Mapping the Intimate Relationship Mind: Comparisons between Three Models of Attachment Representations

Overall, Nickola C.; Fletcher, Garth J. O.; Friesen, Myron D.

doi:10.1177/0146167203251519

Cited by 267

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mapping the Intimate Relationship Mind: Comparisons between Three Models of Attachment Representations

Overall, Nickola C., Fletcher, Garth J. O., Friesen, Myron D.·2003·Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

DOI 10.1177/0146167203251519

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study compared three models of how attachment working models might be cognitively represented. Model 1 posits that attachment representations consist of a single global working model summarizing attachment across specific relationships and domains. Model 2 proposes three independent working models for the relationship domains of family, platonic friendships, and romantic partners. Model 3 postulates that specific relationship models are nested under relationship domain representations that are, in turn, nested under an overarching global working model. Participants completed standard attachment scales for the relationship domains of family, platonic friendships, and romantic partners and also provided attachment ratings for three specific relationships within each domain. As expected, confirmatory factor analyses showed that Model 3 attained the best fit, regardless of analysis strategy, measurement strategy, gender, and relationship status. Implications are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0146167203251519

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.61.2.226 · Cited by 8,384
Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511 · Cited by 6,247 · cited 4×
“For each of the nine relationships reported, participants were asked to rate each of the original paragraphs denoting prototype attachment styles (secure, avoidant, and anxious/ ambivalent) designed by Hazan and Shaver (1987) on a single 7-point Likert-type scale indicating the extent to which each paragraph character…”
MethodInfluential
Practical issues in structural modeling
BENTLER, P. M., & CHOU, C.-P. (1987) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124187016001004 · Cited by 5,804
Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment and well-being
La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.367 · Cited by 1,571 · cited 2×
“In addition, La Guardia et al. (2000) found that variability in attachment across partners (within individuals) was partly explained by the extent to which attachment-related needs, such as relatedness and autonomy, were met within each relation- ship.”
Background
Social-cognitive conceptualization of attachment working models: Availability and accessibility effects.
Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P. R., Fehr, B., & Enns, V. (1996) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.71.1.94 · Cited by 671

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 35

Anderson, S. M. & Berenson, K. R. (2001). Perceiving, feeling, and wanting: Experiencing prior relationships in present-day interpersonal relations. In J. P. Forgas, K. D. Williams, & L. Wheeler (Eds.), The social mind: Cognitive and motivational aspects of interpersonal behavior (pp. 231-256). New York: Cambridge University Press.
10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00090.x · DOI · Paper page
10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.94 · DOI · Paper page
10.1521/soco.1999.17.2.209 · DOI
10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226 · DOI · Paper page
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 3. Loss. New York: Basic Books.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L. & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford.
Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Collins, N. L. & Read, S. J. (1994). Cognitive representations of attachment: The structure and function of working models. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Attachment processes in adulthood: Vol. 5. Advances in personal relationships (pp. 53-90). London: Jessica Kingsley.
10.1177/0146167200267008 · DOI
10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.783 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.783 · Paper page
Feeney, J. A. (1999). Adult romantic attachments and couple relationships. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications (pp. 355-377). New York: Guilford.
10.2307/1130716 · DOI
10.1111/j.1475-6811.1997.tb00135.x · DOI · Paper page
10.1348/000711200160273 · DOI
Griffin, D. W. & Bartholomew, K. (1994). The metaphysics of measurement: The case of adult attachment. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Attachment processes in adulthood: Vol. 5. Advances in personal relationships (pp. 17-52). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Hammond, J. R. & Fletcher, G. J. O. (1991). Attachment styles and relationship satisfaction in the development of close relationships. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 20, 56-62.
Hazan, C. & Zeifman, D. (1999). Pairbonds as attachments. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications (pp. 336-354). New York: Guilford.
10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.tb00058.x · DOI · Paper page
10.2307/1130395 · DOI
10.1207/s15327965pli0501_9 · DOI
10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.391 · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.391 · Paper page
10.1037/0033-2909.97.3.562 · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.97.3.562 · Paper page
Marvin, R. S. & Britner, P. A. (1999). Normative development: The ontogeny of attachment. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications (pp. 44-67). New York: Guilford.
10.1037/0022-3514.77.4.710 · DOI · Paper page
10.1037/0022-3514.80.4.613 · DOI · Paper page
10.1207/s15327906mbr2301_3 · DOI · Paper page
Shaver, P. R., Collins, N. & Clark, C. L. (1996). Attachment styles and internal working models of self and relationship partners. In G. J. O. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social cognitive approach (pp. 25-62). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Shaver, P. R., Hazan, C. & Bradshaw, D. (1988). Love as attachment. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 68-99). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Simpson, J. A. & Rholes, W. S. (Eds.). (1998). Attachment theory and close relationships. New York: Guilford.
10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.434 · DOI · Paper page
10.1177/0146167202288004 · DOI · Paper page
10.1037/0022-3514.71.5.899 · DOI · Paper page
10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.893 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.893 · Paper page
10.1177/0265407597145002 · DOI · Paper page

The experiences in close relationships—Relationship Structures Questionnaire: A method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships.
Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/a0022898 · Cited by 1,198
A developmental, mentalization-based approach to the understanding and treatment of borderline personality disorder
Fonagy, P., & Luyten, P. (2009) · Development and Psychopathology · doi:10.1017/s0954579409990198 · Cited by 1,146
“, Fraley, 2007; Pierce & Lydon, 2001) supports a view of internal working models as hierarchically organized networks that contain both global and relationship-specific representations (Fonagy, 2001; Overall et al., 2003) or as distributed processes within a connectionistic network (Fraley, 2007).”
Background
Perceptions of Conflict and Support in Romantic Relationships: The Role of Attachment Anxiety
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., & Kashy, D. A. (2005) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.510 · Cited by 725
Reliability and Validity of the Revised Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR-R) Self-Report Measure of Adult Romantic Attachment
Sibley, C. G., Fischer, R., & Liu, J. H. (2005) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167205276865 · Cited by 549
Sex Differences in Romantic Attachment: A Meta-Analysis
Del Giudice, M. (2011) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167210392789 · Cited by 441

See all 267

Authors: Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Friesen, M. D.
Venue: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Published: 2003-12
Volume: 29
Issue: 12
Pages: 1479-1493
ISSN: 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
1552-7433
DOI: 10.1177/0146167203251519
OpenAlex: W2088270829
Cited by: 267
References: 5
FWCI: 7.68
Type: journal article
Language: en
Open access: closed
Licence: journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page: CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mapping the Intimate Relationship Mind: Comparisons between Three Models of Attachment Representations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0146167203251519
The paper: Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Friesen, M. D. (2003). Mapping the Intimate Relationship Mind: Comparisons between Three Models of Attachment Representations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203251519

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.

Mapping the Intimate Relationship Mind: Comparisons between Three Models of Attachment Representations

Abstract

Overview

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Self-check

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Metadata

Record

About these checks

How to cite

Data sources