2006, 38 (3) : 399 406 A cta Psychologica S in ica : ( ECR) 3 1 2 ( 1, 100871) ( 2, 8130016, ) ( ECR) 371,, 59 231,, ( ) ( ), ( ECR),,, B848 1 20,,,, A insworth,, B rennan, Clark Shaver [ 1 ] ( Experi2 ences in Close Relationship s Inventory, ECR), 1. 1 Bowlby [ 2 ] A insworth [ 3 ] :,,, : ( 1) ( availability) ( responsive2 ness) ; (2), /,,, [ 4 ] Bowlby,,: [ 5 ] 1. 2 20 80,, 1987,,, Hazan Shaver [ 6 ] A insworth A insworth,,,,,, : 2003-10 - 27 3 (70572007) :E - mail: litg@pku. edu. cn; : 010-62751830 399
400 38, [ 7, 8 ] Bartholomew, Bowlby,,,,, ( Prototype) [ 9 11 ], ( ) ( ), ( ) ( ) : ; ;, ;,, Bartholomew Horowitz, (Relation2 ship Questionnaire, RQ ) [ 9 ], 7,, Hazan Shaver [ 6 ] Bartholomew Horowitz [ 9 ],,,,,, [ 12 ],,,? B rennan,, ( ECR) [ 1 ] 14, 60, 323,1086,,, 36,,, 18 (, ),( ) [ 8 ],,, 1. 3 ECR, ECR, ( ) [ 13, 14 ],, ( ), B rennan [ 1 ], Rosenberg [ 15, 16 ], [ 17 ] 2 2. 1 371,,,231 B rennan 13 18 25, 20. 3 ( 1. 02 ), 20, 97, 130, 4, 59 2. 2 ( ), : (1) : [ 1 ] ( ECR) [ 9 ] (RQ ) ; ( 2) Rosenberg [ 15 ] ; (3) [ 17 ] 7 2. 2. 1 ( 1) [ 1 ] ( ECR) : 36,, (, )
3 :: ( ECR) 401,,,,,, 5,, 1 2 (2) (RQ) : RQ : ECR, ( ECR) (RQ ), RQ Bartholomew Horowitz 4, 4, 7,,4, RQ 2. 2. 2 : Rosenberg [ 18 ], RQ (1) Rosenberg ( SE) : 10, Bartholomew & Horowitz, ( 9,[ 19 ] ),39. 20%,( = 0. 87; 0180) (2) RQ : Griffin Bar2 tholomew [ 10 ], RQ, () (), : = (+) - (+ ) 2. 2. 3 : [ 17 ], RQ (1) : [ 17 ], 19,, : / /,, 45. 21%, ( 0. 89 0. 70,0. 71 0. 70) /, Bowlby [ 12 ],,, (236 ) (2) RQ : Griffin Bar2 tholomew [ 10 ], RQ () (), : = (+) - (+ ) 2. 3, 59 4,,,, 20 3 RQ,, ECR 36, [ 13, 14 ] MULTILOG [ 20 ],, ANOVA, ECR,, ECR 3. 1 ECR, MULTILOG: ( ) [ 13, 14 ], ( ),0,,,,
402 38 ( ) 0. 50 ( ) 7, ( ) 6 ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ),, Fraley [ 13 ],ECR ( ), 1 2,, 0,,, 0. 50 [ 13, 14 ], ( 15, 31, 35, 19 ) ( 32, 18 )0. 5, ECR, 1, 1,, 1 0. 59,, 1 0. 61 1 ECR ( n = 231) Item parameter estimates F2 Item s 1 2 3 4 5 6 07., 4. 27-0. 63 0. 12 0. 44 0. 73 1. 09 1. 40 05., 3. 04-0. 88-0. 02 0. 45 0. 71 1. 07 1. 62 23. 2. 47-1. 48-0. 45 0. 10 0. 47 1. 04 1. 63 17. 2. 46-0. 65 0. 10 0. 61 1. 00 1. 62 2. 19 13. 2. 32-0. 96-0. 21 0. 07 0. 48 1. 05 1. 74 11., 1. 68-1. 30-0. 30 0. 23 0. 62 1. 12 1. 92 03. (R) 1. 54-0. 64 0. 49 1. 26 2. 00 2. 80 3. 87 01., 1. 06-1. 51-0. 07 0. 62 0. 92 1. 72 3. 26 25. (R) 0. 93-2. 70-1. 17-0. 24 0. 40 1. 19 2. 45 09., 0. 92-1. 25 0. 09 0. 82 1. 26 1. 89 3. 78 27. (R) 0. 84-1. 85 0. 12 1. 38 2. 23 3. 39 5. 30 29. (R) 0. 73-3. 19-1. 52-0. 30 0. 28 1. 28 3. 11 21., 0. 63-3. 88-1. 48 0. 01 0. 85 1. 72 4. 00 33.,, (R) 0. 48-2. 59-0. 14 2. 61 4. 22 5. 71 6. 67 15. (R) 0. 31-8. 62-6. 06-4. 16-2. 58-0. 21 3. 43 31.,, (R) 0. 31-7. 53-4. 51-2. 76-2. 01 0. 56 4. 66 35. (R) 0. 30-6. 51-2. 75-0. 10 2. 01 4. 08 6. 87 19. (R) 0. 23-14. 28-11. 04-6. 38-3. 53 0. 74 6. 65 : (1) B rennan (2) ( ) (3) (R) (4) ECR :,,?,, 1, 7, ECR, ( Cronbach s 0. 82 0. 77), ( 0. 71 0. 72) 3. 2 ECR, Bar2 tholomew & Horowitz, :,RQ 4 ECR,, ECR RQ 3. 2. 1 :Bartholo2 mew, : ( 1),, RQ,
3 :: ( ECR) 403 ; (2),, 2 ECR ( n = 231) Item s Item parameter estimates F2 1 2 3 4 5 6 08. 1. 99-1. 57-0. 78-0. 38 0. 12 0. 99 1. 83 22. (R) 1. 86-1. 25-0. 19 0. 45 0. 97 1. 59 2. 94 02. 1. 76-1. 21-0. 22 0. 24 0. 74 1. 54 2. 21 06. ( / ) 1. 17-1. 81-0. 65-0. 03 0. 58 1. 66 2. 93 12., 1. 02-1. 61-0. 29 0. 77 1. 65 2. 97 4. 40 14. 0. 88-1. 69-0. 19 0. 48 1. 12 2. 03 3. 45 04. 0. 85-2. 23-0. 73 0. 15 1. 03 2. 31 4. 30 16. 0. 83-1. 19 0. 46 1. 52 2. 71 3. 84 9. 96 28., 0. 82-1. 67-0. 68 0. 11 1. 26 2. 03 3. 76 20. 0. 74-2. 51-0. 29 0. 79 1. 50 3. 22 4. 82 26. 0. 74-2. 51-0. 29 0. 79 1. 50 3. 22 4. 82 24. 0. 71-4. 49-2. 24-1. 44-0. 57 1. 22 3. 86 10. 0. 65-7. 53-4. 41-3. 02-2. 04-0. 89 0. 99 36., 0. 61-5. 16-3. 10-1. 85-0. 78 1. 16 3. 12 34., 0. 47-5. 74-2. 23-0. 37 1. 68 3. 22 5. 87 30., 0. 45-6. 79-3. 44-1. 70-0. 36 2. 04 5. 78 32.,, 0. 39-9. 10-5. 40-4. 17-2. 87-0. 01 2. 91 18. / 0. 18-2. 38-0. 61 0. 50 1. 38 2. 23 3. 53 : (1) B rennan (2) ( ) (3) (R) 3 ECR,RQ ( n = 109) ( n = 36) ( n = 50) ( n = 24) F 3. 87a 3. 88a 4. 63b 4. 40b F (3, 215) = 10. 39 3 3 0. 85 0. 86 0. 91 0. 85 2. 69a 3. 62c 3. 15b 3. 90c F (3, 215) = 18. 62 3 3 0. 92 0. 93 0. 75 0. 96 : (1), 12 (2),0. 05, ECR, RQ ( 3) :,, F (3, 215) = 10. 39, p < 0. 01 ( p = 0. 000) ( p = 0. 000), ( p = 0. 008) ( p = 0. 026),, F (3, 215) = 18. 62, p < 0. 01 ( p = 0. 000) ( p = 0. 001), ( p = 0. 000) ( p = 0. 016) 3. 2. 2 :,
404 38 Bartholomew,,, ECRRQ, 4 ECR,, ECR RQ ( r = - 0. 44, p <0. 01), Rosenberg ( r = - 0. 22, p < 0. 05), ECR RQ ( r = - 0. 58, p < 0. 01), ( r = - 0. 14, p < 0. 05) 4 ECR ECR (Rosenberg, 1965) - 0. 22 3 3-0. 08 RQ (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) : - 0. 44 3 3-0. 18 (, 1999) : - 0. 07-0. 14 3 RQ (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) : 0. 19-0. 58 3 3 3. 3 ECR, RQ ECR,ECR, ECR, 22,,, ECR, [ 23 ] ( STA I), [ 24 ] ( SAD ), 7 : ( 1),, /? (2),, /? 7, STA I20 ( SA I), 20 ( TA I), SAD 14, 14 ECR, 5 5, ECR :STA I ( SA I: r = 0. 46, p < 0. 01; TA I: r = 0. 37, p < 0. 05), SAD ( r = 0. 35, p < 0. 05), ( r = 0. 34, p < 0105) ;, ECR SAD ( r = 0. 28, p < 0. 05), ( r = 0. 50, p < 0. 01) 5 ECR ( n = 44) STA I SAD SA I TA I 0. 19 0. 22 0. 28 3 0. 17 0. 50 3 3 0. 13 0. 46 3 3 0. 37 3 0. 18 0. 35 3 0. 18 0. 34 3 : SA I, TA I 4, ECR, [ 21, 25 ], ECR,
3 :: ( ECR) 405 ECR ECR,, Cronbach s ECR,, RQ,RQ,,,, ( - 0. 14-0. 22),,, ECR RQ,, [ 11, 22 ],,,,,, RQ, 109 (4918% ), 36 (16. 4% ), 50 (2218% ), 24 (11% ),, [ 1 ] 46%, 15%, 16%, 23%,,,ECR, ;,,,,ECR,,,,ECR,,,,, [ 25 ], :, 1 B rennan K A, Clark C L, Shaver P R. Self2report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In: Simpson J A, Rholes W S eds. A ttachment theory and close relationships. New York: The Guilford Press, 1998. 46 76 2 Bowlby J. A ttachment and loss. Vol. 1. A ttachment. Pim lico, 1969 /1997 3 A insworth M D S. A ttachments beyond infancy. American Psycholo2 gist, 1989, 44: 709 716 4 W aters E, Cumm ings E M. A secure base from which to exp lore close relationship s. Child Development, 2000, 71: 164 172 5 A insworth M D S, B lehar M C, W aters E, W all S. Patterns of at2 tachment: A p sychological study of strange situation. H illsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1978 6 Hazan C, Shaver P. Concep tualizing romantic love as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1987, 52 (3) : 511 524 7 Stein H, Jacobs N J, Ferguson K S, A llen J G., Fonagy P. W hat do adult attachment scales measure? Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 1998, 62: 33 80 8 Crowell J A, Fraley R C, Shaver P R. Measurement of Individual D ifferences in Adolescent and Adult A ttachment. In: Cassidy J, Shaver P R eds. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical app lications. New York: Guilford, 1999. 434 465 9 Bartholomew K, Horowitz L M. A ttachment styles among young a2 dults: A test of a four2categorymodel. Journal of Personality and So2 cial Psychology, 1991, 61: 226 244 10 Griffin D, Bartholomew K. Models of self and other: Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Per2
406 38 sonality and Social Psychology, 1994, 67: 430 445 11 Griffin D, Bartholomew K. The metaphysics of measurement: The case of adult attachment. In: Bartholomew K, Parlman D eds. Ad2 vance in personal relationship, 5, A ttachment process in adulthood. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers L td, 1994. 17 52 12 Bowlby J. A ttachment and loss. Vol. 2. Separation. Pim lico, 1973 /1997 13 Fraley R C, W aller N G, B rennan K A. An item response theory analysis of self2report measure of adult attachment. Journal of personality and social p sychology, 2000, 78 (2) : 350 365 14 Embretson S E, Reise S P. Item response theory for p sychologists. Lawrence Erlbaum A ssociates, Inc, 2000 15 RosenbergM. Society and the adolescent self2image. Princeton Uni2 versity Press, 1965 16 Cozzarelli C, Sumer N, Major B. Mental models of attachment and coping with abortion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 1998, 74 (2) : 453 467 17 Nakao T, Kato K. Exam ining reliabilities and validities of adult at2 tachment scales for " the generalized other". Kyushu University Psy2 chological Research, 2004, 5: 19 27 (,. g g g g., 2004, 5: 19 27) 18 Yang Z F. Measurement for personality and social p sychology. Yuan liu chu ban gong si, 1997 19 Man K O, Ham id P N. The relationship between attachment p roto2 types, self2esteem, loneliness and causal attributions in Chinese trainee teachers. Personality & Individual D ifferences, 1998, 24 (3) : 357 371 20 Thissen D. MULTILOG user s guide: Multip le, categorical item and test scoring using item response theory ( version 7. 05) software ]. Chicago: Scientific Software, 2003 [ Computer 21 Nakao T, Kato K. Constructing the Japanese version of the adult at2 tachment style scale. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 2004, 75 (2) : 154 159 (,. t g g g g., 2004, 75 (2) : 154 159) 22 Cozzarelli C, Hoekstra S J, Bylsma W H. General versus specific mental models of attachment: A re they associated with different out2 comes? Personality and Social psychology Bulletin, 2000, 26 ( 5) : 605 618 23 Sp iellberger D, Charles G R L, Lushenne R. Manual for the State2 Trait Anxiety Inventory ( Formy). Inc. Palo A lto, 1983. 577 Consulting Psychologists Press, 24 W atson D, Friend R. Measurement of social2evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33: 448 457 25 OnishiM, Gjerde P F, B lock J. Personality imp lications of romantic attachment patterns in young adults: A multi2method, multi2 informant study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2001, 27 (9) : 1097 1110 M ea sur ing Adult A ttachm en t: Ch inese Adapta tion of the ECR Sca le L i Tonggui 1, Kato Kazuo 2 ( 1 D epartm ent of Psychology, Peking U niversity, B eijing 100871, China) ( 2 Faculty of Hum an2environm ent S tudies, Kyushu U niversity, Fukuoka 813-0016, Japan) Abstract To p romote research on adult attachment in China, the " Experiences in Close Relationship s Inventory ( ECR ) ", a scale widely used and considered as the " standard" one in USA, was adap ted into Chinese. 371 college students in China were asked to respond to the scale along with Rosenberg s self2esteem and O ther2view scales for testing construct validities, and 59 of them to retake the scales 4 weeks later for testing temporal reliability. Of them, 231 who reported had / have had romantic experiences were selected to final analyses. A s a result, this scale was demonstrated to have adequate relia2 bilities ( internal and temporal consistency) and validities ( construct and criterion2related). Key words adult attachment, ECR, Chinese version, reliability, validity.