Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 362373

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Research in Personality

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp

Development and validation of a state adult attachment measure (SAAM)

Omri Gillath a,*, Joshua Hart b, Erik E. Noftle c, Gary D. Stockdale d
a
Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, United States
b
Department of Psychology, Union College, 807 Union Street, Schenectady, NY 12308, USA
c
Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27109, USA
d
Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616-8686, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: For over two decades, individual differences in adult attachment style have been conceptualized and
Available online 27 December 2008 measured in terms of anxiety, avoidance, and security. During this time, the prevailing assumption has
been that an adults attachment style is a relatively stable disposition, rooted in internal working models
Keywords: of self and relationship partners. These models are based on previous experiences in close relationships.
Attachment Recent research, however, suggests that levels of attachment anxiety, avoidance, and security are also
State affected by situational factors. To capture temporary uctuations in the sense of attachment security
Trait
and insecurity we developed a state adult attachment measure (SAAM). Exploratory and conrmatory
Measurement
factor analyses yielded three reliable subscales measuring state levels of attachment-related anxiety,
avoidance, and security. Additional studies demonstrated both convergent and discriminant validity of
the new measure, and its sensitivity to a variety of experimental manipulations. Our discussion focuses
on potential uses for the SAAM for both researchers and clinicians.
2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction mary caregivers (i.e., attachment gures), individual differences

Attachment style is considered to be relatively stable (e.g., Fra-
ley, 2002; Klohnen & Bera, 1998; Simpson, Collins, Tran, & Haydon,
2007), hence, most measures of adult attachment tend to focus on
its trait-like characteristics. However, in recent years several
authors have suggested that not with standing its stability, attach-
ment style is also likely to be inuenced or shaped by major life
events (Cozzarelli, Karafa, Collins, & Tagler, 2003; Davila & Sargent,
2003; Feeney & Noller, 1992; Hammond & Fletcher, 1991), and di-
verse contextual factors (e.g., Baldwin & Fehr, 1995; Davila, Burge,
& Hammen, 1997; Gillath & Shaver, 2007). Despite this reasoning,
and the proliferation and prevalent use of attachment measures in
adult relationship research over the past 20 years, there is cur-
rently no state measure that captures temporary uctuations in
the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors underlying attachment pro-
cesses. In the present article, we describe the rationale for creating
a state measure of attachment, introduce a self-report measure
that we developed, and describe a series of studies attesting to
the reliability and validity of this new measure.
2. Attachment styles: denition and dynamics
Ever since Bowlby (1969/1982, 1973, 1980) introduced attach-
ment theory to explain the bonds that infants form with their pri-
* Corresponding author. Fax: +1 785 752 2087.
E-mail address: ogillath@ku.edu (O. Gillath).
in attachment styles have been conceptualized and measured
in terms of anxiety, avoidance, and security (e.g., Ainsworth
et al., 1978; Carver, 1997; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Simpson,
1990). Attachment styles are thought to reect individuals cogni-
tiveaffective working models (i.e., mental representations) of
self and other and resulting behavioral orientations toward close
relationship partners. Attachment anxiety is characterized by inse-
curity about ones own worth and abilities, extreme need for inter-
personal closeness, love, and support, and constant worrying about
being rejected or abandoned. Attachment avoidance is character-
ized by reluctance to trust others, an emphasis on autonomy and
self-reliance, a relatively low tolerance for interpersonal intimacy
and interdependence, and a tendency to down-regulate ones
own emotions. Finally, attachment security relates to a sense of
faith in the responsiveness of attachment gures, ones own worth
and abilities, and comfort with intimacy and interdependence, as
well as the relative absence of anxiety and avoidance (see Mikulin-
cer & Shaver, 2007a, for an extensive review of individual differ-
ences in attachment style).
Attachment styles are often thought of as stable personality
dimensions and a large body of research supports that notion
(e.g., Kirkpatrick & Hazan, 1994; Simpson et al., 2007; Waters,
Weineld, & Hamilton, 2000). However, Bowlbys original theory
and some of its contemporary conceptualizations (e.g., Fraley &
Brumbaugh 2004; Gillath, Selcuk, & Shaver, 2008; Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2007a) suggest that there is more to attachment style than
stable dispositions hence the terms working models, and dynamic

0092-6566/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.009
 O. Gillath et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 362373
behavioral systems. According to Bowlby (1969/1982), mental rep-
resentations of self and other are largely accurate reections of ac-
tual experiences, especially in the context of close relationships,
which are revised and updated as a person enters new relation-
ships and has new experiences (although Bowlby posited that
working models that are formed early in life, or are particularly
strong, will tend to persist).
Numerous studies have provided evidence to support Bowl-
bys conceptualization of working models and the dynamic
attachment system. For example, Feeney and Noller (1992)
found when following a sample of young adults for 10 weeks
that the formation of a steady relationship was related to an in-
crease in attachment security and a decrease in attachment inse-
curity. Similarly, Hammond and Fletcher (1991) found that
involvement in satisfying relationships at one point in time
was associated with increased security later. Kirkpatrick and Ha-
zan (1994) also found that relationship experiences moderate
the stability of attachment style when they followed college stu-
dents over 4 years. Relationship breakups were associated with
changes from secure to insecure attachment styles, and avoidant
subjects who formed new relationships were less likely to re-
main avoidant than those who did not. Likewise, Davila and Sar-
gent (2003) found that perceptions of greater interpersonal loss
related to life events were positively associated with greater
attachment insecurity on a day-to-day basis. Especially impor-
tant for the current work, they also found that trait levels of
attachment security did not moderate this association, suggest-
ing that state attachment or uctuations in the sense of secu-
rity is independent from dispositional attachment style.
Despite their encouraging preliminary ndings, Davila and Sar-
gent also found high week-to-week correlations between the
attachment scores (over .90), which means they may not have
adequately captured the state component of attachment. This
highlights the need for a scale that is solely dedicated to the
measurement of such a construct.
Recent empirical ndings provide further evidence that
working models, and thus attachment styles, are malleable
across even very short durations, such as minutes or hours.
For instance, reminding people of times when they have felt se-
cure, anxious, or avoidant momentarily activates a specic
attachment schema (Baldwin, Fehr, Keedian, Seidel, & Thomson,
1993; Baldwin, Keelan, Fehr, Enns, & Koh-Rangarajoo, 1996).
This momentary activation of a schema seems to temporarily
override stable dispositions in terms of inuencing participants
perceptions, expectations, and behaviors. For example, Gillath
and Shaver (2007) showed that priming a specic attachment
context (by asking people to imagine their partner as either
responsive and sensitive or unresponsive and insensitive) affects
their responses to relationship-related scenarios, and Gillath
et al. (2006) showed that such priming also affects participants
goal pursuits. Gillath et al. (2008) bring evidence to suggest
that these temporary changes can persist for a relatively long
time.
According to Baldwin and others, changes in attachment style
are possible because people simultaneously hold in their minds
several models of self and other ordered in a hierarchy (Baldwin
et al., 1996; Collins & Read, 1994; Klohnen, Weller, Luo, & Choe,
2005; Pierce & Lydon, 2001). At higher levels of organization, these
models include abstract rules or assumptions about attachment
relationships, and at lower levels, they include information about
specic relationships and events within relationships (e.g., Collins
& Read, 1990; Overall, Fletcher, & Friesen, 2003). Each of these
models can be activated and made more accessible at any given
moment. Levels of attachment anxiety, avoidance, and security
are then set as a function of the model or schema that is most
strongly activated.
363
3. The need for a state measure of attachment style
Based on the conceptualizations and research reviewed above,
it seems clear that atleast life events (especially those pertaining
to close relationships), and experimental activation of close rela-
tionship schemas, temporarily affect peoples attachment style or
levels of security and insecurity. Moreover, these temporarily uc-
tuations are not simply noise but result in meaningful behavior;
priming studies have shown that enhancing security or insecurity
inuences prosocial behavior such as volunteering, well-being
and mental health (e.g., lowering PTSD symptoms), and increases
intergroup tolerance (e.g., Mikulincer, Shaver, Gillath, & Nitzberg,
2005; for reviews see Gillath et al., 2008; Mikulincer & Shaver,
2007a). In other words, attachment style uctuates across mo-
ments in time and situations, albeit within a range constrained in
part by a persons stable dispositions. Fleeson (2001) has already
demonstrated similar ndings for the Big Five personality traits
although individuals average level of behavior relevant to each
trait was very stable from one week to the other, their scores on
Big Five dimensions varied across specic occasions. Thus, scores
on a state attachment measure have the potential to account for
a unique portion of the variance in psychological, behavioral, and
relationship outcomes (e.g., emotions, interpersonal interactions,
and relationship stability and satisfaction).
This suggests that a measure enabling the detection of short-
term uctuations in attachment would benet researchers inter-
ested in attachment-related psychological and relationship pro-
cesses. Additionally, because more therapists are integrating
attachment theory into their practices (e.g., Hughes, 2007; Johnson
& Whiffen, 2003; Oppenheim & Goldsmith, 2007), measuring the
effect of therapy on attachment style, and specically the sense
of security, is essential; therefore, a state measure would be bene-
cial for clinicians as well.
Despite the apparent importance of momentary uctuations in
attachment style, there is currently no way to measure such state
changes. The most widely used measure of adult attachment style,
the experiences in close relationships scale (ECR; Brennan, Clark, &
Shaver, 1998) is a highly reliable and valid instrument, explicitly
designed to measure stable dispositions. Accordingly, it instructs
participants to reect on their general experiences in relationships
(either with a specic gure or all close gures), which probably
activates generalized, abstracted working models at the expense
of momentary models. Moreover, because the ECR items were
written to reect generalized close relationship feelings, the scale
cannot be easily converted to a state measure (e.g., by changing
the instructions or altering the wording of individual items). We
have therefore developed the state adult attachment measure
(SAAM). In the current article, we describe the development of
the SAAM and several studies that tested its convergent, discrimi-
nant, and construct validity.
3.1. What should a state attachment measure look like?
Currently, there are two main approaches to measuring adult
attachment style: self-reports and interviews.1 The Adult Attach-
ment Interview (AAI; George, Kaplan, & Main, 1985) and measures
based on it (e.g., Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) usually denes
attachment in terms of three or four categories; however several
of the self-report measures, including the ECR (and the revised
ECR-R; Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000) conceptualize adult attach-
ment in terms of two orthogonal dimensions (anxiety and avoid-
ance), with security dened as low scores on both of these
1
There are other ways to measure attachment style such as projective measures;
however, self-reports and interviews are the most common ones according to
Mikulincer and Shavers (2007a) literature review.
364 O. Gillath et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 362373
dimensions. Because of this, one might assume that a state measure
would have a similar structure of two orthogonal dimensions. Nev-
ertheless, other measures, such as Simpsons (1990), and Hazan
and Shavers (1987) original measure have suggested a different
structure in which security is an independent dimension, related
negatively, but moderately, to anxiety and avoidance (which are in
turn mostly or totally independent of each other).
Levy and Davis (1988) also found a three-factor structure,
where scores on security were moderately negatively correlated
with scores on avoidant attachment, and weakly negatively corre-
lated with scores on attachment anxiety (there was a near-zero
correlation between anxiety and avoidance). Carver (1997),
attempting to overcome previous measures limitations in assess-
ing the sense of security, developed a similarly structured adult
attachment measure. Specically aiming to measure security sep-
arately from low insecurity, Carver conceptualized security as
reecting an appreciation of ones relationship as a safe haven
and a secure base for exploration, which resulted in three scales:
avoidance, ambivalence (reecting two facets of anxiety: worry
and desire for merger), and security. Carvers Security scale was re-
lated inversely to the Avoidance scale, and was relatively unrelated
to either of the Ambivalence scales. Carvers Avoidance scale was
also relatively unrelated to either Ambivalence scales.
This evidence suggests that an alternative model for the struc-
ture of adult attachment style may include a separate security
scale, or perhaps two dimensions running diagonally (as compared
to the common anxiety  avoidance matrix), one from security to
insecurity, and the other from high anxiety and low avoidance to
high avoidance and low anxiety (e.g., Asendorpf, Banse, Wilpers,
& Neyer, 1997; Banse, 2004; Elizur & Mintzer, 2003; Mikulincer
& Shaver, 2007b). This idea of rotated dimensions ts with Kobak
et al.s work (Kobak, Cole, Ferenz-Gillies, Fleming, & Gamble,
1993), Fyffe and Waterss (1997) two-dimensional scoring system
for the AAI, and Mikulincer and Shavers model (2003, 2007b) of
attachment processes. Based on Mikulincer and Shavers (2003)
dynamic model, which includes three modes of the attachment
system above and beyond a persons location on the two-dimen-
sional space, a three-factor model may adequately capture changes
in each one of these possible dimensions avoidance, anxiety, and
security.
Still, one cannot reject alternative structures for a state attach-
ment measure. We therefore tested various possible structures,
with a varying number of dimensions, and different links between
the dimensions. The only restriction we had for our measure was
that the items had to reect attachment-related thoughts, feelings,
or behaviors that would be interpretable in light of existing mea-
sures and structural conceptualizations. In the next section, we de-
scribe our rst study in which we generated items for the SAAM
and conducted an exploratory factor analysis to determine the
optimal structure for a state measure of attachment.
4. Study 1
To develop a measure that could tap into momentary feelings of
attachment, we rst revisited the 36-item ECR (Brennan et al.,
1998), which itself resulted from factor analyses of many of the
earlier self-report measures of attachment. We reworded each
ECR item that could be transformed to emphasize a state context.
For example, we rewrote I get uncomfortable when a romantic
partner wants to be very close as I would be uncomfortable hav-
ing a good friend or a relationship partner close to me now. We
added the term good friend to allow people with no romantic part-
ner to also complete the questionnaire without skipping items. (In
the nal version the word now was dropped from this item and
remained only in the general instructions of the questionnaire).
Second, in order to cover the entire range of thoughts, feelings,
and behaviors related to attachment, we wrote several items to
represent the dimensions formed by the interaction of anxiety
and avoidance (i.e., secure vs. fearful, and preoccupied vs. dismiss-
ing). We also wrote additional items to reect aspects of attach-
ment styles that are underrepresented on current measures, such
as the low end of anxiety (e.g., I feel relaxed knowing that close
others are there for me right now), which is represented by only
a single item in the ECR.
Third, we invited several attachment researchers and a team of
graduate students familiar with attachment to examine the rewrit-
ten and new items and comment on their readability, face validity,
and comprehensiveness, and to make suggestions for additional
items that could be included. These three processes resulted in
52 preliminary items.
Although many of the items were directly written to emphasize
a state-focused context, we wanted to further ensure that partici-
pants would respond to the items in terms of how they were cur-
rently feeling. Thus, we included the following instructions (similar
to other state measures):
The following statements concern how you feel right now.
Please respond to each statement by indicating how much you
agree or disagree with it as it reects your current feelings. Please
circle the number on the 17 scale that best indicates how you feel
at the moment.
4.1. Method
4.1.1. Participants
We administered the preliminary measure to three hundred
forty seven undergraduate students (258 women and 89 men,
ranging from 18 to 35 years of age, Mdn = 19) as part of a longer
survey (see Study 4). Two hundred and twenty eight had never
been married, ve married, one divorced, and one hundred thirteen
indicated other or declined to say. One hundred and ninety par-
ticipants reported being currently in a romantic relationship (54%).
Participants responded to each SAAM item using a 7-point scale,
ranging from 1 (Disagree strongly) to 7 (Agree strongly), with 4 (neu-
tral/mixed) as the midpoint of the scale. The 52 items were pre-
sented in a randomized order.
4.1.2. Exploratory factor analysis
We conducted an exploratory factor analysis testing 1, 2, 3, and
4-factor solutions, which reected common structures in existing
trait attachment style measures. A one-factor solution might indi-
cate a single secureinsecure bipolar dimension, which we thought
possible but unlikely for state-based attachment. A two-factor
solution might suggest a similar structure to Brennan et al.s
(1998) ECR, with a state dimension for both anxiety and avoidance.
A three-factor structure could represent an organization similar to
Hazan and Shavers (1987) prototype approach of secure, avoidant,
and anxiousambivalent styles or Collins and Reads (1990) dimen-
sions of anxiety, closeness, and dependency. A four-factor structure
could represent the quadrants formed by the RQ (Bartholomew &
Horowitz, 1991).
We predicted different patterns of correlations between the fac-
tors as a function of the different factor solutions. For example, we
predicted that with a two-factor solution that was similar to Bren-
nan et al.s orthogonal structure of attachment, we might observe
relatively uncorrelated factors. However, a two-factor structure
that contrasted secure vs. insecure styles, or approach-related vs.
avoidance-related styles, might be negatively correlated. A three-
factor structure similar to Hazan and Shaver (1987) might result
in a relatively small negative correlation between the secure and
anxious factors, but larger, negative correlations between the other
two-factor pairings (e.g., Shaver & Brennan, 1992). A four-factor
 O. Gillath et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 362373
model that maps onto the four categories provided by the 2-
dimensional space created by the ECR dimensions would have pre-
dictable associations according to a circumplex-like model: adjoin-
ing categories would be relatively uncorrelated whereas opposing
categories would be strongly negatively correlated.
4.2. Results and discussion
We examined the underlying structure of the 52 items through
a series of exploratory factor analyses in SAS 9.1.3 (20022004)
with unweighted least squares extraction in the initial factoring
process, and Promax rotation, because we did not expect that the
factors would necessarily be orthogonal.2 We examined the initial
52-item solution using the scree test (Cattell, 1966; 1978, p. 7),
rather than the traditional Eigenvalue greater than one test.3 Using
the scree test, the rst signicant jump between eigenvalues seemed
to be between the fourth (eigenvalue = 1.51) and the third factor
(eigenvalue = 2.38), or more conservatively, between the third factor
and the second factor (eigenvalue = 7.37). Therefore, the scree pat-
tern suggested either a three- or two-factor solution, but because
we had theoretical ideas about one-factor to four-factor solutions,
we decided to examine these solutions as well.
In the four-factor solution only two items loaded substantially
on the fourth factor (0.69 and 0.68), creating a doubleton or non-
factor (e.g., Gorsuch, 1983). The two items, I dont need anyone
to help me and I dont need anybodys help or support, sug-
gested that the way participants were responding to the help-re-
lated content of the items was forcing them into a fourth factor
which was less related to a style of attachment than to need for
help. Therefore, we examined the three-factor solution. This solu-
tion included three factors with items that had high positive load-
ings on their respective factors, no negative main loadings on any
of the factors,4 and negligible cross-loadings on other factors. For
example, there were many loadings above .50: the rst factor had
14 loadings, the second factor had 12 loadings, and the third factor
had 8 loadings above this value (with three other items loading just
under .50). In addition, there were several items that did not load
strongly on any of the factors. The two-factor solution also had a
number of high loadings but they were relatively unbalanced (the
rst factor had 23 loadings above .50 whereas the second factor
had just 14).
In the next step, we reduced the number of items from 52 to 32,
to include only the items that had high loadings on both the two-
and three-factor solutions, and then once again we examined the
factor structure using exploratory factor analyses. This analysis
suggested that the best structure was a 3-factor solution, which in-
cluded factors relating to security, avoidance, and anxiety,
accounting for 47.3% of the total variance (24.2%, 15.5%, and 7.6%
for the three factors, respectively).
The nal version of the scale was obtained through several l-
tering steps, where we eliminated items that had cross-loadings
greater than .20 on more than one factor or had loadings smaller
2
We also tested orthogonal rotations. The results were not substantially different.
3
We did not employ the eigenvalue-greater-than-one test (e.g., Kaiser, 1960),
because by using an arbitrary cut-off it necessitates excluding a factor with an
eigenvalue close to 1.00 (factor six: eigenvalue = .95) while including a factor not
much higher than 1.00 (factor ve: eigenvalue = 1.20), even though the two factors
are relatively close together in size (for other problems with the eigenvalue > 1 test,
see Lee and Ashton, 2007).
4
Although there were no items with sizable negative loadings on the anxiety and
avoidance factors in the three factor solution, there were a few items that negatively
loaded on the security factor (although most of them had sizable cross-loadings on
other factors). Using CFA, which we describe later in the current section, we tested a
three-factor model that incorporated the best items that negatively loaded on
security, but we found that the unipolar security factor contributed to a better tting
model (v2(186, N = 1433) = 1647.25; CFI = .90; RMSEA = .07) than the bipolar security
factor (v2(186, N = 1433) = 2191.58; CFI = .87; RMSEA = .09).
365
than .40 on the proposed factor5, resulting in a 21-item scale, with 7
items measuring each of the three content domains. Table 1 shows
the loadings of the 21 items on each of the factors. The security
and anxiety factors were correlated .09, the security and avoidance
factors were correlated .50 and the anxiety and avoidance factor
were correlated .02. Table 2 includes psychometric characteristics
of the measure: alpha reliabilities and inter-correlations between
the scales. Cronbach alpha coefcients for the three SAAM subscales
ranged from .83 to .87, suggesting good internal consistency.
5. Study 2
The purpose of study 2 was to conrm the factor structure of
the SAAM using conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) and a different
sample. In a CFA, a factor structure is explicitly hypothesized and
is tested for its t with the observed covariance structure of the
measured variables. The approach also allows for testing the rela-
tive t of competing factor models, with aid of theory, modication
indexes, and the pattern and signicance of factor loadings. Based
on our exploratory factor analysis results, we tested the t of one-
factor, two-factor, three-factor, and four-factor solutions with a
new set of data.
5.1. Method
5.1.1. Participants
We administered the 21-item SAAM to 1433 undergraduate
students (939 women and 494 men, ranging from 18 to 48 years
of age, Mdn = 19) as part of a longer online survey. Of the sample,
46% were single, 16% were casually dating, 37% were in a relation-
ship, and 1% were married. Of the participants, 37% were involved
in a romantic relationship. As with the EFA sample, participants re-
sponded to each SAAM item using a 7-point scale, ranging from 1
(Disagree strongly) to 7 (Agree strongly), with 4 (neutral/mixed) as
the midpoint of the scale. The 21 items were presented in a ran-
domized order.
5.1.2. Conrmatory factor analyses
All models examined the structural relation of the 21 items se-
lected as the result of the EFA. The one-factor model consisted of a
factor ranging from positive to negative feelings and thoughts
about attachment. We tested two two-factor models, one with a
security factor and an insecurity factor (subsuming avoidance
and anxiety), and one with an approach factor (subsuming security
and anxiety) and an avoidance factor. The three-factor model in-
cluded subscales of anxiety, avoidance, and security. Lastly, the
four-factor model was similar to the three-factor model except
that it differentiated between fearful avoidance and dismissing
avoidance. Using M Plus 4.0 (Muthen & Muthen, 2006), maximum
likelihood CFAs of the SAAM scores were conducted comparing the
one-, two-, three-, and four-factor competing rst-order models.
5.2. Results and discussion
5.2.1. One-factor model
The one-factor model did not provide a good t to the data:
v2(189, N = 1433) = 6397.45; CFI = .59; RMSEA = .15.
5.2.2. Two-factor models
Although the two-factor solutions resulted in improved t, nei-
ther of the two-factor models provided an adequate t to the data.
5
We included a seventh item for avoidance that was just below the .40 primary
loading cut-off (i.e., .393) because it tapped into the avoidance qualities of self-
reliance and tough-minded independence (cf. 6667; Brennan et al., 1998) that
were not measured with the other six items.
366 O. Gillath et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 362373

Table 1
The nal set of SAAM items and their loadings as part of the exploratory factor analysis.

Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

(Security) (Anxiety) (Avoidance)
13. I feel loved .783 .025 .018
8. I feel like I have someone to rely on .768 .056 .114
15. I feel secure and close to other people .711 .058 .109
11. If something went wrong right now I feel like I could depend on someone .684 .024 .063
49. I feel like others care about me .664 .022 .014
3. I feel relaxed knowing that close others are there for me right now .613 .038 .079
43. I feel I can trust the people who are close to me .607 .060 .053
30. I feel a strong need to be unconditionally loved right now .047 .791 .038
33. I really need to feel loved right now .044 .750 .074
29. I want to share my feelings with someone .141 .723 .050
50. I want to talk with someone who cares for me about things that are worrying me .047 .641 .002
21. I wish someone close could see me now .053 .610 .018
19. I wish someone would tell me they really love me .118 .582 .074
6. I really need someones emotional support .012 .580 .148
51. If someone tried to get close to me, I would try to keep my distance .079 .037 .893
52. The idea of being emotionally close to someone makes me nervousa .025 .002 .848
40. Im afraid someone will want to get too close to me .163 .044 .782
32. I feel alone and yet dont feel like getting close to others .172 .076 .552
14. I have mixed feelings about being close to other people .137 .078 .529
23. I would be uncomfortable having a good friend or a relationship partner close to me .092 .090 .463
22. I feel like I am loved by others but I really dont care .047 .182 .393

Note: The table above lists items by their original order in the 52 preliminary item set. To employ the SAAM in research, randomize the order of items or email the authors for
a formatted version.
a
The word emotionally was added in later versions of the scale for clarity.

Table 2
SAAM scale inter-correlations and internal consistency reliabilities across studies.

N Inter-correlations Reliabilities
Security with anxiety Security with avoidance Anxiety with avoidance Security Anxiety Avoidance
Study 1/4 347 .09 .48* .02 .87 .84 .83
Study 2/3 1433 .02 .61* .09 .91 .85 .87
Study 5 60 .28** .56* .28** .90 .81 .85
Study 6 142 .10 .37* .18* .82 .83 .71
Study 7 345 .02 .42** .07 .86 .83 .77
*
p<.05
**
p<.01.

The security-insecurity two-factor model did not provide a good t
to the data: v2(188, N = 1433) = 4875.67; CFI = .69; RMSEA = .13.
Similarly, the approachavoidance two-factor model did not pro-
vide a good t to the data either: v2(188, N = 1433) = 4874.19;
CFI = .69; RMSEA = .13. In both models, the two factors were nega-
tively correlated rather strongly (both rs = .68). However, the
amount of shared variance (46%) was not large enough to indicate
the factors were opposites.
5.2.3. Three-factor model
The three-factor model provided a fairly good t to the data:
v2(186, N = 1433) = 1647.25; CFI = .90; RMSEA = .07. Ideally, the
CFI should be higher than the .90 cut-off often specied (e.g., Jre-
skog & Srbom, 1996), so we thought it would be appropriate to
test a four-factor model to see if it would provide even better t.
5.2.4. Four-factor model
The securityanxietydismissingfearful four-factor model also
provided a fairly good t to the data: v2(183, N = 1433) = 1526.01;
CFI = .91; RMSEA = .07. Although the model had a marginally better
t than the three-factor model, the structure was redundant the
two avoidance factors were extremely highly correlated; r = .95
so in the interest of parsimony, we selected the three-factor model.
The security and anxiety scales were correlated .02, the security
and avoidance scales were correlated .61, and the anxiety and
avoidance scales were correlated .09.
Overall, Study 2 results suggest that a three-factor model appro-
priately describes the structure of state attachment. Next we
turned to examining the SAAMs stability.6
6. Study 3
A subsample of 93 participants from Study 2 (27 men and 66
women, ranging in age from 18 and 28, Mdn = 20), completed the
SAAM again three months later to examine testretest stability.
All SAAM subscales showed reasonable (and comparable) stability
over a period of three months (.51, .53, and .59 for SAAM anxiety,
avoidance, and security, respectively, all ps < .01). These stability
scores are a little higher but comparable to what one nds with
the state PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), but less than
what is typically found with trait measures such as the sensitivity
to reward and punishment scale (Torrubia, vila, Molt, & Caseras,
6
Two-factor analyses (using Promax rotation) were performed separately on the
men and the women in the sample and revealed extremely similar structures for the
two groups. Similarly all the priming studies revealed no main effects or interactions
for gender, except study 7 (women tended to report higher scores [M = 4.20] than
men [M = 3.75] on SAAM anxiety, and on SAAM security [M = 5.76 and M = 5.36,
respectively]). Because most of our studies did not reveal main effects or interactions
with gender, and because gender does not usually play a role in attachment research,
to simplify the presentation of results we decided not to include gender in the
analyses of the current paper; nevertheless, future research should systematically
examine reactions on the SAAM as a function of gender.
 O. Gillath et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 362373
2001; r = .87.89) or the Big Five (Watson, 2004; r = .79.89). Study
3 provided further evidence for the reliability of the SAAM, posi-
tioning it in an ideal place to capture temporary uctuations. Next
we turned to examining the SAAMs validity.
7. Study 4
Studies 1 and 2 provided support for the triarchical structure of
the SAAM and its internal reliability. However, before a self-report
measure like the SAAM can be used with condence, it must dem-
onstrate adequate validity as well. Therefore, Study 4 was designed
to test the SAAMs convergent and discriminant validity. Conver-
gent validity refers to the extent to which the same construct is
measured by different methods or measures, whereas discriminant
validity is dened as the extent to which the construct under
investigation is distinct from other constructs (Campbell & Fiske,
1959).
7.1. Method
7.1.1. Participants
Study 4 used subsamples of the participants from Study 1. Par-
ticipants were a random group of participants who took the
departmental screening questionnaire three months after they par-
ticipated in the rst study. In each of the tables in which we report
results, we indicate the size of the subsample analyzed. The SAAM
was completed as a part of a broader battery of questionnaires that
included the measures described below.
7.1.2. Convergent validity
To assess convergent validity two attachment measures were
used (1) the Experiences in Close Relationships questionnaire
(ECR; Brennan et al., 1998), a 36-item self-report instrument that
measures attachment-related anxiety and avoidance. Participants
were asked to think about their general experiences in close rela-
tionships (i.e., without focusing on a specic partner), and rate
the extent to which each item accurately described their feelings
in such relationships using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at
all) to 7 (very much). Eighteen items measured attachment-related
anxiety (e.g., I worry about being abandoned) and 18 items mea-
sured avoidance (e.g., I prefer not to show a partner how I feel
deep down). The reliability and validity of the two subscales have
been repeatedly demonstrated (e.g., Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007b);
in the present study, alphas for anxiety and avoidance were .94
and .93, respectively. Anxiety and avoidance scores were moder-
ately correlated (r = .32, p < .05). (2) the Relationship Questionnaire
(RQ; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), is a single item measure
made up of four short paragraphs, each describing a prototypical
attachment pattern as it applies in close adult relationships (se-
cure, fearful, preoccupied, and dismissing). Participants are asked
to rate how well each prototype describes them, using a 7-point
scale ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 7 (very much like me).
Scores represent four continuous ratings based on each of the four
attachment patterns. Additionally, we asked participants to choose
a single, best tting attachment pattern, a method which has been
shown useful in the past to enable researchers to assign partici-
pants into a category.
7.1.3. Discriminant validity
We used three state measures to help us examine the SAAMs
discriminant validity. To rule out the possibility that the SAAM is
merely measuring mood uctuations we used the state form of
the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al.,
1988). This is a 20-item measure, assessing the way people feel
at the moment. Participants receive the following instructions:
This scale consists of a number of adjectives that describe differ-
367
ent feelings and emotions. Read each item and then indicate to
what extent you feel this way right now, that is, at the present mo-
ment, by writing a number from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5
(extremely), in the space next to the item. Cronbachs alphas for
the positive affect and negative affect subscales in the current
study were high (a = .92 and a = .81, respectively).
We also tested the extent to which the SAAM measures a con-
struct that is different from general anxiety using the state sub-
scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger,
1983). This 20-item instrument measures transient levels of anxi-
ety and has strong psychometric properties (Spielberger, 1983).
Participants are instructed to rate how well each item describes
the way they feel right now using a 4-point scale, ranging from 1
(not at all) to 4 (very much). Final scores are generated by summing
all the items, and can range between 20 and 80. Cronbachs alpha
in the current study was high (a = .92).7
Additionally we used three trait measures to examine the
SAAMs convergent and discriminant validity. Rejection sensitivity
(RSQ; Downey & Feldman, 1996) was used to control for general
worries about rejection. This is an 18-item measure, asking people
to indicate their degree of concern or anxiety about the outcome of
various situations involving interpersonal rejection (e.g., How
concerned or anxious would you be over whether or not your
friend would want to help you out?) on a 6-point scale ranging
from 1 (very unconcerned) to 6 (very concerned). Alpha for the 18
items was high (a = .90).
To examine whether the SAAM captures feelings beyond rela-
tionship satisfaction, we used the Perceived Relationship Quality
Component inventory (PRQC; Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas,
2000). The Inventory consists of 18 items, which can be divided
into six components tapping perceived relationship quality. Partic-
ipants are instructed to rate how well each item represents their
current partner and relationship using a 7-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). The overall alpha for
the 18 items was high (a = .94), therefore, a total score was calcu-
lated for each participant by averaging the 18 items. A higher score
meant higher relationship satisfaction.
Finally, because trust plays a major role in the way avoidantly
attached people perceive their relationships, we decided to assess
relationship trust using a modied version of Rempel and Holmes
(1986) and Rempel, Ross, and Holmes (2001) trust scale. On this
18-item scale participants rate their agreement with trust-related
sentences on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to
7 (strongly agree). In the current sample the alpha coefcient for
the total scale was high (a = .92), so we calculated a total score
for each participants by averaging all the items; a higher score
meant higher sense of trust in ones partner and relationship.
7.2. Results and discussion
The results section is divided into two subsections covering
convergent validity and discriminant validity.
7.2.1. Reliability
All the SAAM subscales had adequate reliability ranging from
.83 to .87. As expected and as shown in Studies 1 and 2 the corre-
7
Attachment security is frequently compared with high sense of self-esteem (e.g.,
Hart, Shaver, & Goldenberg, 2005), so to examine the possibility that the SAAM
captures changes in state self-esteem rather than attachment security and insecurity,
we used four items from the STAI (Spielberger, 1983), which highly resemble items on
the Heatherton and Polivys (1991) state self-esteem measure. The items were: I feel
satised with myself, I feel like a failure (R), I lack self-condence (R), and I feel
inadequate (R). Alpha for the four items was adequate (a = .80). The new measure of
state self-esteem score was as expected only moderately correlated with SAAM scores
[positively with SAAM security (r = .42, p < .05), and negatively with both SAAM
anxiety and avoidance (r = .31, .30, respectively, both ps < .05)].
368 O. Gillath et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 362373

lation between SAAM security and SAAM avoidance was negative Table 4
and moderate (r = .48, p < .05). There were no other signicant SAAM scale differences between participants selecting different RQ categories.

correlations between the SAAM factors. RQ secure RQ dismissive RQ preoccupied RQ fearful

SAAM security 6.30a 5.55b 5.54b 5.31b
7.2.2. Convergent validity SAAM anxiety 4.52b 4.34b 5.32a 4.84ab
To examine convergent validity the correlations between the SAAM avoidance 2.21c 3.28a 2.74b 3.30a
SAAM and the other attachment style measures were calculated Different letters mean this condition was different at a .05 signicance level than a
(see Tables 3 and 4). As can be seen in Table 3, SAAM security condition with a different letter.
was positively, moderately related to RQ security, negatively re-
lated to both ECR dimensions (anxiety and avoidance; and these Table 5
two correlations were not signicantly different from each other; SAAM scale correlations with non-attachment state and trait variables.
chi-square(df = 1) = .25, p = .99), and negatively related to the RQ SAAM security SAAM anxiety SAAM avoidance
insecurity dimensions (although the association with RQ dismis- State variables
sive was not signicant). SAAM anxiety was positively correlated State positive affect .33* .08 .13
with ECR anxiety, and RQ preoccupied and fearful dimensions State negative affect .19 .24* .37*
(although the association with RQ fearful was only marginally sig- State anxiety .44* .35* .35*
nicant). It was also negatively correlated with RQ dismissive, but Trait variables
to a lesser extent than the positive correlations with ECR anxiety Rejection sensitivity .42* .03 .29*
Trust .51* .05 .37*
and RQ preoccupied dimensions (p < .05). Finally, SAAM avoidance
Relationship Satisfaction .53* .15 .30*
was positively correlated with ECR avoidance, RQ dismissive, and
RQ fearful, and to a lesser extent with ECR anxiety. It was also neg- Note: N = 172175 (state variables); 157 (rejection sensitivity); 104 (trust); and 85
(relationship satisfaction). p < .01.
atively correlated with the RQ secure dimension. *
p<.05.
To further examine the convergence with well-known well val-
idated measures we tested whether SAAM scores predicted prefer-
ence for RQ categories (i.e., which statement participants choose as
best describing them out of the four). As can be seen in Table 4, 7.2.4. Incremental validity
having high scores on SAAM security was associated with choosing To examine incremental validity, we examined whether the
the RQ secure statement more than any other statement. Having SAAM scales could predict relationship quality over and above
high scores on SAAM anxiety was associated with choosing RQ pre- a personality inventory, specically, the Adult Temperament
occupied more than the dismissive or secure statements, but not Questionnaire (ATQ), which is a temperament measure informed
more than the fearful statement. Finally, having high scores on by the Five Factor Model of personality (Rothbart, Ahadi, &
SAAM avoidance was associated with choosing RQ dismissive or Evans, 2000). Past research has found that personality is mod-
fearful more than the preoccupied and the secure statement. More- estly to moderately related to relationship quality (e.g., Karney
over, people high on SAAM avoidance had a lower tendency to & Bradbury, 1995; Robins, Caspi, & Moftt, 2000). However, Nof-
choose the secure statement as compared to any other statement. tle and Shaver (2006) demonstrated that although there is a sig-
nicant overlap between trait attachment and personality, trait
7.2.3. Discriminant validity attachment predicts relationship quality over and above person-
To examine discriminant validity the correlations between the ality dispositions such as the Big Five. Thus, we examined
SAAM and the other non-attachment style measures were calcu- whether the SAAM dimensions could predict relationship quality
lated. As expected and can be seen in Table 5, the SAAM factors over and above the ATQ. When entered into a multiple regres-
showed non-signicant to small correlations with the state mea- sion, the ATQ domain subscales were able to predict relationship
sures (the highest being between SAAM security and state anxiety), quality (R2 = .14; p < .05). However, adding in the SAAM scales
and non-signicant to moderate correlation with the trait mea- led to a signicant increase in R2 (DR2 = .24; p < .01). When all
sures (the highest being between SAAM security and relationship three SAAM scales were entered simultaneously, only SAAM
satisfaction). More specically, SAAM security was positively cor- Security was signicant (B = .54). However, when entered indi-
related with state positive affect, trust, and relationship satisfac- vidually, both SAAM Security and SAAM Avoidance were signi-
tion; and negatively correlated with state negative affect, state cant (B = .52 and -.32). As in the zero-order correlation analysis,
anxiety, and rejection sensitivity. SAAM anxiety was positively cor- SAAM Anxiety was not a signicant predictor of relationship
related with state negative affect and state anxiety, and negatively quality.
correlated with relationship satisfaction (although not signi- Overall, the results of Study 4 provided evidence that the SAAM
cantly). SAAM avoidance was positively correlated with state neg- demonstrates both convergent and discriminant validity, that is, it
ative affect, state anxiety, and rejection sensitivity; and negatively relates to scales that measure similar constructs, but is not redun-
correlated with trust, relationship satisfaction, and state positive dant with them, and it is distinguishable from scales that measure
affect (but only marginally). constructs that are conceptually different.

Table 3 8. Study 5
SAAM scale correlations with trait attachment measures: ECR dimensions and RQ
rated categories. Having established that the SAAM has discriminant and conver-
SAAM security SAAM anxiety SAAM avoidance gent validity, in Study 5 we tested the SAAMs ability to capture
uctuations in the sense of security and insecurity caused by lab-
ECR anxiety .32* .42* .26*
ECR avoidance .49* .03 .59* oratory manipulation (priming). To do so, we examined whether
RQ secure .54* .02 .37* activating participants attachment security schemas would result
RQ dismissive .07 .22* .28* in higher scores on the SAAM security scale. We hypothesized that
RQ preoccupied .27* .39* .13 participants exposed to a security prime would have higher SAAM
RQ fearful .38* .12 .45*
security score, and lower SAAM anxiety and avoidance scores than
*
p<.05. participants exposed to a neutral prime.
 O. Gillath et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 362373
Table 6
Effects of priming condition on SAAM scores in Study 5.
Factors Priming conditions
Security prime Neutral prime
SAAM avoidance
M 1.89 2.68
SD .79 1.12
SAAM anxiety
M 3.79 4.31
SD 1.01 .97
SAAM security
M 6.18 5.79
SD .71 .95
8.1. Method
8.1.1. Participants
Sixty one undergraduates (53 women and 8 men) participated
in the study to obtain a class credit. Their ages ranged from 18 to
28 (Mdn = 19). Fifty two percent were in a romantic relationship.
Forty percent were Caucasian, 30% Asian or Asian-American, 15%
Latino, 4% African-American, and 11% did not specify their
ethnicity.
8.1.2. Materials and procedure
Participants were invited to take part individually in a study
about personality and relationships. In the laboratory after provid-
ing consent they were randomly assigned to one of two conditions.
In the security condition (n = 30, 4 men), participants were asked to
recall a close relationship in which they felt that the goal of getting
close to their partner was achieved with relative ease, a relation-
ship in which they felt comfortable being dependent on their part-
ner or comfortable with their partner being dependent upon them.
A relationship in which they did not worry that they would be
abandoned or that their partner would get too close to them. After
recalling it, they were asked to describe it in detail. In the control
condition (n = 31, 4 men) participants were asked to recall and de-
scribe a relationship with someone they know (an acquaintance)
who was not very close to them. Participants described this some-
one who they did not know very well the best they could. Imme-
diately after the priming task participants completed the 21-item
version of the SAAM. In the current study, Cronbach alphas were
adequate for the SAAM avoidance, anxiety, and security scales
(see alphas and inter-correlations in Table 2).
8.2. Results and discussion
To examine the effects of the priming manipulation on the
SAAM scores (anxiety, avoidance, and security) we used a MANO-
VA, with the SAAM scores as the dependent variables, and the
experimental condition as the independent variable. The MANOVA
revealed a signicant main effect for prime type, F(3, 57) = 4.60,
p < .01, Partial Eta Squared = .20. As shown in Table 6, in line with
our hypotheses, compared to the control condition, people who
were exposed to the secure-relationship prime had lower SAAM
anxiety scores, F(1, 59) = 4.19, p < .05, Partial Eta Squared = .07,
lower SAAM avoidance scores, F(1, 59) = 10.69, p < .01, Partial Eta
Squared = .17, and higher SAAM security scores, F(1, 59) = 3.45,
p < .05, Partial Eta Squared = .07.
The results of Study 5 provided preliminary evidence for the
SAAMs sensitivity to temporary changes in attachment working
models. Exposure to a security prime, as compared with exposure
to a neutral prime, resulted in lower scores on the SAAM anxiety
and avoidance scales. Moreover, as expected, it resulted in higher
scores on the SAAM security scale meaning that the prime as in-
369
tended indeed increased the sense of attachment security as as-
sessed by the SAAM. One limitation of Study 5 was its inability
to examine whether the SAAM scales are sensitive only to attach-
ment-related changes or not. Study 6 was designed to address this
issue.
9. Study 6
Attachment security is frequently compared with high sense of
self-esteem (e.g., Hart et al., 2005) or positive mood (Mikulincer,
Hirschberger, Nachmias, & Gillath, 2001). To rule out the possibil-
ity that the results of Study 5 were due to changes in state self-es-
teem or positive mood rather than attachment security and
insecurity, we used in Study 6 two new priming conditions that
would be expected to elevate positive mood or self-esteem but
not attachment security. Specically, we added a positive mood
priming condition, and a self-esteem priming condition. We also
included a neutral priming condition as a control. We hypothesized
that participants exposed to the security prime would have lower
SAAM anxiety and avoidance scores, and higher SAAM security
scores, than participants exposed to the self-esteem, the positive
mood, or the neutral control prime.
9.1. Method
9.1.1. Participants
One hundred and forty two undergraduate (81 women and 61
men) participated in the study to get a class credit. Their ages ran-
ged from 18 to 47 (Mdn = 20). Sixty-four percent were involved in a
romantic relationship. Forty-nine percent were Caucasian, 26%
Asian-American, 8% Latino, 2% African-American, and 15% reported
mixed ethnicity or did not specify their ethnicity.
9.1.2. Materials and procedure
During the experimental sessions, participants were randomly
assigned to one of four conditions. In the secure priming condition
(n = 36) participants were asked to imagine a close relationship in
which they felt that the goal of getting close to their partner was
achieved with relative ease. After recalling it, they were asked to
describe it in detail. In the self-esteem priming condition (n = 37)
each participant was asked to imagine coming back from a meeting
with a professor who told him or her that he or she was a great stu-
dent, and that the professor really liked the individuals ideas in the
last class assignment. As in the other condition, participants were
asked to describe their feelings in detail. In the positive mood
priming condition (n = 36) participants were asked to imagine win-
ning an all-expenses paid vacation to the Bahamas, and to describe
how it would make them feel. Finally, in the neutral control condi-
tion (n = 33) participants were asked to imagine walking from their
dormitory or apartment to school. Immediately after the priming
task, participants completed the 21-item SAAM. In Study 6, Cron-
bach alphas were adequate for the SAAM avoidance, anxiety, and
security scales (see Table 2 for alphas and inter-correlations).
9.2. Results and discussion
To examine the effects of the priming manipulation on the
SAAM scores we used a MANOVA, with the SAAM scores as the
dependent variables, and the priming conditions as the indepen-
dent variable. The MANOVA revealed a signicant main effect,
F(9, 336) = 1.95, p < .05, Partial Eta Squared = .04. As shown in Table
7, in line with our hypotheses, compared to people in the other
conditions, people who were exposed to the secure-relationship
prime were less avoidant, F(3, 140) = 4.71, p < .01, Partial Eta
Squared = .09 than people that were exposed to the other primes
(all p < .05). People that were exposed to the security prime were
370 O. Gillath et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 362373

also more secure than those who were exposed to other primes (all
p < .05), F(3, 140) = 2.11, p < .05, Partial Eta Squared = .05. Finally,
while the tendency existed for SAAM anxiety scores to be lower
in the security condition as well, the effect was not signicant,
F(3, 140) = .68, ns.
Overall, the results of Study 6 provided further support for the
feasibility of the SAAM to capture temporarily changes in attach-
ment working models. Moreover, Study 6 demonstrated that it is
the exposure to a security prime, rather than to just a positive
mood, or a self-esteem prime, which leads participants to feel less
avoidant and more secure (and to a limited extant less anxious).
Although both Study 5 and Study 6 demonstrated the ability to
shift temporarily the sense of security, they both did it to the same
direction (more secure or less anxious and avoidant). Study 7 was
aimed to determine whether the SAAM can capture changes made
in the other direction and specically in levels of attachment
anxiety.
10. Study 7
In Study 7, we extended our tests of the SAAMs ability to cap-
ture uctuations in attachment security and insecurity by examin-
ing whether activating insecure schemas would cause people to
report higher levels of state anxiety and avoidance and lower levels
of security. Specically, we compared thoughts about separation
(an attachment-relevant negative event) with other, non-attach-
ment-related negative events (failing an exam or getting a parking
ticket). We hypothesized that participants exposed to the separa-
tion prime would have higher SAAM anxiety scores, and lower
SAAM security score than participants exposed to other control
primes. Avoidant people seem to apply a unique meaning to the
word separation, and they devote extra resources to try and sup-
press its effects on them (e.g., Edelstein & Gillath, 2008; Mikulin-
cer, Gillath, & Shaver, 2002). We, therefore, left the effect of the
separation prime on SAAM avoidance scores open.
10.1. Method
10.1.1. Participants
Two hundred and two undergraduates (139 women and 63
men) participated in the study for class credit. Their ages ranged
from 18 to 32 (Mdn = 19). Fifty three percent were involved in a
romantic relationship. Forty-three percent were Caucasian, 32%
Asian-American, 7% Latino, 7% African-American, and 11% did not
specify their ethnicity.
10.1.2. Materials and procedure
In the experimental sessions participants were randomly as-
signed to one of four conditions. In the separation priming condi-
tion (n = 49) participants were asked to imagine or recall a
breakup from a close relationship partner, and describe the event
in detail. In the ticket priming condition (n = 46) participants were
asked to imagine or recall getting a speeding or parking ticket, and
describe the event in detail. In the exam failure priming condition
(n = 46) participants were asked to recall or imagine a time when
they failed a test and describe it in detail. In the neutral control
condition (n = 61) participants were asked to recall or imagine
walking to school from their dormitory or apartment. Immediately
after the priming task participants completed the SAAM. Cronbach
alphas in this sample were adequate for the SAAM avoidance, anx-
iety, and security scales (see Table 2 for alphas and inter-
correlations.
10.2. Results and discussion
To examine the effects of the priming manipulation on the
SAAM scores we used a MANOVA, with the SAAM scores being
the dependent variables, and experimental condition being the
independent variable. The MANOVA revealed a signicant main ef-
fect for prime type, F(9, 477) = 2.26, p < .05, Partial Eta
Squared = .03. As shown in Table 8, in line with our hypotheses,
people who were exposed to the relationship breakup prime re-
ported higher state attachment anxiety, F(3, 198) = 3.83, p < .05,
Partial Eta Squared = .06, than people who were exposed to the
neutral prime (p < .05). The two other priming conditions (failure
and ticket) were not signicantly different from either the neutral
or the breakup prime, suggesting that only the breakup priming
condition affected SAAM anxiety scores. There were no other sig-
nicant effects.
The results of Study 7 provided further support for the feasibil-
ity of the SAAM to capture temporary changes in attachment work-
ing models. Moreover, Study 7 demonstrated that it is possible to
capture decreases and not only increases in the temporary sense
of attachment security, and that attachment-related threat, but
not non-attachment threat can lead to an increase in the SAAM
anxiety scores.
11. General discussion
We reported seven studies describing the construction and val-
idation of a new state scale the state adult attachment measure
(SAAM). The SAAM lls the gap in the literature dealing with the
momentary level of the sense of attachment security and insecu-
rity, capturing uctuations in these dimensions as they occur in re-
sponse to situational variables. The attachment literature seems to
be converging on the notion that each individual contains in his or
her mind not one but several quite different working models that
can each be activated (or not) and applied (or not) as situations

Table 8
Effects of priming condition on SAAM scores in Study 7.
Table 7
Effects of priming condition on SAAM scores in Study 6. Measures Priming conditions
Breakup Failure Ticket Neutral (walking)
Measures Priming Conditions
SAAM avoidance
Security Self-esteem Positive mood Neutral (walking)
M 2.87 2.42 2.93 2.81
SAAM avoidance SD 1.22 .81 1.04 1.14
M 2.48 3.03 3.01 3.21
SAAM anxiety
SD 1.03 .69 .86 .90
M 4.46a 4.05b 4.08ab 3.70ab
SAAM anxiety SD 1.06 1.08 1.11 1.38
M 4.12 4.44 4.19 4.23
SAAM security
SD 1.06 1.15 .95 1.06
M 5.50 5.64 5.48 5.74
SAAM security SD .97 1.06 1.12 .93
M 5.68 5.18 5.23 5.20
SD .82 .99 .94 .76 Different letters mean this condition was different at a .05 signicance level than a
condition with a different letter.
 O. Gillath et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 362373
and relationships demand. The SAAM is compatible with this new-
er conception of the exible nature of working models, and can as-
sess their temporary experience. Throughout the studies the SAAM
factors showed good internal reliability, discriminant, convergent,
and criterion validity, and a moderate stability (as would be ex-
pected from a state measure). The SAAM was also sensitive to con-
ceptually relevant cues, with a distinct and theoretically coherent
pattern of results for each one of the factors.
11.1. Two ways in which attachment changes over time
There are different ways of identifying change in attachment.
One represents a momentary disequilibrium or shift in working
models, which is situation-specic and transitory. Another repre-
sents trait-like change, a systematic reorganization of ones work-
ing models of self and other in general, which tends to be relatively
persistent. An analogous differentiation between these two levels
of change can be seen in the study of personality traits. In his work
on personality states, Fleeson (2001) applied the Big Five trait tax-
onomy to momentary behavior using experience-sampling meth-
ods and found that peoples behaviors across a couple of weeks
varied widely. However, when he examined peoples central ten-
dencies (means) of trait behaviors from the rst week to the sec-
ond week, he found stability coefcients around .90, which are
higher than most correlations in psychology. In other words,
whereas peoples momentary behaviors related to any one trait
uctuated widely (and changed according to the situations they
found themselves in; Fleeson, 2007), their mean levels of traits
stayed pretty much the same. The SAAM scales assess the rst type
of change momentary uctuations in working models.
11.1.1. Structure of the SAAM
Various researchers have argued that the attachment construct
consists of three factors. For example, Simpson and his colleagues
(e.g., Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992) called their two dimensions
Security versus Avoidance and Anxiety (about abandonment).
Collins and Read (1990) called their three dimensions Close,
Depend, and Anxiety (about abandonment). Hazan and Shaver
(1987), in their early model of adult attachment, used the terms that
we use here: security, avoidance, and anxiety. Similar to these
researchers, our analyses revealed a three-factor model, including
scales that assess temporary changes on anxiety, avoidance, and
security, with the last two being moderately (negatively) correlated.
Although the most recent measures of adult attachment style
(i.e., the ECR and the ECR-R) tend to have a two-dimensional struc-
ture, they measure traits or averaged attitudes and behaviors. At
least based on the current studies, momentary changes to attach-
ment take the form of a three dimensional construct. The SAAM
captures and differentiates between three unique psychological
processes: anxiety about attachment, avoidance of attachment,
and security-based strategies (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003), the
latter of which is more than simply low anxiety and avoidance.
As with other sensations, mood states, or emotions, these dimen-
sions are somewhat independent, with unique patterns of associa-
tions with personality dimensions (e.g., Noftle & Shaver, 2006) and
with approach and avoidance tendencies (Elliot & Reis, 2003). In
other words, just like being low on trait negative affect does not
necessarily mean being high on trait positive affect; being low on
the anxiety and/or avoidance SAAM scales does not necessarily
mean being high on security. According to this reasoning, a state
measure of attachment requires measuring a third separate dimen-
sion to represent security, which the SAAM does.
Another difference between the SAAM and trait measure lies in
the anxiety dimension. The SAAM anxiety items seem to reect (as
intended) hyperactivation of the attachment system the quasi-
desperate need to be close to and loved by a relationship partner;
371
having a troubled quality to them. For instance, I really need
someones emotional support and I wish someone would tell
me they really love me. Interestingly, however, the items pertain-
ing to concern about others availability loaded onto the security
factor, indicating that there is a difference between intense activa-
tion of the attachment system and concerns about whether attach-
ment gures will respond to that activation.
The fact that we did not also nd a fearful avoidant factor is in
line with the emotion literature. When measuring state affect
researchers often nd (e.g., Russell & Carroll, 1999) that one cannot
be high on two different emotions in the same moment (in other
words, one cannot be really happy and really anxious/upset simul-
taneously). Similarly, it seems that at least in the state level people
do not feel both inclined and reluctant to get closer and intimate
with their relationship partners at the same time. Rather it seems
to be one or the other.
There are a few limitations to the studies described above. First,
all the scales are unipolar, that is, there are no reverse scored items
on any of them. While constructing the measure we did include
such reverse scored items (either taken from the ECR or from other
places), they did not make it into the nal version of the measure.
This might be due to the differences between the behavioral (i.e.,
momentary) structure and the trait structure (although it should
be noted that even in the ECR there is only one reverse scored item
on the anxiety scale, perhaps suggesting that this is an underlying
problem in attachment scale construction). A second limitation is
the differences in the correlations of security and avoidance, and
security and anxiety across studies. While the specic correlations
were not the same, the overall structure and links between the
scales were similar across the seven studies, creating a Y like shape
between the three scales.
Finally our model might not map on precisely to the trait model
as represented by the ECR. This will require measuring longitudinal
relations between the state and trait data. For instance, the SAAM
should exhibit more short-term variance than the ECR, but over
time, average SAAM scores should converge meaningfully with
ECR scores. Clearly, future work should address this and provide
more details on the relation between states and traits. Future stud-
ies should also use methods such as experience-sampling studies
to chart how attachment changes over time, examine attachment
situation-behavior contingencies (the inuence of momentary sit-
uational characteristics on state attachment levels), and use vari-
ous contexts (such as therapy) to further capture the SAAM
abilities and advantages. Future studies will also have to examine
questions such as: Do those in a long-term relationship respond
similarly to those in a short-term relationship or one that has re-
cently ended? Did the primed subjects differ whether they were
actually in a good relationship versus and imagined relationship,
or had actually had an experience of breaking up?
Despite some limitations, the results reported here are highly
encouraging, supporting the reliability, validity and utility of the
SAAM as a state measure of attachment. Such a measure has not
existed previously, and none of the existing attachment scales is
built in a way that allows measuring both generalized and momen-
tary attachment. The new measure will allow researchers to assess
whether various manipulations cause temporary changes to work-
ing models, allow clinicians to examine the efcacy of various
treatments, and has the potential to advance the eld in the direc-
tion of understanding the dynamics of adult attachment.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of
attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Oxford, UK: Erlbaum.
Asendorpf, J. B., Banse, R., Wilpers, S., & Neyer, F. J. (1997). Relationship-specic
attachment scales for adults and their validation with network and diary
procedure. Diagnostica, 43, 289313.
372 O. Gillath et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 362373
Baldwin, M. W., & Fehr, B. (1995). On the instability of attachment style ratings.
Personal Relationships, 2, 247261.
Baldwin, M. W., Fehr, B., Keedian, E., Seidel, M., & Thomson, D. W. (1993). An
exploration of the relational schemata underlying attachment styles: Self-
report and lexical decision approaches. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
19, 746754.
Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P. R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh-Rangarajoo, E. (1996). Social-
cognitive conceptualization of attachment working models: Availability and
accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 94109.
Banse, R. (2004). Attachment style and marital satisfaction: Evidence for dyadic
conguration effects. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 273282.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults:
A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
226244.
Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss. Attachment (Vol. 1). New York: Basic
Books (1st ed. pub. 1969; 2nd ed. pub. 1982).
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. Separation: Anxiety and anger (Vol. 2). New
York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss. Loss: Sadness and depression (Vol. 3). 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. 4676). New York: Guilford Press.
Carver, C. S. (1997). Adult attachment and personality: Converging evidence and a
new measure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 865883.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by
the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81105.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 1, 245276.
Cattell, R. B. (1978). The Scientic Use of Factor Analysis in Behavioral and Life Sciences.
New York: Plenum.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and
relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58, 644663.
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 (pp. 5392). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Cozzarelli, C., Karafa, J. A., Collins, N. L., & Tagler, M. J. (2003). Stability and change in
adult attachment styles: Associations with personal vulnerabilities, life events
and global construals of self and others. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
22, 315346.
Davila, J., Burge, D., & Hammen, C. (1997). Why does attachment style change?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 826838.
Davila, J., & Sargent, E. (2003). The meaning of life (events) predicts change in
attachment security. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 13831395.
Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 13271343.
Edelstein, R. S., & Gillath, O. (2008). Avoiding interference. Adult attachment and
emotional processing biases. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34,
171181.
Elizur, Y., & Mintzer, A. (2003). Gay males intimate relationship quality: The roles of
attachment security, gay identity, social support, and income. Personal
Relationships, 10, 411435.
Elliot, A. J., & Reis, H. T. (2003). Attachment and exploration in adulthood. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 317331.
Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1992). Attachment style and romantic love: Relationship
dissolution. Australian Journal of Psychology, 44, 6974.
Fleeson, W. (2001). Towards a structure- and process-integrated view of
personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 80, 10111027.
Fleeson, W. (2007). Situation-based contingencies underlying trait-content
manifestation in behavior. Journal of Personality, 75, 825862.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). The measurement of perceived
relationship quality components: A conrmatory factor-analytic approach.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 340354.
Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis
and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 6, 123151.
Fraley, R. C., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2004). A dynamical systems approach to
understanding stability and change in attachment security. In W. S. Rholes & J.
A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications
(pp. 86132). New York: Guilford Press.
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item-response theory analysis
of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78, 350365.
Fyffe, C., & Waters, E. (1997). Empirical classication of adult attachment status:
Predicting group membership. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the
Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, DC.
George, C., Kaplan, M., & Main, M. (1985). Adult attachment interview. Unpublished
manuscript, University of California, Berkeley.
Gillath, O., Mikulincer, M., Fitzsimons, G. M., Shaver, P. R., Schachner, D. A., & Bargh,
J. A. (2006). Automatic activation of attachment-related goals. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 13751388.
Gillath, O., Selcuk, E., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Moving toward a secure attachment
style: Can repeated security priming help? Social and Personality Compass.
doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00120.
Gillath, O., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Effects of attachment style and relationship
context on selection among relational strategies. Journal of Research in
Personality, 41, 968976.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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, 5662.
Hart, J., Shaver, P. R., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2005). Attachment, self-esteem,
worldviews, and terror management: Evidence for a tripartite security
system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 9991013.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511524.
Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for
measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,
895910.
Hughes, D. A. (2007). Attachment-focused family therapy. New York: W.W. Norton.
Johnson, S. M., & Whiffen, V. (2003). Attachment processes in couples and families.
New York: Guilford Press.
Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: Users reference guide. Chicago:
Scientic Software International.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality
and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin,
118, 334.
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Hazan, C. (1994). Attachment styles and close relationships: A
four-year prospective study. Personal Relationships, 1, 123142.
Klohnen, E. C., & Bera, S. J. (1998). Behavioral and experiential patterns of avoidantly
and securely attached women across adulthood: A 30-year longitudinal
perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 211223.
Klohnen, E. C., Weller, J. A., Luo, S., & Choe, M. (2005). Organization and predictive
power of general and relationship-specic attachment models: One for all, and
all for one? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 16651682.
Kobak, R. R., Cole, H. E., Ferenz-Gillies, R., Fleming, W. S., & Gamble, W. (1993).
Attachment and emotion regulation during mother-teen problem-solving: A
control theory analysis. Child Development, 64, 231245.
Levy, M. B., & Davis, K. E. (1988). Lovestyles and attachment styles compared: Their
relations to each other and to various relationship characteristics. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 439471.
Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Activation of the attachment
system in adulthood: Threat-related primes increase the accessibility of mental
representations of attachment gures. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83, 881895.
Mikulincer, M., Hirschberger, G., Nachmias, O., & Gillath, O. (2001). The affective
component of the secure base schema: Affective priming with representations
of attachment security. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 305321.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in
adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In M. P.
Zanna (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 53152).
New York: Academic Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007a). Boosting attachment security to promote
mental health, prosocial values, and inter-group tolerance. Psychological Inquiry,
18, 139156.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007b). Attachment patterns in adulthood: Structure,
dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Gillath, O., & Nitzberg, R. E. (2005). Attachment,
caregiving, and altruism: Boosting attachment security increases compassion
and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 817839.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2006). Mplus Users Guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthen & Muthen.
Noftle, E. E., & Shaver, P. R. (2006). Attachment dimensions and the Big Five
personality traits: Associations and comparative ability to predict relationship
quality. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 179208.
Oppenheim, D., & Goldsmith, D. F. (Eds.). (2007). Attachment theory in clinical work
with children: Bridging the gap between research and practice. New York: Guilford.
Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Friesen, M. (2003). Mapping the intimate
relationship mind: Comparisons between three models of attachment
representations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 14791493.
Pierce, T., & Lydon, J. E. (2001). Global and specic relational models in the
experience of social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,
613631.
Rempel, J. K., & Holmes, J. G. (1986). How do I trust thee? Psychology Today, 20,
2834.
Rempel, J. K., Ross, M., & Holmes, J. G. (2001). Trust and communicated
attributions in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
81, 5764.
Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., & Moftt, T. E. (2000). Two personalities, one relationship:
Both partners personality traits shape the quality of their relationship. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 251259.
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Evans, D. E. (2000). Temperament and personality:
Origins and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 122135.
Russell, J. A., & Carroll, J. M. (1999). On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect.
Psychological Bulletin, 125, 330.
SAS Institute, Inc. (20022004). SAS/STAT Users Guide, SAS OnlineDoc 9.1.3, Cary,
NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
Shaver, P. R., & Brennan, K. A. (1992). Attachment style and the big ve personality
traits: Their connection with romantic relationship outcomes. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 536545.
 O. Gillath et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 362373
Simpson, J. A. (1990). Inuence of attachment styles on romantic relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 971980.
Simpson, J. A., Collins, W. A., Tran, S., & Haydon, K. C. (2007). Attachment and the
experience and expression of emotions in adult romantic relationships: A
developmental perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92,
355367.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seeking and support
giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment
styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 434446.
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI). Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Torrubia, R., vila, C., Molt, J., & Caseras, X. (2001). The sensitivity to
punishment and sensitivity to reward questionnaire (SPSRQ) as a measure
373
of Grays anxiety and impulsivity dimensions. Personality and Individual
Differences, 31, 837862.
Waters, E., Weineld, N. S., & Hamilton, C. E. (2000). The stability of attachment
security from infancy to adolescence and early adulthood: General discussion.
Child Development, 71, 703706.
Watson, D. (2004). Stability versus change, dependability versus error: Issues in the
assessment of personality over time. Journal of Research in Personality, 38,
319350.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 10631070.