rate themselves with regard to each prototype on how they normally feel in a close relationship. Both questionnaires yield dimensional results, due to the Likert scales, and categorical results that coincide with Bartholomew and Horowitz’s four attachment styles. The Relationship Scales Questionnaire also allows the rater to give scores on Collins and Read’s three constructs.
The two interviews are distinguished by the focus of attachment. The first type is the Family Attachment Interview. It is a semi-structured interview rated by two trained raters. It is quite like the AAI in that the questions center on memories of childhood. The interview includes subscales such as love, rejection, anger, idealization, and role reversal. Ratings are based on feelings about memories growing up. Content plays a larger role than coherence. If the participant avoids the issue of childhood it does not have as large an effect on their outcome as it does with the AAI. The second interview is titled the Peer Attachment Interview. This measure focuses on close friendships and romantic relationships. The structure and scoring is much like the Family Attachment Interview. Questions involve trust, intimacy, and level of comfort with levels of support among others.
Bartholomew’s scales are very comprehensive. Each of the tests measures a different facet of attachment. This yields a more complete picture of a person’s style. Using all of these methods can be confusing though, and the possibility that a person will end up with four distinct attachment styles is somewhat overwhelming.
All of these scales, whether they come from Bowlby’s tradition or social cognition, attempt to provide a picture of attachment that is complete and accurate, but that is not always the case. Stein, Koontz, Fonagy, Allen, Fultz, Brethour, Allen