See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/7529002

The Relationship of Adult Attachment Constructs to Object Relational Patterns

of Representing Self and Others

Article in Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry · September 2005
DOI: 10.1521/jaap.2005.33.3.513 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

41 895

3 authors, including:

Barry Farber Drew Westen

Columbia University Emory University
188 PUBLICATIONS 5,670 CITATIONS 176 PUBLICATIONS 21,601 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Barry Farber on 26 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CALABRESE ET AL.
ATTACHMENT AND OBJECT REPRESENTATIONS

The Relationship of Adult Attachment

Constructs to Object Relational Patterns of
Representing Self and Others

Mary L. Calabrese, Barry A. Farber, and Drew Westen

Abstract: This study examined the relation between attachment constructs as-
sessed by self–report and object relations constructs assessed from narratives.
Young adult participants (N = 65; median age 28) completed the Reciprocal At-
tachment Questionnaire (West, Sheldon, & Reiffer, 1987), provided a set of inter-
personal narratives rated using the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale
(SCORS; Westen, Barends, Leigh, Mendel, & Silbert, 1994), and completed other
relationship–related measures. Results suggest some conceptual convergence
between internal working models and representations of self, others, and rela-
tionships; for example, individuals who perceive significant others as offering a
secure base for emotional connection tend to have complex, well–differentiated
representations of self and others. In addition, multiple dimensions of object re-
lationships were found to be significantly associated with participants’
relationship status (current involvement in a significant relationship) and their
parents’ marital status.

Both attachment theory and object relations theory focus on the ways
in which we symbolize our relatedness to others. A consistent tenet of
object relations theory across its many variants is that individuals’ char-
acteristic ways of representing self and others develop in their relation-
ships with their parents and continue to influence interpersonal
expectancies, behaviors, and feelings throughout the life span. Coming
from the related perspective of attachment theory, Bowlby (1973, 1988)
similarly suggested that infants’ and children’s expectations about
whether caregivers are emotionally available and responsive serve as
the foundations for their working models of self and others, and that
these original prototypes influence subsequent behavior and represen-

Mary L. Calabrese, Ph.D., Private Practice, Newton, MA; Barry A. Farber, Ph.D., Profes-
sor, Department of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, Teachers College, Columbia Uni-
versity, New York, NY; Drew Westen, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Psychology, and
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
The authors express their appreciation to Joseph Capobianco for his invaluable assis-
tance in the preparation of this manuscript.

Journal of The American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry, 33(3) 513-530, 2005
2005 The American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry
514 CALABRESE ET AL.

tations in new relationships. Over the past few decades, analysts have
become increasingly interested in how these two related concepts are
enacted in the treatment setting. Stolorow, Atwood, and Munder Ross
(1978), for example, have contended that the “psychoanalytic situation
and the technical rules which govern it may be fruitfully viewed as a set
of facilitating conditions which permit the structure of a patient’s repre-
sentational world to unfold maximally” (p. 247). Farber, Lippert, and
Nevas (1995) described how patients inevitably expect the attachment
dynamics with their therapist to mirror those of their original attach-
ment figures; they also noted the multiple ways in which therapists
function as attachment figures for their patients, emphasizing their abil-
ity to serve as a secure base for patients’ psychic exploration. The pri-
mary aim of this article is to investigate the ways in which individuals’
attachment style, including their tendency to use an attachment figure as
a secure base, is related to such object relational dimensions as
complexity and affective quality of representations of significant others.
Although infancy is not destiny, numerous studies have shown sub-
stantial evidence for continuity of attachment styles from infancy
through the school years and into adolescence (e.g., Collins & Read,
1990; Fraley & Shaver, 1998; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985; Mikulincer
& Florian, 1997; Sroufe, Fox, & Pancake, 1983; Waters, Hamilton, &
Weinfeld, 2000; Waters, Merrick, Treboux, Crowell, & Albersheim,
2000). Researchers studying adult attachment have found that internal
working models shape both adult romantic relationships and the ways
parents interact with their own children (Brennan, Wu, & Loev, 1998;
Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Main, 1995; Main et al., 1985). For example, ex-
pectant mothers’ attachment status, assessed through the narratives
they provide in response to the Adult Attachment Interview, are highly
predictive of their unborn infants’ future attachment styles (Fonagy,
Steele, & Steele, 1991). Blatt and Levy (2003) have also reported on the re-
l a ti onshi p between di fferent a dul t a tta chment types a nd
psychopathology; for example, individuals assessed with fearful
avoidant attachment tend toward avoidant and schizoid personality
disorders and an introjective/self–critical type of depression.
Empirical studies from an object relations perspective have similarly
found that representations of self, others, and relationships (function-
ally equivalent to the notion of “internal working models”) predict be-
havior in close relationships. For example, in an early study using a pro-
jective measure of object relations, Urist (1977) found a strong
relationship (on the order of r = .50) between representations assessed
from Rorschach responses and the quality and maturity of patients’ be-
havior on a psychiatric ward. Similarly, Leigh, Westen, Barends, Men-
del, and Byers (1992) and Barends, Westen, Leigh, Silbert, and Brussell
 ATTACHMENT AND OBJECT REPRESENTATIONS 515

(1991) found significant associations between the complexity and emo-

tional tone of individuals’ representations of self and others and their so-
cial adjustment. In addition, representations assessed from narratives
distinguish patients with different forms of psychopathology and differ-
ent developmental experiences (e.g., sexual abuse; Blatt & Auerbach,
2001; Nigg, Lohr, Westen, Gold, & Silk, 1992; Westen, 1991). Clinically,
analysts have increasingly utilized their knowledge of the nature and
forms of patients’ internalized representations to inform their work.
Contemporary analysts not only listen for the voice of specific patient
introjects (e.g., mother or father) but also for the style and
phenomenological properties (e.g., the complexity, coherence, affective
tone, and intensity) of patients’ representations of self and others (e.g.,
Bender, Farber, & Geller, 1997; McWilliams, 1994). Analogously, ana-
lysts since Bowlby (1977) have attempted to use the tenets of attachment
theory to guide treatment. Bowlby proposed that clinicians assess pa-
tients’ past and current behaviors, both within and outside the bound-
aries of the analytic setting, to determine the ways in which their attach-
ment history currently manifests itself. In this regard, Grotstein (1990)
contended that analysts’ knowledge of attachment theory could
facilitate the establishment of effective therapeutic relationships.
Theoretically, object representations are viewed as both conscious
and unconscious influences on experience, suggesting that assessment
by self–report may tap only some aspects of the representations that
guide experience in close relationships. Object relations researchers
have shown that representational processes can be measured indirectly
using narrative data from a variety of sources that do not require explicit
self–knowledge (Stricker & Healey, 1990; Westen, Feit, & Zittel, 1999),
much as contemporary attitude researchers have developed indirect as-
sessment techniques for exploring implicit attitudes, including attitudes
toward the self (e.g., Banaji & Bhaskar, 2000). Thus, researchers inter-
ested in object relations have turned to projective material and narra-
tives about significant others or significant interpersonal events. For ex-
ample, Westen, Lohr, Silk, Gold, and Kerber (1990) used Thematic
Apperception Test (TAT) responses to distinguish the representations of
patients with borderline personality disorder and major depression.
Several researchers (e.g., Bers, Blatt, Sayward, & Johnston, 1993; Blatt,
Wein, Chevron, & Quinlan, 1979; Krohn & Mayman, 1974; Urist, 1977)
have used Rorschach responses as well as early memories and dream re-
ports. Others have devised interview protocols from which an assess-
ment of object relations can be made (Bellack & Goldsmith, 1984; Bellak,
Hurvich, & Gediman, 1973; Westen, 1991). Still others have devised rat-
ing scales to assess the forms, themes, and affects of representations that
are available to conscious awareness (e.g., Geller, Behrends, Hartley,
516 CALABRESE ET AL.

Farber, & Rohde, 1989; Geller, Cooley, & Hartley, 1982; Geller, Lehman,
& Farber, 2002).
Despite the obvious links between attachment theory and object rela-
tions theory—including the fact that Bowlby (1988) explicitly deemed
attachment theory a variant of object relations, and that both perspec-
tives assume that perceptions of the self, others, and relationships are
some of the most important attitudes humans form (Westen, 1998)—sur-
prisingly little research has examined the interface of these two related
paradigms. One exception is the work of Mikulincer (1998; Mikulincer &
Horesh, 1999; Mikuliner, Orbach, & Iavnieli, 1998), who has consistently
found attachment–style differences in the perceptions of others.
Avoidant individuals, for example, tend to perceive themselves as dis-
similar from others, a dynamic reflecting their tendency to project onto
others those negative traits they r eject f rom their own
self–representations.
In the present study, we examined the association between several di-
mensions of object relations, assessed from brief interpersonal narra-
tives, and dimensions of attachment styles, assessed by self–report. In
addition, we were interested in determining the extent to which these
constructs and measures were related to theoretically relevant criterion
variables, including “real world” relational outcomes. Thus, we exam-
ined the relationship of several dimensions of object relations and at-
tachment to (a) self–reported fear of intimacy, (b) relationship status (en-
gagement in, and length of, current romantic relationships), and (c)
intactness of participants’ parents’ marriage (on the theory that repre-
sentations of relationships are first forged in the crucible of family rela-
tionships, and that people whose parents are able to sustain a long–term
romantic relationship should be more likely to develop healthy object
relations and secure attachment).

METHOD

Participants

We recruited 65 participants, including graduate (n = 48) and undergrad-

uate students (n = 17), from campuses in Boston, New York City, and the
San Francisco Bay area. We chose to include graduate students to avoid
some of the limitations of undergraduate samples, such as the lack of
long–term romantic relationships. Participants were recruited by flyers and
were offered a $10 gift certificate from a music store for their participation.
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 50 (median age 28) and were pri-
marily Caucasian (74%), with smaller percentages self–identifying as
 ATTACHMENT AND OBJECT REPRESENTATIONS 517

African American (9%) and Asia American (6%). Participants were pri-
marily female (57%) and tended to describe themselves as either mar-
ried or “seriously involved” (72%). All, however, had at some point been
in a relationship for at least 1 year, with 78% reporting a relationship lon-
ger than a year. Almost half (45%) of participants’ parents were still
married at the time of data collection.

Measures

Participants were asked to complete a demographic form (on which

they reported age, sex, race, level of education, status of current relation-
ship and duration, and parents’ marital status) as well as several mea-
sures, including the following.
Reciprocal Attachment Scale (RAQ; West, Sheldon, & Reiffer, 1987; West &
Sheldon–Keller, 1994) The RAQ is used to assess attachment styles. Par-
ticipants are asked to identify an attachment figure and then rate a series
of 43 statements about this person on a 5–point scale, ranging from 1 =
Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. Lower scores indicate greater
security of attachment. The RAQ yields scores on five scales. Proximity
Seeking measures the degree to which the person needs to be close to the
attachment figure (e.g., “I feel lost and upset if my attachment figure is
not around”). Separation Protest measures the intensity of distress upon
separation (e.g., “I feel abandoned when my attachment figure is away
for a few days”). Feared Loss assesses the person’s experience of anxiety
concerning loss of the attachment figure (e.g., “I’m afraid I’m losing my
attachment figure’s love”). Perceived Unavailability measures the ex-
tent to which the individual feels unable to connect to the attachment fig-
ure (e.g., “I worry that my attachment figure will let me down”). Lack of
Use of Attachment Figure as a Secure Base assesses the person’s comfort
in turning toward the attachment figure for soothing (e.g., “Things have
to be really bad for me to ask my attachment figure for help”).
Internal consistency (coefficient alpha) of these five subscales in nu-
merous studies has ranged from .75 to .85, and test–retest reliability has
ranged from .76 to .92 (West, Rose, & Brewis, 1995; West, Rose, & Shel-
don, 1993; West, Rose, & Sheldon–Keller, 1994). In keeping with the at-
tachment literature (see Bowlby, 1973; Weiss, 1982), the RAQ achieves
construct validity in two ways: first, by assessing the criteria that differ-
entiate attachment from other interpersonal behaviors (proximity seek-
ing, secure base effect, separation protest); and second, by measuring
the provisions supplied by attachment relationships (availability and
perceived responsiveness of the attachment figure).
518 CALABRESE ET AL.

The Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale for Interview and Narrative
Data (SCORS; Westen et al., 1994) The SCORS is used to assess aspects of
mental representations as they are reflected in narrative accounts of inter-
actions with significant others. In the current study, we asked participants
to write a total of 11 narratives, including descriptions of three types of in-
teraction with their father and mother (most painful, most typical, and
most comforting), two types of interaction with a boyfriend/girlfriend
(an “emotional” and a “typical” interaction), and three types of interac-
tion likely to reveal representations of self (an incident that was typical of
the participant, one that was significant in shaping identity, and one in
which the participant felt bad about himself or herself).
Narratives are scored on eight dimensions. Each dimension is scored
on a 7–point scale for each vignette, and scores are then averaged for
each dimension across vignettes. SCORS dimensions (with representa-
tive choice points) include the following:

1. Complexity and Differentiation of Representations (1 = Descriptions of

people are poorly differentiated from each other; narrator tends to
confuse thoughts, feelings, or attributes of the self and others; 5 = De-
scriptions of others’ personalities and internal states have some depth
but are primarily stereotypical; 7 = Descriptions are rich and complex,
attending to the subtleties of personality and subjective experience).
2. Affect–Tone of Representations (1 = Descriptions of people and relation-
ships are primarily malevolent; 5 = Descriptions have both positive
and negative elements but overall have a slightly positive or hopeful
tone; 7 = On balance, people and relationships are experienced as
positive and enriching).
3. Emotional Investment in Relationships (1 = Descriptions of relationships
primarily reflect need–gratification, or are highly tumultuous; 5 = De-
scriptions demonstrate evidence of conventional concern, caring,
love, or empathy; 7 = Descriptions reflect deep, committed relation-
ships, characterized by mutual sharing, interdependence, and
respect).
4. Emotional Investment in Values and Moral Standards (1 = Descriptions
reflect a relative absence of moral values and concern for needs of
others; 5 = Descriptions reflect an investment in moral values or so-
cial norms, e.g., experiencing guilt for hurting others; 7 = Descriptions
suggest thinking about moral issues in a way that combines abstract
thought, a willingness to challenge or question convention, and
genuine compassion).
5. Understanding of Social Causality (1 = Descriptions of people’s behav-
ior or interpersonal events are highly unlikely, illogical, or distorted;
the person does not appear to understand why people do what they
do; 5 = Descriptions are sensible and coherent, including comprehen-
 ATTACHMENT AND OBJECT REPRESENTATIONS 519

sible explanations of the way people think, feel, and behave; 7 = De-
scriptions of interpersonal events are particularly coherent and
compelling).
6. Experience and Management of Aggression (1 = Descriptions focus on
assaultive, destructive, or sadistic behaviors; 5 = Descriptions suggest
narrator avoids dealing with anger by denying it or defending
against its occurrence; 7 = Descriptions suggest narrator can express
anger and aggression and assert self appropriately).
7. Self–Esteem (1 = Descriptions reflect a loathsome or globally bad view
of self; 5 = Descriptions reflect a range of positive and negative feel-
ings about the self; 7 = Descriptions reflect realistically positive feel-
ings about the self).
8. Identity and Coherence of Self (1 = Descriptions reflect multiple,
nonintegrated personalities; 5 = Descriptions suggest that identity
and self–definition are not major concerns; 7 = Descriptions suggest
narrator feels whole and integrated with long–term ambitions and
goals).

Interrater reliability in previous studies has been high, typically rang-

ing from .80 to .98 across subscales (Ackerman, Hilsenroth, Clemence,
Weatherill, & Fowler, 2000; Westen, 1991). Using a criterion of exact
agreement, interrater reliability (Pearson R’s) in the present study
ranged from .90 to .95 across the eight dimensions. With respect to valid-
ity, scores on each dimension assessed from TAT responses tend to cor-
relate significantly with scores on the same dimensions assessed from
interview and other narrative data. In addition, the SCORS has proven
useful in discriminating various diagnostic groups in theoretically pre-
dicted ways (e.g., Ackerman et al., 2000; Hibbard, Hilsenroth, Hibbard,
& Nash, 1995; Westen, 1991).
Fear of Intimacy Scale (FIS; Descutner & Thelan, 1991) The F IS is a
35–item scale that assesses individuals’ anxiety about close and dating
relationships, whether or not they are in such a relationship. Participants
are asked to imagine that they are in a “close, dating relationship” and to
respond to the 35 statements as they would if they were in that relation-
ship. For each item, participants indicate the degree to which (1 = not at
all like me, 5 = extremely like me) each statement is characteristic of
themselves.
The FIS has proven to be a valid and reliable measure of individuals’
anxiety regarding close, romantic relationships (Descutner & Thelan,
1991). Internal consistency was demonstrated by an alpha coefficient of
.93. Test–retest reliability yielded a Pearson correlation of .89 (p < .001).
The FIS demonstrated convergent validity through its significant corre-
lations with overlapping constructs such as loneliness, self–disclosure,
520 CALABRESE ET AL.

and low social intimacy when social desirability effects were statistically
controlled. Further support for the validity of the FIS was demonstrated
by positive correlations between individuals’ FIS scores and their
therapists’ ratings of their FIS scores.

Procedure
We obtained written consent from all participants prior to their com-
pletion of the measures. Participants were given a packet of materials
and were asked to complete them in a quiet place, in one sitting, and
without interruption. Order of administration for all participants was as
follows: demographic questionnaire, RAQ, FIS, and interpersonal
vignettes.
Two blind raters (psychology graduate students) coded SCORS nar-
ratives independently on each dimension, after attaining acceptable
interrater reliability (r ≥ .80). Coders trained using a detailed scoring
manual and supervision from the third author, who developed the man-
ual. To prevent coder drift and to resolve discrepancies, coders met at
regular intervals to discuss their independently scored responses. In ad-
dition, to reduce halo effects and artifactual subscale intercorrelations
(Hilsenroth, Fowler, & Padawer, 1998), each rater coded one subscale at
a time, rather than coding vignettes from each protocol for all subscales
simultaneously. For all analyses, mean scores across all 11 narratives
were used to maximize reliability; scores from the two raters were
averaged to maximize reliability of measurement.

RESULTS
To examine the relation between dimensions of object relations and at-
tachment, we used correlational analysis (Table 1). Eight of 45 correla-
tions were significant at an alpha (two–tailed) of .05, all in the predicted
direction. Three dimensions of object relations—Complexity, Emotional
Investment in Relationships, and Understanding of Social Causal-
ity—bore significant associations to the RAQ dimension of Lack of Use
of Attachment Figure as a Secure Base. Thus, as individuals’ object rep-
resentations reflect increasingly greater cognitive complexity, capacity
for emotional investment in relationships, and ability to understand the
intentions of others, their ability to rely on attachment figures when
distressed increases.
Three object relations (SCORS) dimensions—Understanding of Social
Causality, Experience and Management of Aggression, and Self–Es-
teem—were associated with the RAQ dimension of Perceived Unavail-
ability. That is, the more an individual’s narratives suggest a capacity for
 ATTACHMENT AND OBJECT REPRESENTATIONS 521

Table 1. Correlation between SCORS Dimensions and RAQ Attachment Dimensions

(N = 62)

RAQ Dimensions

Proximity Separation Feared Perceived Lack of

SCORS Dimensions Seeking Protest Loss Unavailability Use
Complexity .07 .11 –.16 –.14 –.29*
Affect–tone .21 .05 .05 .00 –.01
Emotional Investment .06 .00 –.18 –.21 –.25*
Values .07 –.09 –.29* –.17 –.09
Social Causality –.03 –.10 –.15 –.24* –.40**
Aggression .18 .07 –.15 –.25* –.13
Self–esteem .20 .02 –.14 –.25* –.20
Identity –.06 –.14 –.01 –.20 –.11
Overall .12 .00 –.17 –.23 –.27*

Note. SCORS = Social Causality and Object Relations Scale (Westen, et al., 1994); RAQ = Reciprocal At-
tachment Questionnaire (West et al., 1987). *p < .05. **p < .01 (one-tailed).

understanding the intentions of others, for appropriately managing ag-

gressive impulses, and for positive self–regard, the more he or she will
feel secure regarding the availability of attachment figures.
No significant correlations were found between Fear of Intimacy and
any of the five attachment dimensions on the RAQ nor any of the eight
object relations dimensions on the SCORS.
Object relations constructs and attachment dimensions were also ana-
lyzed in relationship to two “real world” variables: participants’ rela-
tionship status, and their parents’ marital status. A series of ANCOVAs
were performed (holding constant participants’ age) comparing those
who were currently involved in a relationship (n = 45) with those not
currently involved (n = 17) on each of the eight dimensions of the SCORS
and the five dimensions of the RAQ. Relationship status was not
available for three participants.
As Table 2 indicates, the object relations of those involved in commit-
ted relationships tend to be characterized by greater complexity of rep-
resentations, more positive affect tone, greater capacity to invest emo-
tionally in others, and better understanding of the intentions of others.
Those involved in committed relationships also had higher total (global
mean) scores on the SCORS. The only RAQ dimension significantly as-
sociated with relationship status was Lack of Use of Attachment Figure.
The same data–analytic strategy was used to assess the association be-
522 CALABRESE ET AL.

Table 2. The Relationship of Participants’ Relationship Status to SCORS and RAQ

Dimensions: Analysis of Covariance, with Participant’ Age as Covariate

Relationship Status
Involved (n = 45) Not Involved (n = 17)
Dimension M SD M SD F
SCORS Dimensions
Complexity 4.66 .66 4.20 .96 2.16*
Affect–tone 4.76 .51 4.32 .94 2.33*
Emotional Investment 4.20 .83 3.51 .89 2.83*
Values 4.26 .44 4.14 .27 1.14
Social Causality 4.63 .60 4.15 .73 2.65*
Aggression 4.32 .51 4.09 .49 1.61
Self–esteem 4.81 .50 4.56 .56 1.64
Identity 5.05 .36 5.00 .27 .67
Overall 4.59 .40 4.25 .51 2.78*
RAQ Dimensions
Proximity 2.47 .95 2.20 .79 1.13
Separation 1.19 .82 1.62 .71 1.40
Feared Loss 2.26 .98 2.07 1.06 .71
Unavailability 1.09 .91 1.93 .96 –.12
Lack of Use 1.62 .74 2.02 .88 3.51*

Note. SCORS = Social Causality and Object Relations Scale (Westen et al., 1994); RAQ = Reciprocal At-
tachment Questionnaire (West et al., 1987). *p < .05 (one-tailed).

tween individuals’ parents’ relationship status and both their object re-
lations and attachment style (Table 3). A series of ANCOVAs (again
holding age constant) revealed that individuals whose parents were
married (n = 28) rather than divorced (n = 25) had higher scores on all but
two of the SCORS dimensions (Complexity and Identity were
nonsignificant). As above, the only RAQ dimension significantly associ-
ated with parental marital status was Lack of Use of Attachment Figure.
Thus, those currently in a committed relationship, as well as those
whose parents stayed married, were more likely to use an attachment
figure to think things through together and to soothe feelings when
distressed.
Secondary analyses to determine whether participants’ age at the
time of parental divorce was associated with scores on the object rela-
tions and attachment dimensions yielded one significant correlation
among the SCORS dimensions—Capacity to Invest Emotionally in Rela-
tionships (r = .34, p < .05). This finding suggests that the older the indi-
 ATTACHMENT AND OBJECT REPRESENTATIONS 523

Table 3. The Relationship of Parents’ Relationship Status to SCORS Dimensions and

RAQ Dimensions: Analysis of Covariance, with Participants’ Age as Covariate

Relationship Status
Involved (n = 28) Not Involved (n = 25)
Dimension M SD M SD F
SCORS Dimensions
Complexity 4.67 .70 4.34 .87 2.28
Affect 4.82 .62 4.37 .72 5.95*
Emotional Investment 4.33 .83 3.54 .81 12.60*
Values 4.32 .48 4.10 .28 3.92*
Social Causality 4.62 .65 4.31 .69 2.82*
Aggression 4.39 .49 4.10 .55 4.12*
Self–esteem 4.89 .49 4.56 .59 5.34*
Identity 5.09 .32 4.96 .37 1.72
Overall 4.64 .40 4.28 .46 8.94*
RAQ Dimensions
Proximity 2.47 .95 2.20 .79 1.28
Separation 1.19 .82 1.62 .71 1.96
Feared Loss 2.26 .98 2.07 1.06 .50
Unavailability 1.09 .91 1.93 .96 .01
Lack of Use 1.62 .74 2.02 .88 12.32*

Note. SCORS = Social Causality and Object Relations Scale (Westen et al., 1994); RAQ = Reciprocal At-
tachment Questionnaire (West et al., 1987). *p < .05 (one-tailed).

vidual at the time of parental divorce, the greater the capacity for later
relational mutuality. Similarly, a single RAQ dimension correlated sig-
nificantly with age at time of parental divorce—Proximity Seeking (r =
.55, p < .05). Thus, the younger the individual at the time of parental sep-
aration, the greater the need for proximity to attachment figures in
adulthood, presumably reflecting an underlying fear that attachment
figures may leave.

DISCUSSION

The central hypothesis of this study was that object relational dimen-
sions such as complexity of representations and capacity for emotional
investment in relationships would be significantly associated with di-
mensions related to security of attachment. This hypothesis received
partial confirmation, in that several dimensions of the object relations
measure used in this study (the SCORS) were associated with several di-
524 CALABRESE ET AL.

mensions of the attachment scale used (RAQ). Specifically, individuals

whose narratives indicate that they (a) have complex, well–differenti-
ated representations of self and others, (b) are able to recognize and
show genuine emotional concern for others’ needs, and (c) are able to
read social situations well report that they are able to rely on others
when distressed and appear to perceive significant others as offering a
secure base for emotional connection. Furthermore, those whose narra-
tives are coherent, reflect an ability to manage aggressive impulses, and
reflect a high degree of self–esteem tend to perceive their attachment
figure as available and responsive.
These findings provide further empirical support for a link between
attachment theory and object relations paradigms (see also Bell &
Bruscato, 2002; Buelow, McClain, & McIntosh, 1996; Priel & Besser,
2001). They also implicitly confirm analysts’ long–held beliefs regarding
individuals with personality disorders. For example, these findings un-
derscore the inability of borderline patients—individuals essentially un-
able to manage impulses, forge a coherent identity, and maintain
self–esteem—to evoke and sustain representations of their analyst as a
benign, trusted, available, responsive figure. Similarly, these findings
support clinical lore linking narcissists’ inability to show genuine emo-
tional concern for others to their difficulties in relying on or fully
disclosing to their analyst.
Theoretically, attachment–related processes are a subset of the pro-
cesses that fall under the rubric of object relations theory. The latter re-
fers most broadly to enduring ways of experiencing the self and others
and behaving toward others in relationships; attachment relationships
are considered the most psychologically significant class of relation-
ships (Westen, 1991). Indeed, Bowlby (1988) noted that both object rela-
tions and attachment relationships focus on the ways that internalized
models of experiencing the self and relating to others continue to influ-
ence behavior and emotion throughout life. Nevertheless, other types of
relationships, such as friendships and work relationships, are signifi-
cant to life satisfaction and adaptation, and the internal working models
that govern these relationships are likely to be overlapping with, but not
identical to, the internal working models of relationships with parents
and significant others.
One question raised by the specific pattern of correlations is why the
SCORS dimension of Social Causality was a significant correlate of both
Perceived Unavailability and Lack of Use of Attachment Figure as a Se-
cure Base. One possibility is that a mature ability to understand others is
likely to reflect a history of coherent social experiences. This hypothesis
is supported by both research on object relations and research on disor-
ganized attachment, in which social causality is disrupted (Main, 1995;
 ATTACHMENT AND OBJECT REPRESENTATIONS 525

Westen et al., 1990). Similarly, this ability to understand others likely en-
ables individuals to feel relatively secure about the availability of subse-
quent attachment figures and about their own ability to negotiate a mu-
tually satisfying relationship with attachment figures. Here again, we
can note how these dynamics play out in the clinical setting: In general,
patients without psychotic or borderline–level features, who have
learned to accurately read the typically benign cues of others, are able to
discuss and continually negotiate the nature of their relationship with
the analyst; on the other hand, borderline patients, often victimized by
early trauma, are likely to complain that they have never fully under-
stood “the rules” of social engagement and, in turn, struggle
continuously to use their therapist in a trusting, consistent manner.
A second major finding likely speaks to an important substantive as
well as methodological issue. A single dimension of the RAQ—Lack of
Use of an Attachment Figure as a Secure Base—bore a significant rela-
tionship to both objective relationship indicators (whether participants
were currently in a long–term relationship and whether their parents’
marriage remained intact). In contrast, multiple dimensions of object re-
lations derived from narrative descriptions were significantly associ-
ated with participants’ own and their parents’ relationship status. These
findings fit with the increasing body of literature documenting that, par-
ticularly in affectively relevant domains, self–reports tend to predict
consciously regulated behavior, whereas narrative–based and other im-
plicit assessment procedures are better predictors of behavior over time
(McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger, 1989; Westen, 1998). Moreover,
these findings highlight the theoretical convergence of attachment and
object relations approaches on the notion that representations include
conscious and unconscious, explicit and implicit, components, and the
correlative methodological requisite not to generalize from one form of
measurement to the other. This has been amply demonstrated in the at-
tachment literature itself, in which adult attachments measured by
self–report, on the one hand, and by narrative–based methods using the
Adult Attachment Interview, on the other hand, show only modest
correlations (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999).
The finding that individuals whose parents have remained married
tend to show greater psychological health across virtually all of the object
relations dimensions assessed by the SCORS—particularly the tendency
to show greater mutuality in relationships (Capacity for Emotional In-
vestment), greater understanding of how people function psychologi-
cally, more effective management of aggressive impulses, and higher
self–esteem—corroborates literature on divorce pointing to negative
postdivorce effects on children, including increased vulnerability to de-
pression in adulthood (e.g., Cummings & Davies, 1994; Kendler, Neale,
526 CALABRESE ET AL.

Kessler, Heath, & Eaves, 1992; Wallerstein & Corbins, 1999; Zubernis,
Cassidy, Gillham, Reivich, & Jaycox, 1999). Still, what needs to be kept in
mind is that all divorced parents are “not equal”; some divorced parents
are undoubtedly supportive and accepting, whereas some married par-
ents are critical and rejecting. In addition, the effects of divorce are in part
a function of how old the individual was when a separation occurred.
Without controlling for the effects of these variables, generalizing about
the impact of divorce on object relationships may be misleading. In a re-
lated vein, investigating the association between an individual’s current
relationship status and his or her object relations may be somewhat prob-
lematic. Participants might be in between significant relationships; equat-
ing individuals who have just concluded a long–term, intimate
relationship with those who have never been involved in any such
relationship could lead to spurious conclusions.
Surprisingly, no significant associations were found between the Fear
of Intimacy Scale and any of the dimensions of the RAQ or SCORS. At
least in part, this may reflect measurement limitation in both the SCORS
and RAQ; that is, that neither adequately assesses the nature of avoidant
attachments. Consistent with one aspect of this hypothesis, George &
West (2001) developed a new adult attachment projective technique that
is geared more to clinicians than researchers.
Although the findings of this study tend to be theoretically coherent,
they need to be understood within the context of the study’s limitations.
The low statistical power of some analyses, the use of a liberal (.05) alpha
level with multiple analyses, and the fact that the sample was a mixture
of graduate and undergraduate students preclude drawing strong con-
clusions unless these results are replicated with a larger, more heteroge-
neous sample. (The median age of 28 does, however, render the findings
substantially more compelling than had participants all been in their late
teens). A further limitation, which speaks to directions for future re-
search, was the absence of multiple external measures of relational func-
tioning, such as ratings of observed interactions with significant others
or coded responses during couples interviews. Finally, perhaps the ma-
jor limitation, suggested by the findings and suggestive of directions for
future research, was the failure to cross constructs with methods, that is,
to include both narrative–based and self–report measures of both cen-
tral constructs (object relations and attachment), which would have al-
lowed us to draw unambiguous conclusions about main effects for con-
struct and method as well as their interaction. Indeed, inclusion of
multiple measures of each construct, both implicit and explicit, seems
essential for future research.
Overall, the findings of this study indicate that attachment and object
relational concepts are overlapping but not identical. As described in the
 ATTACHMENT AND OBJECT REPRESENTATIONS 527

literature and as reflected in assessment instruments, attachment has

come to focus more on the extent and nature of one’s reliance on an at-
tachment figure, whereas object relations tend to be considered in more
comprehensive, multidimensional ways, focusing on such issues as
complexity, affect, interpersonal awareness, concern for others, man-
agement of aggression, and identity coherence. In addition, because at-
tachment dynamics and object relations are both conscious and uncon-
scious phenomena, self–report forms and narrative data interpreted by
observers are unlikely to correspond extensively. Most importantly,
however, in conjunction with emerging clinical evidence (e.g., Fonagy,
2001; McWilliams, 2004), these findings suggest that attending to both
attachment and object relational data can yield clinically significant
information about our patients.

References

Ackerman, S.J., Hilsenroth, M.J., Clemence, A.J., Weatherill, R., & Fowler, J.C. (2000). The
effects of social cognition and object representation on psychotherapy continuation.
Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 64, 386–408.
Banaji, M.R., & Bhaskar, R. (2000). Implicit stereotypes and memory: The bounded ratio-
nality of social beliefs. In D.L. Schacter & E. Scarry (Eds.), Memory, brain, & belief. (pp.
139–175). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Barends, A., Westen, D., Leigh, J., Silbert, D., & Brussell, J.A. (1991). Assessing affect tone of
relationship paradigms from TAT and interview data. Psychological Assessment, 2,
329–332.
Bell, M., & Bruscato, W. (2002). Object relations deficits in schizophrenia: A cross–cultural
comparison between Brazil and the United States. Journal of Nervous and Mental Dis-
ease, 190, 73–79.
Bellack, L., & Goldsmith, L.A. (1984). The broad scope of ego function assessment. New York:
Wiley.
Bellack, L., Hurvich, M., & Gediman, H.K. (1973). Ego formation in schizophrenics, neurotics,
and normals. New York: Wiley.
Bender, D., Farber, B.A., & Geller, J.D. (1997). Patients’ representations of therapists, par-
ents, and self in the early phase of psychotherapy. Journal of the American Academy of
Psychoanalysis, 25, 571–586.
Bers, S., Blatt, S., Sayward, H., & Johnston, R. (1993). Normal and pathological aspects of
self–descriptions and their change over long–term treatment. Psychoanalytic Psy-
chology, 10, 17–37.
Beulow, G., McClain, M., & McIntosh, I. (1996). A new measure for an important construct:
the Attachment and Object Relations Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66,
604–623.
Blatt, S., & Auerbach, J. (2001). Mental representation, severe psychopathology, and The
therapeutic process. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 49, 113–159.
Blatt, S., & Levy, K. (2003). Attachment theory, psychoanalysis, personality development,
andpsychopathology. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 23, 104–152.
528 CALABRESE ET AL.

Blatt, S., Wein, S., Chevron, E., & Quinlan, D. (1979). Parental representations and depres-
sion in normal young adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 388– 397.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Volume 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds: II. Some principles of psy-
chotherapy. British Journal of Psychiatry, 130, 421–431.
Bowlby, J. (1988). Developmental psychiatry comes of age. American Journal of Psychiatry,
145, 1–10.
Brennan, K.A., Wu, S., & Loev, J. (1998). Adult romantic attachment and individual differ-
ences in attitudes toward physical contact in the context of adult romantic relation-
ships. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships
(pp. 354–428). New York: Guilford Press.
Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P.R. (1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical appli-
cations. New York: Guilford Press.
Collins, N.L., & Read, S.J. (1990). Adult attachment working models, and relationship qual-
ity in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644 –663.
Cummings, E.M., & Davies, P.T. (1994). Maternal depression and child development. Jour-
nal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 35, 73–112.
Descutner, C.J., & Thelan, M.H. (1991). Development and validation of a Fear–of–Intimacy
Scale. Psychological Assessment, 3, 218–225.
Farber, B.A., Lippert, R.A., & Nevas, D. (1995). The therapist as attachment figure. Psycho-
therapy, 32, 204–212.
Fonagy, P. (2001). Attachment theory and psychoanalysis. New York: Other Press.
Fonagy, P., Steele, M., & Steele, H. (1991). Intergenerational patterns of attachment: Mater-
nal representations during pregnancy and subsequent infant–mother attachments.
Child Development, 62, 891–905.
Fraley, C.R., & Shaver, P.R. (1998). Airport separations: A naturalistic study of adult attach-
ment dynamics in separating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
1198–1212.
Geller, J.D., Behrends, R. Hartley, D., Farber, B.A., & Rhode, A. (1989). Therapist Representa-
tion Inventory–II. Unpublished manuscript (Available from J. Geller, Department of
Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT).
Geller, J.D., Cooley, R.S., & Hartley, D. (1982). Images of the psychotherapist: A theoretical
and methodological perspective. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 1, 123–146.
Geller, J. D., Lehman, A. K., & Farber, B. A. (2002). Psychotherapists’ representations of
their patients. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 733–745.
George, C., & West, M. (2001). The development and preliminary validation of a new mea-
sure of adult attachment: The adult attachment Projective. Attachment and Human
Development, 3, 30–61.
Grotstein, J. S. (1990). The contribution of attachment theory and self–regulation theory to
the therapeutic alliance. Modern Psychoanalysis, 15, 169–184.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.
Hibbard, S., Hilsenroth, M.J., Hibbard, J.K., & Nash, M. (1995). A validity study of two pro-
jective object representations measures. Psychological Assessment, 7, 432–439.
Hilsenroth, M.J., Fowler, J.C., & Padawer, J.R. (1998). The Rorschach Schizophrenia Index
(SCZI): An examination of reliability, validity, and diagnostic efficiency. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 70, 514–534.
Kendler, K.S., Neale, M.C., Kessler, R.C., Heath, A.C., & Eaves, D. (1992). Childhood paren-
tal loss and adult psychopathology in women: A twin study perspective. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 49, 109–116.
 ATTACHMENT AND OBJECT REPRESENTATIONS 529

Krohn, A., & Mayman, M. (1974). Object representations in dreams and projective tests.
Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 38, 445–467.
Leigh, J., Westen, D., Barends, A., Mendel, M., & Byers, M. (1992). Assessing complexity of
representations of people from TAT and interview data. Journal of Personality, 60,
809–837.
Main, M. (1995). Discourse, prediction, and recent studies in attachment: Implications for
psychoanalysis. In T. Shapiro & R.M. Emde (Eds.), Research in psychoanalysis: Pro-
cess, development, and outcome (pp. 209– 244). New York: International Universities
Press.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A
move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton & E. Water (Eds.), Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 66–106.
McClelland, D.C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self–attributed and im-
plicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96, 690–702.
McWilliams, N. (1994). Psychoanalytic diagnosis. New York: Guilford Press.
McWilliams, N. (2004). Psychoanalytic psychotherapy. New York: Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M. (1998). Adult attachment style and individual differences in functional ver-
sus dysfunctional experiences of anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74, 513–524.
Mikulincer, M. & Florian, V. (1997). Fear of death and the judgment of social transgres-
sions: A multidimensional test of terror management theory. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 72, 1217–1230.
Mikulincer, M., & Horesh, N. (1999). Adult attachment style and the perception of others:
The role of projective mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76,
1022–1034.
Mikulincer, M., Orbach, I., & Iavnieli, D. (1998). Adult attachment style and affect regula-
tion: Strategic variations in subjective self–other similarity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 75, 436–448.
Nigg, J.T., Lohr, N. E., Westen, D., Gold, L. J., & Silk, K. R. (1992). Malevolent object repre-
sentation in borderline personality disorder and major depression. Journal of Abnor-
mal Psychology, 101, 61–67.
Priel, B., & Besser, A. (2001). Bridging the gap between attachment and object relations the-
ory: A study of the transition to motherhood. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 74,
85–100.
Sroufe, L.A., Fox, N.E., & Pancake, V.R. (1983). Attachment and dependency in develop-
mental perspective. Child Development, 54, 1615–1627.
Stolorow, R.D., Atwood, G.E., & Munder Ross, J. (1978). The representational world in psy-
choanalytic therapy. International Review of Psycho–Analysis, 5, 247–256.
Stricker, G., & Healey, B.J. (1990). Projective assessment of object relations: A review of the
empirical literature. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 219–230.
Urist, J. (1977). The Rorschach test and the assessment of object relations. Journal of Personal-
ity Assessment, 41, 3–9.
Wallerstein, J., & Corbins, S.B. (1999). Children and the vicissitudes of divorce. In R.M.
Galatzer–Levy & L. Kraus (Eds.), Scientific basis of custody decisions (pp. 73–95). New
York: Wiley.
Waters, E., Hamilton, C.E., & Weinfeld, N.S. (2000). Stability of attachment security from
infancy to adolescence and early adulthood: General introduction. Child Develop-
ment, 71, 678–683.
Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment secu-
rity in infancy and adulthood: A twenty year longitudinal study. Child Development,
71, 684–689.
 530 CALABRESE ET AL.

Weiss, R. S. (1982). Attachment in adult life. In C.M. Parkes & J. Stevenson–Hinde (Eds.),
The place of attachment in human behavior (pp. 171–184). New York: Basic Books.
West, M., Rose, M. S., & Brewis, C.S. (1995). Anxious attachment and psychological distress
in cardiac rehabilitation patients. Journal of Clinical Psychology inMedical Settings, 2,
167–178.
West, M., Rose, M.S., & Sheldon, A. (1993). Anxious attachment as a determinant of adult
psychopathology. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 181, 422– 427.
West, M., Rose, M.S., & Sheldon–Keller, A. (1994). Assessment of patterns of insecure at-
tachment in adults and application to dependent and schizoid personality disor-
ders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 8, 249–256.
West, M., Sheldon, A., & Reiffer, L. (1987). An approach to the delineation of adult attach-
ment: Scale development and rehabilitation. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,
175, 738–741.
West, M.L., & Sheldon–Keller, A.E. (1994). Patterns of relating: An adult attachment perspec-
tive. New York: Guilford Press.
Westen, D. (1991). Clinical assessment of object relations using the TAT. Journal of Personal-
ity Assessment, 56, 56–74.
Westen, D. (1998). Affect regulation and psychopathology: Applications to depression and
borderline personality disorder. In W.F. Flack, Jr., & J.D. Laird (Eds.), Emotions in
psychopathology: Theory and research (pp. 394–406). New York: Oxford.
Westen, D., Barends, A., Leigh, J., Mendel, M., & Silbert, D. (1994). Social cognition and object
relations scale (SCORS): Manual for coding interview data. Unpublished manuscript,
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Westen, D., Feit, A., & Zittel, C. (1999). Focus chapter: Methodological issues in research
using projective measures. In P.C. Kendall, J.N. Butcher, & N. James (Eds.), Hand-
book of research methods in clinical psychology (2nd Ed., pp. 224–240). New York: Wiley.
Westen, D., Lohr, N., Silk, K., Gold, L., & Kerber, K. (1990). Object relations and social cog-
nition in borderlines, major depressives, and normals: A Thematic
Apperception Test analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 355–364.
Zubernis, L.S., Cassidy, K.W., Gillham, J.E., Reivich, K.J., & Jaycox, L.H. (1999). Prevention
of depressive symptoms in preadolescent children of divorce. Journal of Divorce and
Remarriage, 30, 11–36.

Barry A. Farber
Box 57, Program in Clinical Psychology
Teachers College, Columbia University
New York, NY 10027
E–mail: Farber@tc.columbia.edu.

View publication stats