DISCUSSION
Results from both CTT and ITT procedures show that the BARE demonstrates appro-
priate reliability and validity (construct and concurrent) while maintaining its brevity and
applicability to clinical and educational settings. Correlations between the AAQ and
BARE lend further support to the concept that adult attachment style and couple relation-
ship attachment are distinct but related working models of attachment (Cowan, Cowan, &
Mehta, 2009).
The results of this study also confirm research suggesting that attachment behaviors
can be recognized and measured, even in a self-report format (Mikulincer & Shaver,
2007). Although accessibility and responsiveness have long been considered key observa-
ble behaviors in the development of secure attachment (Bowlby, 1973), the current
study also highlights the importance of engagement (the ability to feel close and con-
nected to one’s partner). Specifically, the results suggest that the Engagement scales
were particularly powerful at discriminating between low- and high-satisfaction and sta-
bility groups, again emphasizing the practical uses of the BARE for both clinicians and
researchers.
Although the results imply that the BARE is a good instrument that can be used with
confidence, there are limitations to this study that should be considered when interpreting
results and when using the instrument with clinical samples. Although a two-item mea-
sure is quick and convenient, this makes the instrument more vulnerable should a respon-
dent misread one of the questions. Consequently, if a very low score is obtained in one of
the areas, but not the others, it may be useful to question participants about how they
understood the questions to make sure they were properly interpreted.
The sample used in this study is national and relatively similar in terms of racial
demographics to the US population as a whole; however, it is more educated than
national norms and is not clinical, although certainly some couples are functioning
poorly in their relationship. Likewise, although attachment needs are universal (van
IJzendoorn & Sagi-Schwartz, 2008), traditional cultural expressions of accessibility,
responsiveness, and engagement will likely vary around the globe; therefore therapists
must determine how these results may apply to specific client circumstances. Conse-
quently, more work needs to be done to clinically calibrate this instrument across

Fam. Proc., Vol. 51, December, 2012

524 / FAMILY PROCESS

populations. Also, those using the BARE in clinical settings should not rely on it as a
singular or even primary source of the constructs that are measured until future
research is published. The statistical analyses indicated that the Accessibility Self Scale
was the weakest scale and this scale should be interpreted with the most caution,
although the results show it was adequate across most of the analyses. Finally, the data
for this study are cross-sectional, indicating that the validity information in particular
needs to be reproduced across time to explore how well the scores predict couple change
and growth.

Implications for Clinicians

The nature and focus of the BARE make it particularly useful for couple-focused inter-
ventionists. First, because the BARE is short and easily scored, clinicians can feed current
and relevant data back into the session/class as it is gathered. Second, the BARE focuses
on a systemic perspective on relationship functioning. Because clients are asked to
describe both their partner’s and their own levels of accessibility, responsiveness, and
engagement, clinicians are able to weigh the self and other scores for each partner. This
unique focus becomes increasingly important as the results suggest BARE partner scores
were more strongly correlated with key relationship outcomes (satisfaction and stability),
and may provide clinicians and researchers with a more complete view of relationship
functioning (Busby & Gardner, 2008). Third, the BARE provides interventionists with a
snapshot of perceived attachment or connection in the relationship above and beyond tra-
ditional measures of attachment styles. This conceptualization of couple attachment
allows interventionists to screen for and address the current level of connection between
two partners in adult romantic relationships.
Fourth, the BARE highlights the need for partners to engage or connect, in addition
to being merely physically accessible or responsive to calls for attention. Because a
common concern for many partners in the 21st century is having a present, but
unreachable partner who is distracted by gaming, social networking, or other screen
time (CiNews, 2009), the BARE’s focus on bonding moments or actual connection can
provide clinicians with a pathway into difficult dialogues around disconnection and
loneliness (Johnson, 2008). Fifth, the BARE is predictive of relationship satisfaction
and stability, key outcomes that are of central concern to both clients and communi-
ties because marital disruption, particularly in the presence of children, has long term
personal and societal costs (Caldwell, Woolley, & Caldwell, 2007). The results suggest
that by working to improve a couple’s level of attachment, a clinician can also help to
foster stability and improve satisfaction. Finally, the BARE can help interventionists
identify attachment related concerns and adapt established attachment based pro-
grams to foster specific behaviors to enhance levels of accessibility, responsiveness,
and engagement.

Implications for Future Research

Future research efforts must be expanded to include clinical populations. Because the
BARE is primarily a clinical and educational tool, norms must be established among cou-
ples with martial concerns and/or full blown clinical problems. In addition, utilizing the
BARE in a pre and post test design would allow for the linking of certain models of therapy
or enrichment programs to attachment related outcomes. Because of the internationaliza-
tion of attachment-based models like Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy, data are
needed from global populations with a diversity of perspectives and languages regarding
attachment. It is our hope that the BARE will be used and tested widely, across a variety
of settings.

www.FamilyProcess.org
SANDBERG, BUSBY, JOHNSON, & YOSHIDA / 525
In conclusion, behaviors that demonstrate accessibility, responsiveness, and engage-
ment in couple relationships are important for secure bonding, relationship satisfaction,
and stability. Because many couples seek therapy and/or education to help make their
relationships more rewarding and permanent, interventionists may wish to pay closer
attention to a couple’s level of attachment, which appears to be predictive of major rela-
tionship outcomes. The BARE provides a short, reliable, and practical method for measur-
ing central constructs that are theoretically and clinically related to couple attachment,
thereby providing clinicians and researchers with a simple way to focus on and discuss
attachment with couples.

APPENDIX A: THE BARE ITEMS LISTED BY SUBSCALE*

Please circle the number that best represents your experiences in your current relation-
ship with your partner.
Accessibility
1. I am rarely available to my partner. 1 2 3 4 5
2. It is hard for my partner to get my attention. 1 2 3 4 5
Responsiveness
3. I listen when my partner shares her/his deepest feelings. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I am confident I reach out to my partner 1 2 3 4 5
Engagement
5. It is hard for me to confide in my partner. 1 2 3 4 5
6. I struggle to feel close and engaged in our relationship. 1 2 3 4 5
Partner’s Accessibility
7. My partner is rarely available to me. 1 2 3 4 5
8. It is hard for me to get my partner’s attention. 1 2 3 4 5
Partner’s Responsiveness
9. My partner listens when I share my deepest feelings. 1 2 3 4 5
10. I am confident my partner reaches out to me. 1 2 3 4 5
Partner’s Engagement
11. It is hard for my partner to confide in me. 1 2 3 4 5
12. My partner struggles to feel close and engaged in our relationship. 1 2 3 4 5

1 = Never True; 2 = Rarely True; 3 = Sometimes True; 4 = Usually True; 5 = Always True.

REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1973). The development of infant-mother attachment. In B.M. Caldwell & H.N. Ricciuti
(Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol. 3, pp. 1–94). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Alexandrov, E.O., Cowan, P.A., & Cowan, C.P. (2005). Couple attachment and the quality of marital relation-
ships: Method and concept in the validation of the new couple attachment interview and coding system.
Attachment and Human Development, 7, 123–152.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Busby, D.M., & Gardner, B.C. (2008). How do I analyze thee? Let me count the ways: Considering empathy in
couple relationships using self and partner ratings. Family Process, 47, 229–242.
Busby, D.M., Gardner, B.C., & Taniguchi, N. (2005). The family of origin parachute model: Landing safely in
adult romantic relationships. Family Relations, 54, 254–264.
Busby, D.M., Holman, T.B., & Niehuis, S. (2009). The association between partner enhancement and self-
enhancement and relationship quality outcomes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 71, 449–464.
Busby, D.M., Holman, T.B., & Taniguchi, N. (2001). RELATE: Relationship evaluation of the individual, family,
cultural, and couple contexts. Family Relations, 50, 308–316.
Busby, D.M., Ivey, D.C., Harris, S.M., & Ates, C. (2007). Self-Directed, therapist-directed, and assessment-based
interventions for premarital couples. Family Relations, 56, 279–290.
Busby, D.M., Walker, E.C., & Holman,, T.B. (2011). The association of childhood trauma with perceptions of self
and the partner in adult romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 18, 547–561.

Fam. Proc., Vol. 51, December, 2012

526 / FAMILY PROCESS

Caldwell, B.E., Woolley, S.R., & Caldwell, C.J. (2007). Preliminary estimates of cost-effectiveness for marital
therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33(3), 392–405.
CiNews (2009). Internet usage is becoming significant cause of marital conflict: Accord. Retrieved November 2,
2011, from http://www.cinews.ie/article.php?artid=6155.
Cordova, J.V., & Scott, R.L. (2001). Intimacy: A behavioral interpretation. The Behavior Analyst, 24(1), 75–86.
Cowan, P.A., Cowan, C.P., & Mehta, N. (2009). Adult attachment, couple attachment, and children’s adaptation
to school: An integrated attachment template and family risk model. Attachment & Human Development,
11(1), 29–46.
Cozby, P.C. (2009). Methods in behavioral research (10th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Feeney, J.A. (2008). Adult romantic attachment: Developments in the study of couple relationships. In J. Cassidy
& P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 456–481). New
York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Funk, J.L., & Rogge, R.D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement
for relationship satisfaction with the couples satisfaction index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572–583.
Gottman, J.M., Coan, J., , Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness from newlywed inter-
actions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 5–22.
Hammill, C. (2010). The relationship of childhood maltreatment and adult style to functional recovery in chronic
fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engi-
neering, 70(9-B), 5820.
Huberty, C.J. (1984). Issues in the use and interpretation of discriminant analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 95(1),
156–171.
van IJzendoorn, M.H., & Sagi-Schwartz, A. (2008). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: Universal and contex-
tual dimensions. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment: Theory, research, and clinical
applications (pp. 880–905). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Johnson, S.M. (2003). Attachment theory: A guide for couple therapy. In S.M. Johnson & V.E. Whiffen (Eds.),
Attachment processes in couple and family therapy (pp. 103–123). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Johnson, S.M. (2004). The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy: Creating connection (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.
Johnson, S.M. (2008). Couple family therapy: An attachment perspective. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Hand-
book of Attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 811–829). New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.
Linacre, J.M. (2009). Winsteps (Version 3.68.0) [Computer Software and manual]. Chicago: Winsteps.com.
McDonald, R.P., & Ho, M.H.R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psycho-
logical Methods, 7, 64–82.
Mcevoy, D. (2005). Attachment styles among violent and non-violent mentally ill and non-mentally ill jail
inmates. Dissertation abstracts international: Section B: The sciences and engineering, 65(9-B), 4839.
Mikulincer, M., & Goodman, G.S. (eds.). (2006). Dynamics of romantic love: Attachment, care-giving, and sex.
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P.R. (2007). Contributions of attachment theory and research to motivation science. In
J. Shah & W. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 201–216). New York, NY: The Guilford
Press.
Reis, S., & Grenyer, B. (2004). Fear of intimacy of women: Relationship between attachment style and depressive
symptoms. Psychopathology, 37(6), 299–303.
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.
Tremblay, I., & Sullivan, M. (2010). Attachment and pain outcomes in adolescents: The mediating role of pain ca-
tastrophizing and anxiety. The Journal of Pain, 11(2), 160–171.
US Census Bureau (2008). Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for
the United States. April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 (NC-EST2008-03).
Wampler, K.S., Riggs, B., & Kimball, T.G. (2004). Observing attachment behavior in couples: The Adult Attach-
ment Behavior Q-Set (AABQ). Family Process, 43(3), 315–335.
Wright, B.D., & Masters, G. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: MESA Press.

www.FamilyProcess.org