1. Joseph Tan Elenda Hessel Emily Loeb Megan Schad Joanna Chango Joseph Allen Long-Term Relational Sequelae of Adolescent Attachment State of Mind

2. Collaborators Co-authors Elenda Hessel Emily Loeb Megan Schad, Ph.D Joanna Chango, Ph.D Joseph Allen, Ph.D Collaborators Samantha Perry Rachel Narr Christopher Hafen, Ph.D Lauren Molloy, Ph.D Erik Ruzek, Ph.D We gratefully acknowledge grant support from NICHD (PI: Joseph P. Allen, 9R01-HD058305).

3. Attachment in Adolescence Extending what we know about sequelae of attachment into adulthood One domain to look at: romantic relationships

4. Primary Question What are the long-term implications of individual differences in adolescent attachment state of mind for romantic relationships?

5. Key Area: Romantic Relationships Why? –Normative developmental experience (Carver, Joyner, & Udry, 2003) –Primary relationship as adolescence transition into adulthood (Laursen & Williams, 1997; Kobak, Rosenthal, Zajac, & Madsen, 2007) –Developmentally significant (Collins, Welsh, & Furman, 2009) What might be important to know about romantic relationships?

6. Key Domains of Romantic Relationships Navigating emotionally-sensitive interactions –Predicts longevity of relationships (Bernier & Dozier, 2002; Shulman, Tuval-Mashiach, Levran, & Anbar, 2006) –Full of challenges (Furman & Shomaker, 2008; Kobak et al., 2007) Two examples of common emotionally- sensitive interactions –Support-seeking situations –Discussions of conflict in the relationships

7. Sample Subsample: 111 adolescents in romantic relationships at either age 18 or age 21 –Full sample: 184 Adolescents (followed from age 13 to 27), their Parents, Best Friends, Other Friends, Romantic Partners Intensive Interviews and Observations with all parties (Total N over first 13 years ~ 3200). Equal numbers of Males and Females Socio-economically Diverse (Median Family Income= $40- $60K) 31% African American; 69% European American Very Low Attrition (98% participation rate in current phase)

8. Attachment State of Mind Adult Attachment Interview (George, Kaplan, & Main, 1996) Interviewed at age 14 AAI Q-set (Kobak et al., 1993) –Security scale Spearman-Brown interrater reliability = 0.82

9. Results: Supportive Behavior Maintaining engagement while giving support (Supportive Behavior Task, Allen et al., 2001) –With a close friend (age 14) –With a romantic partner (ages 18 and 21)

10. Results: Supportive Behavior Typical support-seeking topics: –With close friend (age 14): Problems with siblings Joining a sports team –With romantic partner (ages 18, 21): Career choices Moving

11. Prediction of Supportive Behaviors Secure attachment state of mind Engagement with romantic partner Age 14Age 18 Note: All coefficients are standardized betas *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001.38**

12. Prediction of Supportive Behaviors Secure attachment state of mind Engagement with romantic partner Age 14Age 21.23*

13. Prediction of Supportive Behaviors Secure attachment state of mind Romantic partner’s engagement Age 14Age 18.48** *

14. Prediction of Supportive Behaviors Secure attachment state of mind Romantic partner’s engagement Age 14Age 21.33**

15. Prediction of Supportive Behaviors over and above Covariates Secure attachment state of mind Romantic partner’s engagement Engagement with close friend Age 14Age 18.36** *.40**.19

16. Prediction of Supportive Behaviors over and above Covariates Secure attachment state of mind Romantic partner’s engagement Engagement with close friend Age 14Age 21.36** *.31**.11

17. Mediation Model for Supportive Behaviors Secure attachment state of mind Romantic partner’s engagement Engagement with close friend Romantic partner’s engagement Age 14Age 18Age 21.36**.17.36** *.35*.05.19 Total Indirect:.12 (95% CI: lower = -.01, upper =.26)

18. Results: Conflict Resolution Autonomy and relatedness behaviors during a disagreement (Autonomy Task, Allen et al., 2005) –With a close friend (age 14) –With a romantic partner (ages 18 and 21)

19. Results: Conflict Resolution Typical areas of disagreement: –With a close friend (age 14): “Sinking ship” paradigm: Decide together who to bring to a mission to Mars –With a romantic partner (ages 18, 21): Money Jealousy Moving

20. Prediction of Conflict Resolution Secure attachment state of mind Autonomy and relatedness with romantic partner Age 14Age 18.51** *

21. Prediction of Conflict Resolution Secure attachment state of mind Autonomy and relatedness with romantic partner Age 14Age 21.43** *

22. Prediction of Conflict Resolution Secure attachment state of mind Romantic partner’s autonomy and relatedness Age 14Age 18.34**

23. Prediction of Conflict Resolution Secure attachment state of mind Romantic partner’s autonomy and relatedness Age 14Age 21.30**

24. Prediction of Conflict Resolution over and above Covariates Secure attachment state of mind Romantic partner’s autonomy and relatedness Autonomy and relatedness with close friend Age 14 Age 18.32*.07.31** *

25. Prediction of Conflict Resolution over and above Covariates Secure attachment state of mind Romantic partner’s autonomy and relatedness Autonomy and relatedness with close friend Age 14 Age 21.26**.14.31** *

26. Mediation Model for Conflict Resolution Secure attachment state of mind Romantic partner’s autonomy and relatedness Autonomy and relatedness with close friend Romantic partner’s autonomy and relatedness Age 14Age 18Age 21 Total Indirect:.09 (95% CI: lower = -.01, upper =.18).32**.27*.06.31** *.17.13

27. Summary of Findings Early adolescent attachment state of mind predicts: –Later supportive and conflict resolution behaviors with romantic partners –Later romantic partner’s supportive and conflict resolution behaviors –Over and above early adolescent behaviors with peers Developmental path?

28. Limitations Correlational data Other factors Sample size

29. Conclusions Contributions to understanding attachment in adolescence? –Long-term (adulthood) outcomes –Setting the stage for future relationships –Affect regulation? Implications for relationship functioning –Mechanisms: selection and evocation