Scripted attachment representations of current romantic relationships: measurement and validation

ABSTRACT

This report describes the development and validation of a new coding system for the Current Relationship Interview (CRI) that assesses individual differences in secure base script knowledge with respect to adult romantic partners. Drawing on data from the Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk and Adaptation (N = 116) a coding system was developed to parallel the secure base script coding system for the Adult Attachment Interview. Specifically, CRIs conducted in adulthood were re-coded for the extent to which the interviews reflected script-like expectations that romantic partners are available and provide effective support in times of distress (CRI_sbs). CRI_sbs was moderately associated with the traditional coding system for the CRI and showed concurrent and/or predictive validity in relation to observed and self-reported romantic relationship quality as well as interview ratings of the effectiveness with which adults engaged in romantic relationships. Theoretical and practical benefits of the CRI_sbs coding system are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Secure base script knowledge
• romantic relationships
• current relationships interview
• longitudinal
• validation

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This analysis was supported in part by a grant from the National Institute on Aging (R01 AG039453) to Jeffry A. Simpson and a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [R01 HD102035] to Glenn I. Roisman. Research reported in this publication was also facilitated by the National Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health via a training grant [T32 MH015755] supporting pre-doctoral research by Marissa D. Nivison at the University of Minnesota. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Institutes of Health.