1

Adult Attachment Scale (AAS)

(Collins & Read, 1990; Collins, 1996)

Variable

Collins and Read (1990, p. 644) “developed a multi-item scale to measure dimensions

underlying adult attachment styles to replace Hazan and Shaver’s discrete, categorical measure.

Based on multi-sentence type descriptions, Collins and Read (1990) had argued that there were

limitations to a categorical measure.” Since each type description contained statements about

more than one aspect of relationships (e.g., being comfortable with closeness and being able to

depend on others), respondents therefore had to accept an entire description that may not have

reflected their position on all facets, and likewise, researchers were unable to assess the degree to

which a particular style characterized a particular person. Moreover, the categorical measure

assumed that there were three mutually exclusive attachment styles, making it difficult to

examine possible relations among styles or to evaluate whether there were actually just three

adult attachment patterns. For these reasons, Collins and Read (1990) sought to develop a more

sensitive measure of adult romantic attachment styles, which was subsequently revised by

Collins (1996).

Description

The 18-item AAS was originally constructed by Collins and Read (1990), based on

Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) Following factor analysis with oblique rotation (N = 406), three

subscales were elucidated (each with 6 items): (a) the Close subscale concerns comfort with

closeness and intimacy; (b) the Depend subscale assesses comfort with depending on others and
 2

the belief that partners can be relied upon when needed; and (c) the Anxiety subscale measures

the extent to which a person is worried about being rejected and abandoned (Collins & Read,

Table 2; cf. Collins, 1996, pp. 814-815). Respondents rate each item on a 5-point Likert-type

scale. Collins (1996) revised the scale by replacing a few items to improve reliability and

validity. The revised 18-item version correlated .98 with the original version (N = 295).

Sample

Collins and Read (1990) collected data from 406 undergraduates (184 males; 206

females) ranging in age from 17 to 37 years (M = 18.8 years). In a second study, Collins and

Read utilized a sample of 118 undergraduates ranging in age from 17 to 24 years (M = 18.6

years). In a third study, Collins and Read employed a sample of 71 dating couples ranging in age

from 18-44 years (M = 22 years). Subsequently, Collins (1996) utilized samples of 135

undergraduates (53 male; 82 female) ranging in age from 18 to 25 years (M = 18.7 years), of

whom, 55% were in a romantic relationship. In a replication study, Collins (p. 821) utilized a

further sample of 129 undergraduates (56 male; 73 female) ranging in age from 17 to 30 years

(M = 19.2 years).

Reliability

Internal Consistency

Collins and Read (1990, p. 646) reported Cronbach alpha coefficients for the three

subscales (Close, Depend, and Anxiety) of .69, .75, and .72, respectively (N = 406).

Subsequently, Collins (1996, p. 814) reported alpha coefficients of .77, .78, and .85, respectively.
 3

In the Collins (1996) replication study (N = 129), alpha coefficients for the three subscales were

found to be .82, .80, and .83, respectively (Collins, p. 821).

Test-Retest

A subset (N = 101) of Collins and Read’s (1990) sample completed the AAS again two

months later. Stability coefficients for Close, Depend, and Anxiety subscales were found to

be .68, .71, and .52, respectively (Collins & Read, p. 647).

Validity

Convergent/Concurrent

Positive correlations indicative of convergent/concurrent validity were reported by

Collins and Read (1990, Table 8, p. 652). Subsequently, in a sample of 135 undergraduates, the

Close and Depend subscales of the AAS correlated .53 with each other (Collins, 1996, p. 814). In

the replication sample of 129 undergraduates, the Close and Depend subscales correlated .67

(Collins, p. 821). Also, positive associations between the Close and Depend subscales and other

measures of adult attachment have been reported. Thus, the Close subscale correlated positively

(.25 with love/security, .29 with responsive/dependable .16 with self-worth/reliance, .15 with

trust, .30 with partner warmth/closeness, and .26 with minimizing negative impact). Likewise,

the Depend subscale correlated positively (.27 with love/security, .16 with

responsive/dependable, .14 with self-worth/reliance, .17 with trust, .38 with partner

warmth/closeness, .28 with minimizing negative impact) (Collins, 1996, p. 816). Additional

positive correlations with various other measures indicative of convergent/concurrent validity

also have been reported (see Collins, 1996, Table 2).

 4

Divergent/Discriminant

Numerous negligible or negative correlations indicative of divergent/discriminant validity

had been reported by Collins and Read (1990, Table 8, p. 652). Subsequently, Collins (1996, p.

814) reported that the Anxiety subscale correlated -.34 with the Close subscale, and -.46 with the

Depend subscale. In the replication sample, the Anxiety subscale correlated -.28 with the Close

subscale, and -.46 with the Depend subscale (Collins, p. 821). As well, Collins (p. 816) reported

(N = 135) that the Anxiety subscale correlated -.25 with love/security, -.21 with

responsive/dependable, -.20 with self-worth/reliance, -.18 with trust, -.34 with partner

warmth/closeness, and -.27 with minimizing negative impact. Additional negligible or negative

correlations with various other measures indicative of divergent/discriminant validity also have

been reported (see Collins, 1996, Table 2).

Construct/Factor Analytic

As indicated above, in constructing the original AAS, Collins and Read (1990) conducted

an exploratory factor analysis with oblique rotation (N = 406) based on the 21 x 21 item

intercorrelation matrix and extracted three factors that clearly defined the AAS structure (see

Collins & Read, Table 2, p. 647, for the factor loadings on each of the original 198 items).

“Factor 1 (Depend) and Factor 3 (Close) were moderately correlated (.41)” suggesting some

measurement overlap between these two AAS subscales. Subsequently, Collins (1996, pp. 814-

815, N = 295) confirmed the tripartite structure of the AAS (based on a factor analysis of the

revised items).
 5

Criterion/Predictive

Evidence of predictive validity was reported by Collins (1996, Table 5, p. 823). For

example, as predictors of scores on the Anxiety subscale, the standardized beta coefficients were

as follows: love/security (-.22), responsive/dependable (-.24), self-worth/reliance (-.18), trust

(-.23), partner warmth/closeness (-.29), and minimizing negative impact (-.21). In contrast, there

were no significant predictors for scores on the Close/Depend subscales. Further evidence of

predictive validity in relation to predicting scores on measures of attributions, emotions, and

behavioral intentions was provided by Collins (Table 6, p. 824).

Location

Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and

behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 810-832.

Results and Comments

The three AAS subscales can be used as continuous measures of the dimensions

underlying differences in adult attachment patterns (comfort with closeness, comfort with

depending on others, and fear of rejection). Second, scores on the AAS can be used to place

people into discrete attachment-style categories (secure, avoidant, preoccupied or anxious). As

the Close and Depend subscales correlate closely with each other, in some studies (e.g., Collins

et al., 2000) they have been collapsed into a single dimension, making the resultant two

subscales similar to the ECR scales described below.

 6

Adult Attachment Scale

Instructions: Please read each of the following statements and rate the extent to which it
describes your feelings about romantic relationships. Please think about all your
relationships (past and present) and respond in terms of how you generally feel in these
relationships. If you have never been involved in a romantic relationship, answer in terms
of how you think you would feel.

1. I find it relatively easy to get close to people.

2. I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on others.
3. I often worry that romantic partners don’t really love me.
4. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like.
5. I am comfortable depending on others.
6. I don’t worry about people getting too close to me.
7. I find that people are never there when you need them.
8. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others.
9. I often worry that romantic partners won’t want to stay with me.
10. When I show my feelings for others, I’m afraid they will not feel the same about me.
11. I often wonder whether romantic partners really care about me.
12. I am comfortable developing close relationships with others.
14. I am uncomfortable when anyone gets too emotionally close to me.
15. I know that people will be there when I need them.
15. I want to get close to people, but I worry about being hurt.
16. I find it difficult to trust others completely.
17. Romantic partners often want me to be emotionally closer than I feel comfortable
being.
18. I am not sure that I can always depend on people to be there when I need them.

Notes.
Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from: 1 = Not at all characteristic to 5 =
Very characteristic.
 7

Items 1, 5, 6, 12, and 14 are reverse-keyed prior to computing the subscale scores.

The Close score is computed by averaging items 1, 6, 8, 12, 13, and 17. Higher scores indicate
greater discomfort with closeness and intimacy.

The Depend score is computed by averaging items 2, 5, 7, 14, 16, and 18. Higher scores reflect
greater discomfort depending on others.

The Anxiety score is computed by averaging items 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, and 15. Higher scores reflect
greater fear of being rejected or unloved.