Links with emotional competence and social behavior

with social behavior. Instead, the links between parent and peer attachment and social behavior were indi-rect, mediated through aspects of emotional competence. These ndings suggest that secure attachment

Attachment theory, which was originally developed to explain the bond between infantsand their caregivers, has become an important theory to explain the lasting inuence of close

* Tel.: +1 610 758 5914; fax: +1 610 758 6277.E-mail address: del205@lehigh.edu

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 118511970191-8869/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.relationships foster appropriate social behavior by promoting high levels of emotional awareness, empathy,positive expressiveness, and low levels of negative dominant expressiveness. 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Attachment; Emotional competence; Social competence

1. IntroductionDeborah Laible *

Department of Psychology, Lehigh University, 17 Memorial Dr. East, Bethlehem, PA 18015, United States

Received 25 August 2006; received in revised form 5 March 2007; accepted 16 March 2007Available online 4 May 2007

Abstract

The goal of this study was to examine whether the links between attachment security and social behaviorin late adolescence were mediated by emotional competence. One hundred and seventeen late adolescentscompleted self-report measures of parent and peer attachment, social behavior, and emotional competence.Attachment security with both parents and peers was signicantly related to aspects of adolescent emo-tional and social competence. A path model revealed that parent and peer attachment had no direct linksAttachment with parents and peers in late adolescence:doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.010

1186 D. Laible / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 11851197relationships on an individuals psychological well-being. The basic premise of attachment theoryis that individuals experiences with the emotional availability of attachment gures in their livesshape their feelings of felt security and trust in others (Bowlby, 1980). As a result of their earlyexperiences with caregivers, individuals construct internal working models of themselves, others,and relationships that they use to guide their expectations in subsequent close relationships(Bretherton, 1990). Individuals whose caregivers have been emotionally available, especially dur-ing periods of stress, construct internal working models of the self as worthy, others as trusting,and relationships as worthwhile and important. Conversely, individuals with a history of caregiverinsensitivity construct negative working models of the self, others, and relationships. These mod-els are expected to color an individuals approach to relationships and views of the self throughoutthe lifespan (Bowlby, 1980).Researchers have inferred the existence of internal working models based on the consistent

links that attachment styles have had with social behavior, self-worth, and relational expectationsacross the lifespan (Allen & Land, 1999; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002; Thompson, 1999). For exam-ple, in adolescence, researchers have found that secure individuals are more socially competentand less aggressive (Rice, 1990; Simons, Paternite, & Shore, 2001). Similarly, in adulthood, secureindividuals (compared to insecure individuals) are more optimistic in the face of threats, are morecomfortable seeking support when under stress, use more constructive coping strategies, and havemore trusting beliefs about the goodwill of others (Shaver & Hazan, 1993; Shaver & Mikulincer,2003). Thus, research indicates that individuals have dierent patterns of social behavior basedupon their history of attachment experiences.Researchers have also argued that patterns of emotion expression and regulation are related to

attachment styles (Cassidy, 1994). Attachment theorists have argued that childrens early relation-ships play a primary role in the development of emotion regulation and aect expression, becauseearly on caregivers are responsible for helping children regulate emotions (Thompson, Flood, &Lundquist, 1995). Exposure to emotionally available caregivers in childhood has been shown tofoster the open discussion and sharing of emotion, which in turn provides rich opportunitiesfor a child to learn about emotion and emotion regulation (Laible, 2004; Volling, 2001). Researchhas supported the idea that secure children are more emotionally competent and has found thatsecure children are capable of maintaining organized behavior in the context of emotional arousal(Crittenden, 1992) and have higher levels of empathy than insecure children (Kestenbaum, Far-ber, & Sroufe, 1989). Similarly, Kobak, Cole, Ferenz-Gillies, Fleming, and Gamble (1993) foundthat secure adolescents were more successful at regulating emotion in the context of conict thanwere insecure adolescents. Thus, research supports the notion that secure individuals have adap-tive patterns of emotional expression and regulation across the lifespan. In contrast, insecure indi-viduals are more prone to being either overregulated or under regulated in their emotionalexpression (Zimmermann, 1999). These patterns of emotional expression are assumed to beattachment strategies that ow from an individuals internal working models (Mikulincer & Sha-ver, 2003).Ultimately, secure adolescents might be more socially competent than insecure adolescents be-

cause of the emotional skills that they have learned in close relationships, including empathy,emotional expressiveness, and emotional awareness. Research has consistently linked all of theseaspects of emotional competence with appropriate social behavior. High levels of empathy, for

example, in adolescence have been linked with more prosocial behavior and less aggressive behav-

2. Conclusions and the current study

D. Laible / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 11851197 1187Overall, research has established links between attachment security and adolescents socialbehavior and emotional competence. What has not been established is whether the links betweenattachment and adolescent social development are in fact accounted for by the links that attach-ment security has with emotional development. There are good reasons to believe that the emo-tional skills that adolescents learn in the context of close attachment relationships play animportant role in fostering socially appropriate behavior. As a result, the goal of this studywas to examine whether the links between parent and peer attachment security, and adolescentsreports of prosocial and aggressive behavior were mediated by emotional expressiveness, empa-thy, and emotional awareness.Based on previous research, it was expected that adolescents with secure relationships to both

parents and peers would report high levels of emotional awareness, positive expressivity, andempathy, and low levels of negative dominant expressiveness (Ducharme, Doyle, & Markiewicz,2002; Lyons-Ruth, Alpern, & Repacholi, 1993). Similarly, secure attachment relationships withboth peers and parents were also expected to relate to high levels of empathy and low levels ofaggressive behavior (Laible, Carlo, & Raaelli, 2000). Because of the fact that peer relationshipsare more reciprocal, attachment security to peers was expected to be more strongly related to ado-lescent reports of empathy and prosocial behavior. Researchers have argued that peer relation-ships are unique in their ability to provide the types of interactions that lead to thedevelopment of empathy, perspective taking, and prosocial behavior (Youniss, 1980). Lastly, itior (Carlo, Raaelli, Laible, & Meyer, 1999). Similarly, positive emotional expressiveness has alsobeen linked with socially competent behavior in children (Roberts & Strayer, 1996). In contrast,high levels of negative dominant emotional expressiveness, or aversive displays of negative aect,have been linked with aggressive behavior in children (Strayer & Roberts, 2004). Finally, a lack ofemotional awareness has been linked with a variety of interpersonal problems in adulthood (Spit-zer, Siebel-Jurges, Barnow, Grabe, & Freyberger, 2005).Lastly, it is important to realize that in adolescence, close relationships with peers, as well as

parents, serve attachment needs. Adolescents increasingly turn to friends for emotional supportduring stress (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). This is not to say that adolescents no longer relyon the support of parents, because research has not supported this idea. Instead, research has sup-ported that adolescents continue to use parents for some attachment needs (Nickerson & Nagle,2005) and that attachment security with parents continues to predict an individuals well-beingeven into young adulthood (Larson, Richards, Moneta, Holmbeck, & Duckett, 1996). Despitethis, research has supported that by adolescence, peers also begin to serve many attachment needs,including serving as sources of emotional support, safe havens, and proximity seeking and that thelonger peer relationships last, the more likely peers are to serve these functions (Fraley & Davis,1997; Hazan & Zeifman, 1999; Nickerson & Nagle, 2005). This may be especially important inearly and mid-adolescence when adolescents are striving to seek autonomy from parents. As a re-sult, many attachment researchers do in fact consider peers to be attachment gures in adoles-cence (Allen & Land, 1999).was expected that the emotional competence variables, including emotional expressivity, empathy,

To measure emotional expressiveness, participants completed the Self-Expressiveness Question-naire (SEQ; Halberstadt, Cassidy, Stifter, Parke, & Fox, 1995). The SEQ (rated on a nine-point

1188 D. Laible / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 11851197scale) assesses how frequently the adolescent expresses emotions that are positive (a = .86), neg-ative dominant (a = .80), or negative-submissive. Negative dominant emotions consist of thoseand emotional awareness would mediate the relationship between attachment and social behaviorin late adolescence.

3. Method

3.1. Participants

One hundred and seventeen late adolescents (M age = 19.6; SD = 1.41) completed a packet ofself-report measures in order to receive course credit in a psychology class. Participants wereapproximately equally split by gender (65 females, 52 males) and were predominantly Caucasian(78%). Demographic items included questions about the parents level of education (average ofparents education; M = 4.6, SD = 1.10 on a seven-point scale where 4 = graduated from two-year college or technical school and 5 = graduated from a 4-year college or university). The surveyalso included the following scales.

3.1.1. Parent and peer attachmentStudents completed the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (Armsden & Greenberg,

1987). The IPPA was designed to assess both the aective and cognitive dimensions of attachmentsecurity. Both the parent (a = .88) and peer scales (a = .90) consisted of 25 items and were ratedon a ve-point scale (sample items: my parents/friends understand me). Each of the subscales(trust, alienation, and communication) was submitted to a PC factor analysis and a parallel factoremerged for both parent and peer attachment. The factor from the parent scales was labeledparental secure attachment (k = 2.41%; 80.4% of the variance) and consisted of trust (.91)and communication (.88), which loaded positively and alienation, which loaded negatively(.90). The factor from the peer scales was labeled peer secure attachment (k = 2.31%;77.1% of the variance) and consisted of trust (.92) and communication (.91), which loaded posi-tively and alienation, which loaded negatively (.80).

3.1.2. EmpathyStudents completed the empathic concern and perspective taking subscales from the Interper-

sonal Reactivity Questionnaire (Davis, 1983). Both the empathic concern scale (a = .79) and theperspective taking scale (a = .71) consisted of seven items and were rated on a ve-point scale.Because perspective taking and empathic concern are theoretically related (Davis, 1983), an empa-thy scale (a = .77) was formed by combining the two scales (sample item: I am often touched bythings that I see happen). Preliminary correlational analysis indicated that the empathic concernand perspective taking scales were signicantly interrelated (r = .41, p < .001).

3.1.3. Emotional expressivenessnegative emotions that are abrasive and confrontational (sample item: showing contempt for

To measure their prosocial behavior, adolescents also completed four scales from the ProsocialTendencies Measure (Carlo & Randall, 2002). The four scales, dire, emotional, altruistic, and

D. Laible / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 11851197 1189anonymous prosocial behavior, were rated on a ve-point scale (sample item: I usually help oth-ers when they are very upset). Because the scales were theoretically related and to reduce thenumber of scales, these four scales were submitted to a PC factor analysis. All four of the scalesloaded on a single factor (k = 1.72%, 43% of the variance) and this factor was labeled prosocialbehavior (a = .73).

3.1.6. AggressionAggression was measured by using the Suppression of Aggression subscale (ve items) from the

Weinberger Adjustment Inventory (Weinberger, 1991). The aggression scale (a = .83) was ratedon a ve-point scale. Higher scores indicated more aggression (sample item: People who getme angry better watch out).

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive information and bivariate relationships

Descriptive information and bivariate relations between the variables appear in Table 1. Ado-lescent reports of peer attachment security were related to all aspects of emotional and social com-petence. Adolescents who were secure with peers reported more emotional awareness, positiveexpressiveness, empathy, and prosocial behavior. Adolescents who were secure with peers also re-ported less negative dominant expressiveness and less aggression. Adolescents who reported feel-ing secure in their attachment relationships to parents also reported high levels of socioemotionalcompetence, including high levels of positive expressiveness, emotional awareness, and prosocialbehavior and low levels of negative dominant expressiveness.In addition, adolescents who reported high levels of emotional competence also reported more

socially competent behavior. Adolescents who reported high levels of empathy, emotional aware-anothers actions). The scale for negative submissive emotions (i.e., sadness) was dropped, be-cause of lack of clear theoretical predictions with either attachment or outcomes (Halberstadt,Crisp, & Eaton, 1999).

3.1.4. Emotional awarenessParticipants also completed the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 (TAS-20; Bagby, Parker, & Tay-

lor, 1994). Alexithymia involves diculties describing and identifying emotions. The TAS hasthree subscales that were submitted to a PC factor analysis: diculty identifying feelings, dicultydescribing feelings, and externally-oriented thinking. One factor emerged (k = 2.02%, 67.5% ofthe variance) on which all three scales loaded positively (all above .70). This factor was reversedscored and labeled emotional awareness (a = .87; sample reversed item: I am confused aboutwhat emotion I am feeling).

3.1.5. Prosocial behaviorness, and positive expressiveness also reported high levels of prosocial behavior and low levels of

Table 1Bivariate correlations among the variables

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8a ** ** ** ** ** **

1190 D. Laible / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 11851197aggressive behavior. Furthermore, adolescents who reported high levels of negative dominantexpressiveness also reported high levels of aggressive behavior.

4.2. Regression models predicting outcomes

Hierarchical regression models were built to predict both socioemotional outcomes from parentand peer attachment. Gender and parent education were entered on the rst step to control fortheir eects, since other researchers have found links between the variables and many aspectsof socioemotional competence (e.g., Laible, Carlo, & Roesch, 2004; Roberts & Strayer, 1996;Zimmer-Bembeck, Geiger, & Crick, 2005).1 Parent and peer attachment were entered on the sec-ond step of the models.In the models predicting social behavior (Table 2), both the addition of the control variables

and parent and peer attachment accounted for signicant increases in variance accounted for

1. Peer attachment 0 1.0 .51 .29 .31 .38** .42 .28 .292. Parent attachmenta 0 1.0 .01 .31** .24** .36** .23** .113. Empathy 3.69 .52 .49** .44** .35** .33** .54**4. Positive expressiveness 7.22 .85 .18 .31** .44** .28**5. Negative dominant expressiveness 4.30 1.07 .27** .17 .63**6. Emotional awarenessb 0 1.0 .18** .19**7. Prosocial behaviorc 0 1.0 .178. Aggressive behavior 2.08 .82

** p < .01.a These scores reect the factor analyses of the subscales of the IPPA.b This score reects the factor analyses of the TAS.c This score reects the factor analyses of the PTM.in the models predicting prosocial and aggressive behavior. In addition, gender and peer attach-ment made independent contributions to both full models. Females and those with secure peerrelationships rated themselves as higher in prosocial behavior and lower in aggressive behaviorthan males.In the model predicting emotional awareness (Table 3), only the addition of parent and peer

attachment on the second step of the model signicantly increased the amount of variance ac-counted for in the model. Only peer attachment made an independent contribution to the model.Those adolescents who were secure with peers reported high levels of emotional awareness.In the model predicting positive expressiveness, the addition of both the control variables and

parent and peer attachment signicantly increased the amount of variance accounted for in themodel. Both parent attachment and gender made signicant independent contributions to the

1 In general, research has found that girls score higher on self-report measures of empathy, expressiveness, andprosocial behavior than boys. Boys, however, tend to score higher on aggression. In general, adolescents from higherSES brackets (with more educated parents) also tend to score higher on socioemotional competence than those fromlower SES brackets.

overall signicant full model. Girls and those adolescents who were secure with parents reportedthe highest levels of positive expressiveness.In the model predicting negative dominant expressiveness, only the addition of parent and peer

attachment on the second step of the model increased signicantly the amount of variance ac-counted for in the model. Only peer attachment made a signicant contribution to the model.

Table 3Regression models predicting emotional competence variables

Table 2Regression models predicting social behavior from parent and peer attachment

Variables and step b at nal step R2 change Total R2

Prosocial behavior

1. Gender .18**

Parent education .07 .05** .04**2. Parent attachment .09Peer attachment .22** .07** .12**

Aggression

1. Gender .33**Parent education .01 .15** .15**

2. Parent attachment .09Peer attachment .27** .05** .20**

*p < .05, **p < .01.

D. Laible / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 11851197 1191Variables and step b at nal step R2 change Total R2

Emotional awareness

1. Gender .04Parent education .01 .02 .02

2. Parent attachment .17** ** **Peer attachment .33 .19 .22

Positive expressiveness

1. Gender .43**

Parent education .11 .22** .22**2. Parent attachment .32**

Peer attachment .01 .10** .33**

Negative dominant expressiveness

1. Gender .09Parent education .05 .03 .03

2. Parent attachment .01Peer attachment .37** .13** .17**

Empathy

1. Gender .26**

Parent education .16 .14** .14**2. Parent attachment .18+

Peer attachment .35** .08** .22**

+p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.

Adolescents who reported secure attachments with peers reported expressing less negative domi-nant aect.In the model predicting empathy, both the control variables and parent and peer attachment

increased signicantly the amount of variance accounted for in the model. Both gender andpeer attachment made signicant independent contributions to the overall signicant model pre-dicting empathy. Girls and adolescents with secure peer relationships reported high levels ofempathy.

4.3. Path model predicting social behavior

Finally, in order to test whether parent and peer attachment had any direct links with socialbehavior, or whether these links were mediated by the emotional competence variables, a pathmodel using multiple regression analyses was built (see Fig. 1). Consistent with predictions, parentand peer attachment had no direct links with social behavior after the emotional competence vari-ables were taken into account in the model. These path coecients in the full regressions modelswere not signicant (b < .15, ps > .05). Both parent and peer attachment were indirectly related toprosocial behavior through their links with positive expressiveness. Parent attachment was also

EmotionalAwareness

NS.21**

NS

Parent attachment Prosocial behavior

1192 D. Laible / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 11851197.20*

Positive .31** NS Expressiveness

.19* NS

NS

.20* .20* Negative dominant Expressiveness .49**

-.33**

Peer attachment Aggressive behavior .38**

NS-.33**

EmpathyFig. 1. Path model showing indirect relations between attachment and social behavior.

of the core ideas of attachment theory. Attachment theorists have argued that having responsiveattachment gures in times of distress gives an individual the emotional tools needed to cope with

D. Laible / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 11851197 1193negative aect (Cassidy, 1994; Kobak et al., 1993). Therefore, it is not surprising that adolescentsin this study with secure attachment relationships reported experiencing less negative dominantaect and more positive aect on a daily basis. It seems likely that secure adolescents have theindirectly related to aggressive behavior through its links with empathy. Similarly, peer attach-ment was indirectly related to aggression through its links with both negative dominant expres-siveness and empathy.

5. Discussion

The goal of this study was to examine the links between parent and peer attachment, emotionalcompetence, and social behavior. The ndings support the idea that a secure attachment relation-ship with parents and peers was associated with more social and emotional competence. Adoles-cents with secure relationships to parents and peers reported being more emotionally aware, moresympathetic, more prosocial, and expressing more positive aect than those adolescents who wereless secure. In addition, secure adolescents reported expressing less negative dominant expressive-ness and engaging in less aggressive behavior than insecure adolescents.Multivariate relations suggested that it was primarily secure attachments with peers that pro-

moted socioemotional competence in late adolescence. Peer attachment had stronger direct rela-tions with all aspects of socioemotional development than did parent attachment. The onlyexception was for positive expressiveness, where parent attachment continued to be a signicantpredictor even with peer attachment in the model. These ndings raise two possibilities. First, anumber of researchers have argued that peer relationships may overtake parents as primaryattachment gures in the attachment hierarchy in late adolescence (see Allen & Land, 1999). Amore likely possibility, however, is that peer attachment relationships may be important for fos-tering particular domains of adjustment, especially those related to social behavior and socialemotions. Researchers have long argued that peer relationships are unique, because they involvemore mutual reciprocity than other types of relationships (e.g., parentchild) that involve moreunilateral power (e.g., Youniss, 1980). As a result, peer attachment relationships might providea unique context in which adolescents develop certain types of socioemotional competence, suchas empathy and prosocial behavior. This perspective does not rule out the importance of parentchild attachment relationships for the development of other types of competencies (e.g., self-es-teem). In fact, research has supported the idea that a secure attachment with parents in late ado-lescence and early adulthood is linked with multiple aspects of well-being, including high self-esteem and low psychological distress (Bradford & Lyddon, 1993; Laible et al., 2004).In addition, the ndings from this study support the idea that both parent and peer attachment

may exert their inuence on social behavior through the inuence that they have the developmentof emotional competence. Results from path analyses, suggested that both parent and peer attach-ment, have no discernable direct inuence on the development of socially competent behavior. In-stead, the links between attachment and adolescent reports of social behavior were entirelymediated through empathy and emotional expressiveness. These ndings are consistent with someability to regulate their aect in a way that is more successful than insecure adolescents. Similarly,

1194 D. Laible / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 11851197having sympathetic attachment gures in times of distress may also promote the development ofthat same skill (i.e., empathy) with others. Adult attachment theorists have also theorized thatprosocial and sympathetic reactions are products of the attachment caregiving system and theoptimal functioning of this system occurs in securely attached individuals (see Mikulincer & Sha-ver, 2005).Consistent with other research, emotionally competent adolescents were also more likely to be

prosocial and less likely to report being aggressive. In particular, adolescents who reported highlevels of positive aect also reported being more prosocial. Although few researchers have exam-ined the link between positive expressiveness and prosocial behavior, researchers have found linksbetween temperamental aspects of positive emotionality and prosocial behavior (see e.g., Eisen-berg et al., 1996). Thus, high levels of positive expressiveness may be an indicator of a broaderpositive social orientation that is linked with appropriate social behavior. Researchers, however,have also found that individuals are more likely to help when they are in a positive mood (Carl-son, Charlin, & Miller, 1988). Therefore, adolescents who report being high in positive expressive-ness may also be more prosocial, because they spend a larger proportion of their time in a positivemood than do those adolescents who report lower levels of positive expressiveness.In this study, higher levels of aggressive behavior in adolescents were linked with higher levels

of negative dominant expressiveness and lower levels of empathy. The links between hostile dis-plays of negative emotion and aggression have long been established (see e.g., Harmon-Jones,2003; Ramirez & Andreu, 2005). In addition, researchers have also found consistent links betweena lack of empathy and aggressive behavior (Carlo et al., 1999). A number of theorists have pro-posed that individuals who experience empathy are less aggressive, because they have the capacityto understand the negative consequences that aggressive behavior has on both the self and others(Feshbach & Feshbach, 1986).Finally, this study found that females reported higher levels of appropriate social behavior and

more positive expressiveness than males. These ndings are consistent with the previous research(e.g., Laible et al., 2004; Roberts & Strayer, 1996). These ndings also support the idea that fe-males are socialized towards and display an orientation emphasizing relationships andcooperation.Given that the data from this study are solely self-report, future studies need to replicate the

ndings with observational data or using multiple reporters. In addition, because of the correla-tional nature of this study, the direction of the eects is not clear and causal interpretations mustbe made cautiously. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that the links between attachmentand socioemotional outcomes are bi-directional. For example, it seems likely that adolescents whoare emotionally and socially competent are also more likely to be from and maintain secure rela-tionships. In turn, by being a part of secure relationships, adolescents and young adults constructemotional and relational competence. Lastly, given the homogeneity of this studys sample (Cau-casian college students), generalizing the ndings from this study should be done with caution.Despite these limitations, the ndings from this study do highlight the importance of examining

the links between attachment styles, emotion, and social behavior. From a practical stand point, itseems important to understand the potential mediating links between attachment and socialbehavior. A number of researchers have emphasized the importance of examining emotional vari-ables (see e.g., Zimmermann, 1999) and our research supports the importance of examining these

variables as well. From an intervention standpoint, our ndings also suggest the importance of

NY: Cambridge University Press.

D. Laible / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 11851197 1195Harmon-Jones, E. (2003). Anger and the behavioral approach system. Personality and Individual dierences, 35,9951005.

Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1999). Pair bonds as attachments: Evaluating the evidence. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.),enhancing emotional competence in late adolescence (especially sympathy and emotion regula-tion) to target improvements in social behavior.

References

Allen, J., & Land, D. (1999). Attachment in adolescence. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment:Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 319335). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Armsden, G., & Greenberg, M. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual dierences and theirrelationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427454.

Bagby, R., Parker, J., & Taylor, G. (1994). The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale: I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38, 2332.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss. New York, NY: Basic Books Inc.Bradford, E., & Lyddon, W. (1993). Current parental attachment: Its relation to perceived psychological distress and

relationship satisfaction in college students. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 256260.Bretherton, I. (1990). Open communication and internal working models: Their role in the development of attachment

relationships. In R. A. Thompson (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol. 36. Socioemotional development(pp. 57113).

Carlo, G., Raaelli, M., Laible, D., & Meyer, K. (1999). Why are girls less physically aggressive than boys? Personalityand parenting mediators of physical aggression. Sex Roles, 40, 711729.

Carlo, G., & Randall, B. (2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for late adolescents. Journal ofYouth and Adolescence, 31, 3144.

Carlson, M., Charlin, V., & Miller, N. (1988). Positive mood and helping behavior: A test of six hypotheses. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 55, 211229.

Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Inuences of attachment relationships. Monographs of the Society for Researchin Child Development, 59, 228283.

Crittenden, P. (1992). Quality of attachment in the preschool years. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 209241.Davis, M. (1983). The eects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions and helping: A multidimensional

approach. Journal of Personality, 51, 167184.Ducharme, J., Doyle, A., & Markiewicz, D. (2002). Attachment security with mother and father: Associations with

adolescents reports of interpersonal behavior with parents and peers. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,19, 203231.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R., Murphy, B., Karbon, M., Smith, M., & Maszk, P. (1996). The relations of childrensdispositional empathy-related responding to their emotionality, regulation, and social functioning. DevelopmentalPsychology, 32, 195209.

Feshbach, S., & Feshbach, N. (1986). Aggression and altruism: A personality perspective. In C. Zahn-Waxler, E. M.Cummings, & R. Iannotti (Eds.), Altruism and aggression: Biological and social origins (pp. 189217). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Fraley, R., & Davis, K. (1997). Attachment formation and transfer in young adults close friendships and romanticrelationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 131144.

Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex dierences in perceptions of networks of personal relationships.Child Development, 63, 103115.

Halberstadt, A. G., Cassidy, J., Stifter, C., Parke, R., & Fox, N. (1995). Self-expressiveness within the family context:Psychometric support for a new measure. Psychological Assessment, 7, 93103.

Halberstadt, A., Crisp, V., & Eaton, K. (1999). Family expressiveness: A retrospective and new directions for research.In P. Philippot, R. Feldman, & E. Coats (Eds.), The social context of nonverbal behavior (pp. 109155). New York,Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 336354). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

1196 D. Laible / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 11851197Kestenbaum, R., Farber, E., & Sroufe, A. (1989). Individual dierences in empathy among preschoolers: Relation toattachment history. New Directions for Child Development(44), 5164.

Kobak, R., Cole, H., Ferenz-Gillies, R., Fleming, W., & Gamble, W. (1993). Attachment and emotion regulationduring motherteen problem solving: A control theory analysis. Child Development, 64, 231245.

Laible, D. (2004). Motherchild discourse in two contexts: Links with child temperament, attachment security, andsocioemotional competence. Developmental Psychology, 40, 979992.

Laible, D., Carlo, G., & Raaelli, M. (2000). The dierential relations of parent and peer attachment to adolescentadjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 4559.

Laible, D., Carlo, G., & Roesch, S. (2004). Pathways to self-esteem in late adolescence: The role of parent and peerattachment, empathy, and social behaviours. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 703716.

Larson, R., Richards, M., Moneta, G., Holmbeck, G., & Duckett, E. (1996). Changes in adolescents dailyinteractions with their families from ages 10 to 18: Disengagement and transformation. Developmental Psychology,32, 744754.

Lyons-Ruth, K., Alpern, L., & Repacholi, B. (1993). Disorganized infant attachment classication and maternalpsychosocial problems as predictors of hostile-aggressive behavior in the preschool classroom. Child Development,64, 572585.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, andinterpersonal processes. In M. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 53152). SanDiego, CA: Academic Press.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. (2005). Attachment security, compassion, and altruism. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 14, 3438.

Nickerson, A., & Nagle, R. (2005). Parent and peer attachment in late childhood and early adolescence. Journal ofEarly Adolescence, 25, 223249.

Ramirez, J., & Andreu, J. (2005). Aggression, and some related psychological constructs (anger, hostility, andimpulsivity). Some comments from a research project. Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews, 30, 276291.

Rice, K. (1990). Attachment in adolescence: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,19, 511538.

Roberts, W., & Strayer, J. (1996). Empathy, emotional expressiveness, and prosocial behavior. Child Development, 67,449470.

Shaver, P. R., & Hazan, C. (1993). Adult romantic attachment: Theory and evidence. In D. Perlman &W. Jones (Eds.).Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 4, pp. 2970). London: Jessica Kingsley.

Shaver, P., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics. Attachment and Human Development, 4,133161.

Shaver, P., & Mikulincer, M. (2003). The psychodynamics of social judgments: An attachment theory perspective. In J.Forgas, K. Williams, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), Social judgments: Implicit and explicit processes (pp. 85114). NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Simons, K. J. M., Paternite, C., & Shore, C. (2001). Quality of parent/adolescent attachment and aggression in youngadolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, 182203.

Spitzer, C., Siebel-Jurges, U., Barnow, S., Grabe, H., & Freyberger, H. (2005). Alexithymia and interpersonalproblems. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 74, 240246.

Strayer, J., & Roberts, W. (2004). Empathy and observed anger and aggression in ve-year-olds. Social Development,13, 113.

Thompson, R. A. (1999). Early attachment and later development. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook ofattachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 265286). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Thompson, R., Flood, M., & Lundquist, L. (1995). Emotional regulation: Its relations to attachment anddevelopmental psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & S. Toth (Eds.), Emotion, cognition, and representation(pp. 261299). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Volling, B. (2001). Early attachment relationships as predictors of preschool childrens emotion regulation with adistressed sibling. Early Education and Development, 12, 185207.

Weinberger, D. (1991). Socialemotional adjustment in older children and adults: I. Psychometric properties of theWeinberger Adjustment Inventory. Unpublished manuscript, Case Western Reserve University, Columbus, OH.

Youniss, J. (1980). Parents and peers in social development: A SullivanPiaget perspective. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press.

Zimmer-Bembeck, M., Geiger, T., & Crick, N. (2005). Relational and physical aggression, prosocial behavior, and peerrelations: Gender moderation and bidirectional associations. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 421452.

Zimmermann, P. (1999). Structure and functions of internal working models of attachment and their role in emotionregulation. Attachment and Human Development, 1, 291306.

D. Laible / Personality and Individual Dierences 43 (2007) 11851197 1197

Attachment with parents and peers in late adolescence: Links with emotional competence and social behaviorIntroductionConclusions and the current studyMethodParticipantsParent and peer attachmentEmpathyEmotional expressivenessEmotional awarenessProsocial behaviorAggression

ResultsDescriptive information and bivariate relationshipsRegression models predicting outcomesPath model predicting social behavior

DiscussionReferences