What Language Does Your Internal Working Model of Attachment Speak?

Abstract

Nonnative English speakers are a growing population in the United States and United Kingdom, yet nothing is known about how second-language interviewing affects the assessment (or classification) of internal working models (IWM) of attachment. We suggest that these assessments may be subject to deleterious effects when conducted in an individual’s second language, because they (and the IWM structure itself) are linguistically bound, emotionally laden, and complicated by cultural loading. In this review, research regarding how the language of assessment broadly affects language production, interview content, emotional expression, and interviewee behavior is reviewed. We close with areas for future research and a table of existing attachment assessments by language in an effort to spur cross-cultural and bilingual research in this area. This review can therefore serve as a resource for clinicians wishing to assess attachment with linguistically diverse clients and researchers wishing to address the basic question of this review—how is the assessment of IWMs affected when conducted in an individual’s nonnative tongue?

Keywords

internal working model attachment interview bilingual emotion language

The importance of assessing adolescents’ and adults’ internal working models (IWMs) of attachment has been clearly reviewed in other papers tying secure models to reduced psychopathology, improved social relatedness, and improved well-being and quality of life (adolescent, for example, Brown & Wright, 2003; Lacasa, Mitjavila, Ochoa, & Balluerka, 2015; Miljkovitch, Pierrehumbert, Karmaniola, Bader, & Halfon, 2005; Venta, Shmueli-Goetz, & Sharp, 2014; adult, for example, Barone, 2003; Berlin, Cassidy, & Appleyard, 2008; Deklyen & Greenberg, 2008; Dykas & Cassidy, 2011; Fournier, Brassard, & Shaver, 2011; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007; Schindler et al., 2005; Shi, Bureau, Easterbrooks, Zhao, & Lyons-Ruth, 2012). Critically, no empirical evaluation has examined how the assessment of IWMs, which is typically undertaken through semistructured interviews (e.g., Adult Attachment Interview [AAI], George, Kaplan, & Main, 1985; Child Attachment Interview [CAI], Target, Fonagy, Shmueli-Goetz, Data, & Schneider, 2007) or script- and story-based tasks (see Dykas, Woodhouse, Cassidy, & Waters, 2006; Waters & Waters, 2006) developed and conducted in English is impacted when conducted in an individual’s nonnative language. This ought to be a growing concern for clinicians and researchers, in light of census data showing large numbers of nonnative English speakers in the United States, where approximately 21% of people 5 years old and older speak a language other than English at home (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015), and the United Kingdom, where 8% endorse a main language other than English (U.K. Office for National Statistics, 2011). Moreover, individuals for whom English is a second language may have had early (or continued) exposure to a different culture (Helms, 1992), adding complexity to the process of identifying adequate assessment tools (Dana, 2000). Finally, nonnative English speakers (including ethnic minorities) are overrepresented in clinical settings, where the assessment of attachment may be most relevant.

The aim of this review is to present empirical research and theoretical models with the overarching goal of suggesting that the assessment of IWMs of attachment via interview and script- and story-based methods, dominant practices with adolescents and adults, may be particularly subject to deleterious effects if conducted in an individual’s nonnative tongue because both the IWM and measurement are linguistically bound, emotionally laden, and complicated by cultural loading. In light of the vastly limited empirical research conducted on attachment in bilingual individuals, we close with several identified areas for future research as well as a table that presents existing assessments in various languages, in an effort to support future research and clinical application of attachment measures to nonnative English speakers. Throughout this review, we seek to discuss the conceptual issues of assessing attachment in a second language, moving beyond basic psychometric and pragmatic issues related to utilizing appropriately translated and normed measures (e.g., Malley-Morrison, Soon You, & Mills, 2000; Wang & Mallinckrodt, 2006).

The present review does not discuss the assessment of IWMs of attachment during infancy or childhood, when assessment is primarily based on observable behavior rather than language (Solomon & George, 2008). Indeed, the most widely studied IWM assessments for use during infancy and childhood include coding observations from separation and reunion paradigms (e.g., Strange Situation Paradigm, Cassidy-Marvin Assessment of Attachment in Preschoolers, Main-Cassidy Attachment Classification for Kindergarten-Age Children) or naturalistic behavior in the child’s home (Solomon & George, 2008). These observational tools have been successfully used across cultural and linguistic groups (see van Ijzendoorn & Sagi-Schwartz, 2008) and that research is outside the scope of the present review. A smaller literature assesses IWMs in children using projective and semiprojective techniques including picture responses, doll play, and family drawings. Validation of these methods is incomplete (Solomon & George, 2008) and, thus, will not be reviewed herein. As that literature emerges, however, research should investigate the effects of assessment in a child’s nonnative tongue, as the coding of projective assessments may be subject to linguistic and cultural bias (Vega, Lasser, & Afifi, 2016).

IWMs of Attachment are Linguistically Bound

At present, our understanding of IWMs of attachment is linguistically bound for two reasons. First, attachment interviews, the gold-standard methodology for assessing IWMs of attachment after early childhood, are linguistically complex and demanding. Likewise, script- and story-based procedures, which have received increasing attention over the last decade, are inherently linguistic. Second, IWMs themselves emerge from language, and attachment classifications have demonstrated associations to linguistic abilities. This section will focus on reviewing literature relevant to these two domains. A final section will describe the possible effects of IWM assessments conducted in a nonnative language.

Attachment Interviews are Linguistically Complex and Demanding

Attachment interviews are linguistically burdensome by design. Indeed, in creating the AAI, Main, Kaplan, and Cassidy (1985) deliberately moved away from the behaviorally based assessment of attachment that dominates infancy and early childhood to the “level of representation.” The linguistic demand of this interview is evident simply in its structure and length; the respondent is asked to provide five adjectives and examples that characterize his or her early relationships with caregivers as well as describe times that they were upset and needed help. This occurs during an entirely spoken interview that ranges in length between 45 min and 1½ hr (Main et al., 1985). In addition to the amount of verbal content requested, linguistic and cognitive complexity is sought through these prompts (among others) and forms the basis of the AAI’s coding. Indeed, the coder focuses on how individuals talk about their attachment experiences, using the clarity, coherence, and consistency of the narrative as clues about the nature of the IWM (Bretherton, 1995; Main et al., 1985). Thus, much of the assignment of attachment classifications requires the use of discourse analyses: an autonomous individual is able to talk about caregiving experiences in a way that is balanced, coherent, consistent, and open; a dismissing adult will struggle to provide words and examples that adequately describe their attachment world; and a preoccupied adult will produce an interview that is dominated by excessive language in the form of superfluous examples and detail.

A downward extension of the AAI, the CAI (Target et al., 2007) has been developed and used with adolescents (Venta et al., 2014) as well as with school-age children (Shmueli-Goetz, Target, Fonagy, & Datta, 2008), with a continued focus on “representation” in assigning attachment styles. Although less demanding, the CAI similarly uses verbal prompts to elicit descriptors and examples relating to attachment figures and experiences. Much like the AAI, the CAI takes a discourse analysis approach in assigning attachment classifications, paying particular attention to coherence, consistency, and use of examples as providing insight to the youth’s IWM (Shmueli-Goetz et al., 2008; Venta et al., 2014). Across both the CAI and the AAI, transcripts and recordings of the interview are required for coding—further highlighting the importance of the participant’s produced language in coding their IWM. Indeed, word count–based analyses alone have identified meaningful differences between classifications on the AAI (Borelli et al., 2013).

Script- and Story-Based Assessments are Inherently Linguistic

Based on the heading alone, it should be clear that another category of IWM assessments—those based on script and story prompts—is inherently linguistic as well. This category of assessments has been steadily increasing in popularity over the last decade, due in part to the costly nature of administration and coding training for instruments like the AAI. Indeed, this was the focus of a special issue of Attachment and Human Development (Vaughn et al., 2006), which broadly supported the use of these procedures for measuring IWMs in adults.

Bretherton (1991) was one of the first proponents of examining IWMs of attachment by tapping mental scripts—the mental sequences outlining attachment-related causes and effects like “When I am hurt, my mother soothes me” (Dykas et al., 2006, p. 222). To tap these mental scripts, researchers administer a prompt such as the beginning of a story or a set of word prompts and ask participants to complete the story. Although these sorts of tasks were initially developed for use with children, with some tasks using dolls and props in the procedure (see Bretherton, Ridgeway, & Cassidy, 1990), the last decade has seen an increase in the application and standardization of story- and script-based tasks with adults. Indeed, the validity of this method has been demonstrated, in part, through construct validity studies with the AAI (Waters & Rodrigues-Doolabh, 2001).

Despite variations in prompts and coding across studies, the content and, to some extent, the language of the completed story are used to glean information about the accessibility of a secure script and, thus, the participant’s IWM. Generally, a script conveys security if it includes the participant and an attachment figure engaged in an interaction, distressed by some difficulty, making a bid for help, receiving help, accepting the help, making use of the help to overcome the difficulty, and down-regulating affect such that they can return to the previous interaction (Waters & Waters, 2006). Certainly, the capacity to even tell such a story is inextricably linked to linguistic ability. Like the AAI and CAI, a story is judged partially on its linguistic characteristics; attachment security should be reflected in a script that is “complete, [and] well consolidated” (Waters & Waters, 2006, p. 188). Moreover, the narrative must stay on topic and have sufficient content and elaboration to be scored (Waters & Waters, 2006). Although linguistic markers that are important in the scoring of the AAI and CAI—like passivity, tense, and errors—are not factored into the scoring of story- and script-based tasks, authors have nonetheless acknowledged the “highly verbal nature” of these measures (Dykas et al., 2006, p. 229). For instance, very lengthy or very brief stories receive low scores or are deemed unusable, indicating that, certainly at the extremes, linguistic characteristics affect secure base script scores. Moreover, significant, albeit moderate, correlations between story- and script-based tasks and verbal skills have been reported (Dykas et al., 2006).

In addition to being affected by the language generated by the participant, story- and script-based tasks are also affected by the language used to prompt the participant. In the first application of this research to adolescents, for instance, Dykas et al. (2006) asked adolescent participants to complete stories with themes like acne, getting a haircut, a tennis match, and studying for an exam. Notably, the authors asked girls and boys to complete different stories based on pilot testing that had suggested differential gender-based sensitivity to these themes. Moreover, the researchers identified differences in the secure base script scores for stories related to mothers and fathers and discussed the possibility that the prompting language generated differences in the scripts produced. The concern that the prompting language and content may affect the script produced has also been echoed in adult research. Although cross-cultural research using story- and script-based tasks is limited, existing research indicates that prompts must be culturally modified (Rodrigues-Doolabh, Wais, Zevallos, & Rodrigues, 2001; Rodrigues-Doolabh, Zevallos, Turan, & Green, 2003) to produce script scores that are comparable to U.S. samples.

IWMs Emerge in Linguistic Contexts

This statement is twofold: first, IWMs emerge in childhood through linguistic interaction and across development, and second, IWMs emerge in attachment interviews through their unique linguistic properties. Bowlby (1982) described IWMs as arising from the communication between a caregiver and a child. Theoretically, the caregiver–child interactions during infancy and early childhood produce nonverbal/emotional structures that, with development, evolve into a verbal IWM. That is, as the child acquires linguistic capabilities, the internalized self-other interaction patterns increase in complexity and the basic, nonverbal model is transformed into a mature, linguistic IWM (Appelman, 2000). Put succinctly, “Language becomes the dynamic tool through which the individual negotiates meaning and transforms the organized, nonverbal pattern of relatedness (Fogel, 1993) into narrative” (Appelman, 2000, p. 198). It is the narrative-bound, mature IWM that is of interest for clinicians and researchers studying attachment beyond early childhood. Indeed, early conceptualizations of the IWM of attachment made so clear the impossibility of separating attachment representation from their linguistic caregiving context that it seemed “possible to question whether individual differences in security of attachment might instead reflect individual differences in some underlying verbal competence” (Main et al., 1985, p. 92).

Although existing empirical data have conclusively answered Main and colleagues’ (1985) question—the answer is no, attachment (at least when measured through interview-based or story- and script-based measures) is not simply verbal competence—the question itself highlights the fundamentality of the linguistic context for the development of the IWM. Across age groups and languages, early attachment classifications have been linked to linguistic (Bacro, 2011; Costantini, Cassibba, Coppola, & Castoro, 2012; van IJzendoorn, Dijkstra, & Bus, 1995) and cognitive abilities (Egeland & Farber, 1984; van Bakel, & Riksen-Walraven, 2004; van IJzendoorn & van Vliet-Visser, 1988), but these links are viewed as reciprocal (wherein secure attachment enhances ability just as ability enhances security; Stievenart, Roskam, Meunier, & van de Moortele, 2011). Moreover, no such link between verbal ability and attachment classification exists when attachment interviews are used with adults (Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 1993; Sagi et al., 1994) or children (Shmueli-Goetz et al., 2008). Likewise, after controlling for verbal ability, script-based assessments remain significantly associated with other attachment tasks (Dykas et al., 2006). These results suggest (reassuringly) that attachment interviews and story- and script-based tasks do not mistakenly ascribe security where only verbal ability exists. However, the fact remains that, at least in early childhood, attachment relationships, attachment measures, and linguistic ability are correlated.

In the AAI, recent studies based on Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (Pennebaker, Booth, & Francis, 2007)—narrative discourse analyses method—suggest that the IWM emerges in unique and replicable ways in the linguistic context of the interview. For example, Waters, Steele, Roisman, Haydon, and Booth-LaForce (2016) analyzed more than 1,600 AAI narratives using this method and noted that the transcripts of individuals with a dismissing IWM were consistently shorter and minimized attachment relationships whereas the preoccupied counterparts were longer and contained increased references to conflict and anger. Together, linguistic variables accounted for remarkable portions of the variance in the coder-derived AAI classifications—36% to 54%. These findings build upon the earlier work of Cassidy, Sherman, and Jones (2012), who, using a very similar method, noted consistent linguistic differences related to the attachment classification and, moreover, reported agreement between classification based on AAI coding and based on linguistic analyses in 71% of cases. Together, this emerging body of research illustrates the way that IWMs are both linguistically created and linguistically bound—at least when conceptualized within semistructured attachment interviews.

Language of Assessment Affects Linguistic Production and Understanding

Together, the reality that attachment interviews are linguistically demanding and that IWMs of attachment emerge in a linguistic context suggests that optimal assessment should address the individual’s native language—coincidentally referred to as the mother tongue. Indeed, aspects of language that are critical for the discourse analyses of the AAI and CAI, including emotional openness, coherence (including reflection about own and others’ mental states), and clarity of language, could be negatively impacted by limitations in fluency. Although story- and script-based tasks de-emphasize discourse analysis, the coherence and length of story production remains relevant to IWM assessment. In the next section, we will describe how assessment in a second language might have particular detrimental impacts upon the respondent’s production of emotional language. In addition, reduced verbal fluency, including longer and more frequency pauses as well as more repetitions, is associated with second-language discourse with large effect sizes as compared with first-language discourse (De Jong, Groenhout, Schoonen, & Hulstijn, 2015), suggesting that dysfluency of discourse, paucity of elaboration, unlicensed pauses, or unintended inconsistencies within the narrative might be misinterpreted as indicators of attachment insecurity in the AAI and CAI while really reflecting reduced fluency. These limitations would compound limitations in expressive vocabulary as well as issues of misunderstanding associated with incomplete receptive vocabulary in a second language (Cameron, 2002; Hutchinson, Whiteley, Smith, & Connors, 2003). Finally, fatigue, emotional expression during the interview, and controlling/derogatory behavior toward the interview or interviewer could be spurred by the interview’s increased difficulty when conducted in a second language or misunderstanding related to the aim of the interview and interviewer prompts.

Several empirical studies from the field of linguistics illustrate the possible hurdles of assessing an IWM in someone’s nonnative language. At the most basic level, research demonstrates that completing psychological tasks using a nonnative language can be detrimental for someone’s performance (Kisser, Wendell, Spencer, & Waldstein, 2012; Sotelo-Dynega, 2013). In addition, difficulties communicating complex concepts, like metaphors, have been associated with assessment in a second language. For instance, Hmong adolescent immigrants were found to have different understandings of the meanings and situational uses of metaphors for emotions and attitudes when compared with English speaking adolescents, and when expressing themselves in their primary (Hmong) versus their second language (English; Dunningan, McNall, & Mortime, 1993). This metaphorical nonequivalence resulted in poor reliability and validity coefficients on standardized measures (Dunningan et al., 1993). Interviewees assessed in their second language also report feeling that there were things they wanted to convey that were untranslatable, such as metaphors, jokes, and idioms (Homayounpoour & Movahedi, 2012). Likewise, clinicians report difficulty capturing the meaning of sarcasm, and face difficulties when dealing with interruptions during interviews, when there was a mismatch between the client and clinician’s native languages (McNamara, 1997).

Moreover, assessment in a second language can influence the content that is disclosed as well as the interviewee’s emotional reaction to the interview—an important consideration in coding the AAI and CAI. Specifically, memories may be better and more accurately recalled, involuntarily accessed, and discussed in the client’s native language rather than in a second language (Kinginger, 2004; Pavlenko, 2006). Furthermore, a qualitative study found that clients interviewed in a language other than their native language tend to report feeling misunderstood, unsatisfied, and alienated (Homayounpoour & Movahedi, 2012)—that may exacerbate the already difficult emotions that may be elicited by attachment interviews. Finally, they believed that conducting the interview in their second language facilitated their wish to hide information that they believed would not be able to hide from a clinician who spoke their mother tongue (Homayounpoour & Movahedi, 2012). To the same end, bilingual people have reported perceiving themselves as different people when using different languages (Pavlenko, 2006). Linguistic studies note that second-language processing is “qualitatively” different from first-language processing in that it consistently reflects shallower and less detailed processing (see review by Clahsen & Felser, 2006), which critically persists even when the individual is proficient in the second language. Together, these studies suggest that above and beyond detrimental effects on performance, assessing IWMs in a second language may inadvertently influence the content disclosed, the interviewees’ emotional response to the task, and the degree to which the interviewee can obscure aspects of the self without the interviewer’s knowledge.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, there are no studies addressing how the spoken language specifically affects the report of early childhood experiences in attachment classification assessments among nonnative English speakers. The research reviewed in this section suggests that the native language is critically linked to the variables assessed by attachment interviews and stories—recollection of memories, coherent discourse, and emotionality within the task. Indeed, the assessment occurring in the interviewee’s second language may be sufficient to increase expressions of distance, superficiality, and detachment that are subsequently interpreted as a dismissing stance.

IWMs of Attachment are Emotionally Laden

We have already discussed the reality that interviews designed to assess IWMs, like the AAI and the CAI, rely heavily on the respondent’s use of labeled and elaborated emotion. Further evidence bolstering the notion that IWMs of attachment are emotionally laden comes from literature bases conceptually defining the IWM as inextricably linked with emotion and describing differences in emotional functioning based on attachment classifications. This section will review those literatures first; then, because empirical research has not evaluated the degree to which these aspects of IWMs are affected by assessment in a second language, the remainder of this section will review extant literature regarding what happens to the assessment and expression of emotion, broadly, in a second language. The effects of caregiving on emotional language learning will not be discussed, though those are thoroughly reviewed by authors who, importantly, note that the attachment context is where a first language, particularly the emotional content of that first language, is learned (Harris, Gleason, & Ayçiçegi, 2006).

Emotion Is a Structural Component of IWMs

Bowlby’s initial conceptualization of IWMs was steeped in emotion—leading to the view that IWMs are “hot structures” created out of and driving emotion (Pietromonaco & Barrett, 2000). Indeed, in the landmark study moving the conceptualization of attachment “to the level of representation,” Main and colleagues described the IWM as emerging from the emotional and behavioral outcomes of attachment-related events and subsequently directing future emotional experience (Main et al., 1985). Moreover, both emotional reactivity and emotion regulation have been tied to the theoretical structure of IWMs across models (see reviews by Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Pietromonaco & Barrett, 2000), with affect being generally accepted as the “organizer” of interpersonal relationships (Fonagy & Target, 2007) since infancy, and, therefore, a structural foundation of IWMs of attachment. In this sense, the IWM is more a pattern of felt emotion than a pattern of behavior or social expectation—indeed secure attachment, for example, becomes a felt “expectation of distress being met by comforting” (Fonagy & Target, 2007, p. 422).

Bolstering the link between IWMs and emotion are numerous studies identifying individual differences with regard to emotion regulation based on attachment classifications. Indeed, in a 2010 review, Allen and Miga (2010) asserted that attachment interviews may be interpreted as “primarily assessing” emotion regulation capacities, perhaps explaining high correlations between attachment security and emotion regulation in adolescents (e.g., Venta, Sharp, & Newlin, 2015). While not all authors would agree with this proposition, there is an uncontested link between attachment and emotional understanding and regulation (Mikulincer, Shaver, & Pereg, 2003). Indeed, emotion regulation and understanding have been conceptualized as emerging from attachment relationships (Calkins, 2004), via what Chen and colleagues (2004) call the co-regulation of affect, and explaining individual differences in affect regulation strategies (Mikulincer et al., 2003).

Language of Assessment Affects Emotional Content

To date, no study has examined the extent to which emotional expression during the AAI or CAI differs in response to the language of assessment. Still, a broader literature developed within the last century has consistently demonstrated that the emotional valence of words affects how words are processed (Altarriba & Bauer, 2004; Gray, Hughes, & Schneider, 1982; McGinnies, 1949) and consistently demonstrates that emotion is processed more deeply in languages that (a) are acquired early in life; (b) are demonstrated to be, or are self-reported by the participant to be, the more dominant/proficient language; (c) were acquired in a naturalistic setting; or (d) are the more heavily socialized languages (Dewaele, 2004, 2008). These factors have demonstrated import on a hierarchal scale, with age of acquisition being the least influential factor when dominance/proficiency, context, and socialization are taken into account. The most variance in emotional processing is explained by context of acquisition and socialization (Dewaele, 2008; Harris et al., 2006)). Most research, however, has been done on bilinguals who acquired their second language later in life, whose more dominant/proficient language is their first language, who acquired their second language in an instructional setting, and who are more socialized in their first language. In the subsequent sections, we will describe existing empirical research regarding the effects of second language use on memory and communication.

Memory

Research on word types among monolinguals has revealed that, when comparing concrete with abstract with emotion words, emotion words are more easily remembered than concrete words, which are more easily remembered than abstract words (Altarriba & Bauer, 2004). Similar research on bilinguals, though, reveals that emotion words are only more easily remembered than neutral words in the first language, suggesting that late learners of a second language do not automatically acquire the emotional valence of words along with the semantic significance (Anooshian & Hertel, 1994). Although this can change when the second language becomes socialized and the second-language learner incorporates the emotional scripts of the second language into their language repertoire (Pavlenko, 2002), bilingual individuals may not display the same tendency as monolingual individuals to recall emotion words.

Fiacconi, Dekraker, and Köhler (2015) demonstrated that it is the physiological reaction that accompanies emotion that helps to more deeply encode emotion words. Buchanan (2007) demonstrated through brain imaging that it is not solely that the emotion faced in the initial experience and encoding of the memory that affects recall, but also that recall is improved when an individual experiences the same emotion during retrieval of the memory. Foa and Kozak (1986) took this idea one step further to claim that the more relevant information that is present during retrieval, the more accurate the memory will be. Therefore, processing and retrieval will more fully and accurately take place if the language of retrieval matches the language of encoding (Altarriba, 2003; Marmolejo, Diliberto-Macaluso, & Altarriba, 2009; Schrauf & Rubin, 1998).

Studies on free recall have been the most instrumental in exhibiting the relationship between emotion and language. One such study asked participants to speak about a personal life experience in both the language in which the experience occurred and in the participants’ other language. This study found that recollection in which the language used was both the language of encoding and retrieval was more emotionally rich, with more expression, imagery, and dynamic tone as compared to a version of the same memory in which the language of retrieval was dissimilar to the language of the experience (Javier, Barroso, & Muñoz, 1993). Such an effect has also been demonstrated for recall in participants’ first versus second language. Seminal research by Bond and Lai (1986) demonstrated that Chinese–English bilinguals avoided speaking to great lengths about embarrassing moments in their native language, Chinese, and instead preferred talking about such events in their second language, English, because of the intense emotion experienced when recounting the embarrassing event in their first language. These data suggest that the emotional experience of recounting a memory is strongly influenced by language—a reality that has not yet influenced changes in the assessment of IWMs.

The heightened effect of aversive words, such as taboo words and childhood reprimands, on memory has likewise been shown in memory word tasks. Although participants were able to recall more adverse, emotionally charged words in their second language (Ayçiçegi & Harris, 2004), lab measures such as skin conductance responses (Harris, 2004; Harris, Ayçiçegi, & Gleason, 2003) show that participants have a stronger physiological reaction to aversive words in their native language, suggesting that the relatively heightened memory effect in the second language is experienced due to the participants’ desire to avoid experiencing the deep emotion attached to the aversive native language words, resulting in their superficial encoding (Ayçiçegi & Harris, 2004; Wu & Thierry, 2012). Likewise, a recent study by Ivaz, Costa, and Duñabeitia (2016) revealed that participants were able to more accurately and more quickly match self-relevant stimuli that had been paired with arbitrary shapes as compared with stimuli that were not relevant to the self. This “self-bias” was much larger in the participants’ native, more dominant language, than in their second language, suggesting that emotional reactivity to self-relevant stimuli is stifled in the context of a second language. Although some of these biases, like the aforementioned differences in skin conductance responses, are eliminated for early second-language learners who were more proficient in their second language (Harris, 2004), studies like these demonstrate the complex interaction of language and emotion on memory.

Communication

When learning a second language, many individuals will fail to acquire the pragmatics or the social and emotional effect of the language unless acquisition takes place in a naturalistic setting, or they are immersed into the culture of the language (Dewaele, 2008). As more language interactions take place in more diverse settings, more memory traces will be created, affording the individual the ability to more readily understand the second language at a deeper, more emotional level. This concept has been termed the “emotional contexts of learning theory” (Harris et al., 2006, p. 272). This process is made easier when the emotional concepts and semantic aspects of the native and the second language are similar, and made more difficult when the two languages are dissimilar. “Cariño” is an emotional concept in Spanish, for example, that has no exact equivalent in English (Altarriba, 2003), similarly “tú” and “usted” are semantic aspects of the Spanish language that have no equivalent in English (Marcos, 1976). According to the “emotional contexts of learning theory,” the emotional significance behind these concepts will be harder to acquire and communicate based on language dissimilarity.

Until an individual experiences a sufficient number of contexts, an individual’s first language will be more emotionally meaningful than their second. This has been demonstrated in several studies on oral communication, such as Dewaele’s (2008) work on The Emotional Weight of “I love you” which demonstrated that the emotional weight of “I love you” depended on the frequency and quality of contexts in which the phrase was uttered. Indeed, the weight of “I love you” in a second language surpassed the weight in a first only when the feeling of love was more often experienced in the second language. Likewise, Dewaele’s (2004) work on The Emotional Force of Swearwords and Taboo Words exhibited that swearwords and taboo words experienced more often and in more naturalistic settings were rated by participants as being more profound, even if not in the first language. These studies may have direct relevance to the assessment of IWMs, with questions on both the AAI and the CAI assessing feelings of love in attachment relationships as well as coding strategies that explicitly examine the presence of re-experienced anger (which may well be communicated through swearwords or taboo words during the interview). The emotional experience associated with the production and comprehension of speech is important because affect may not match production. This may be the case, for example, with an interviewee who describes with flat affect and rudimentary adjectives in their second language the love that they feel for their caregivers. Yet if they are given the opportunity to elaborate in their first language, the deep emotion felt by the client is eloquently communicated (Altarriba & Santiago-Rivera, 1994).

While less relevant for the assessment of IWMs, which is typically undertaken via oral interviews, limited language access to emotion is seen in written communication as well. Lab-based research using event-related potentials has demonstrated that there is a discrepancy in language access when reading and comprehending emotionally charged text. Data reveal that emotional valence influences processing speed in the second language causing the second language to be accessed more slowly than the first language, thus diminishing the effect of the emotion (Opitz & Degner, 2012). This may help explain why participants who read emotional passages interpret them with more emotion in their first language than in their second as exhibited by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans (Hsu, Jacobs, & Conrad, 2015).

Conclusion

It is evident that many factors influence the ability to properly answer the following question: “what happens to emotion when assessed in a second language?” Studies like those presented throughout this section lend support to the call for appropriate language measures in assessing emotion. This is not to say that there is any one appropriate language measure, but rather that the assessment should be specific to the individual based on factors such as (a) age of language acquisition, (b) language dominance/proficiency, (c) context of acquisition, and (d) degree of socialization. This section touched on the “whats” and possible “hows” of two basic concepts, memory and communication, central not only to the assessment of emotion, broadly, but also to the assessment of IWMs of attachment specifically.

Conclusions and Future Directions

The literature reviewed thus far supports two broad arguments: IWMs are linguistically bound and emotionally laden. Although no research to date has specifically examined the effect of nonnative language assessment on IWMs of attachment, related research demonstrates that the assessment may be subject to deleterious effects related to the production of language, miscommunication, increased distancing from the content, difficulty generating memories, and emotional language, among many other basic challenges related to task demands and fatigue. The broad aim of this review is to suggest that these artifacts of second-language assessment may be misconstrued as attachment insecurity, thereby negatively impacting the validity of attachment interviews. A summary of translated attachment interviews and questionnaire-based measures is provided in Table 1. The aim of summarizing existing attachment assessments for non-English speakers is to spur research and clinical practice that assesses attachment in the individual’s native language and examines the central questions of this review empirically. Indeed, an important avenue for future research—capable of explicitly addressing some of the questions posed in this review—is the random assignment of bilingual participants to completion of verbal attachment assessments in either their native or second language and comparing data across groups. The wide array of languages represented in Table 1 suggests that this task may be undertaken with participants from many linguistic backgrounds.

Table 1.

Overview of Attachment Measures Translated for Use With Non-English Speakers.

	Language	Citation
Attachment measures for adults
Interview-based measures
Adult Attachment Interview	Spanish	Gojman et al. (2012)
	Greek	Bacharaki, Spyridonidis, Georgiades, and Stathakis (2006)
	Turkish	Sakman, Harma, and Savaş (2016)
	Dutch	Verschueren, Dossche, Marcoen, Mahieu, and Bakermans-Kranenburg (2006)
	Portuguese	Faria, Soares, Silva, and Bastos (2015)
	Japanese	Behrens and Kondo-Ikemura (2011)
	Korean	Lee, McCreary, Breitmayer, Kim, and Yang (2013)
	French	Bouthillier, Tremblay, Hamelin, Julien, and Scherzer (1996)
	Italian	Coppola, Vaughn, Cassibba, and Costantini (2006)
Psychosis Attachment Measure	Spanish	Sheinbaum, Berry, and Barrantes-Vidal (2013)
Psychosis Attachment Measure	German	Kvrgic et al. (2012)
Q-Sort Measures
Adult Attachment Q-Sort	French	Pierrehumbert, Mühlemann, Antonietti, Sieye, and Halfon (1995)
	Portuguese	Veríssimo, Monteiro, Vaughn, Santos, and Waters (2005)
	Northern Sotho	Minde, Minde, and Vogel (2006)
Questionnaire-Based Measures
Maternal Antenatal Attachment Scale	Spanish	Navarro-Aresti, Iraurgi, Iriarte, and Martinez-Pampliega (2016)
Relationship Scales Questionnaire	Turkish	Sümer and Güngör (1999)
	Spanish	Fontanil, Ezama, and Alonso (2013)
	Chinese	Kwan and Leung (2015)
	French	Guedeney, Fermanian, and Bifulco (2010)
Relationship Questionnaire	Spanish	Schmitt et al. (2004)
	Chinese	Mallinckrodt and Wang (2004)
	German	Doll, Mentz, and Witte (1995)
	Turkish	Sümer and Güngör (1999)
	Taiwanese	Lin (2002)
Adult Attachment Questionnaire	Chinese	Li and Fu (2001)
Adult Attachment Questionnaire	Spanish	Fernandez and Dufey (2015)
Maternal Attachment Inventory	Turkish	Kavlak and Sirin (2009)
Experiences in Close Relationships	French	Lafontaine and Lussier (2003)
	Spanish	Alonso-Arbiol, Balluerka, and Shaver (2007)
	Norwegian	Olssøn, Sørebø, and Dahl (2010)
	Portuguese	Moreira, Martins, Gouveia, and Canavarro (2015)
	Czech	Lečbych and Pospíšilíková (2012)
	Chinese	Li and Kazuo (2006); Mak, Bond, Simpson, and Rholes (2010)
	Turkish	Sümer (2006)
Revised Experiences in Close Relationships Scale	Serbian	Hanak and Dimitrijevic (2013)
	Italian	Busonera, Martini, Zavattini, and Santona (2014)
	Slovak	Rozvadský Gugová, Heretik, and Hajdúk (2014)
	Greek	Tsagaraskis, Kafetsios, and Stalikas (2007)
	Korean	Jang, Rim, and Woo (2015)
	Portuguese	Natividade and Medeiros (2015)
	Romania	Rotaru and Rusu (2013)
	Dutch	Kooiman, Klaassens, Van Heloma Lugt, and Kamperman (2013)
	Turkish	Selcuk, Gunaydin, Sumer, and Uysal (2005)
Adult Attachment Style Questionnaire	Italian	Fossati et al. (2003)
Perceived Rearing Behavior Scale	German	Arrindell et al. (1999)
	Dutch	Markus, Lindhout, Boer, Hoogendijk, and Arrindell (2003)
	Japanese	Someya, Uehara, Kadowaki, Tang, and Takahashi (2000)
Expectations of Filial Piety Scale	Spanish	Kao and Travis (2005)
Attachment Measures for Adolescents/Children
Interview-Based Measures
Child Attachment Interview	Spanish	Venta, Bailey, Muñoz, and Shmueli-Goetz (2016)
	German	Röder, Hein, and Fingerle (2015)
	Italian	Zaccagnino, Cussino, Preziosa, Veglia, and Carassa (2015)
Disturbances of Attachment Interview	German	Kliewer-Neumann et al. (2015)
Questionnaire-Based Measures
Kerns Security Scale	Japanese	Tatsuma and Tatsuya (2016)
	French	Bacro (2011)
	Turkish	Sümer and Şendağ (2009)
Parental Bonding Instrument	Persian	Behzadi and Parker (2015)
	French	Mohr, Preisig, Fenton, and Ferrero (1999)
	Greek	Sideridis and Kafetsios (2008)
	Urdu	Qadir, Stewart, Khan, and Prince (2005)
	Turkish	Kapci and Kucuker (2006)
	Spanish	Gomez-Beneyto, Pedrós, Tomás, Aguilar, and Leal (1993)
	Japanese	Kitamura and Suzuki (1993)
	Portuguese	Hauck et al. (2006)
	Chinese	Liu, Li, and Fang (2011)
	Malay	Azimah Muhammad, Shamsuddin, Omar, Azhar Shah, and Mohd Amin (2014)
	Italian	Fossati et al. (2003)
Adolescent Relationship Scales Questionnaire	Spanish	Magaz, Chorot, Sandin, Santed, and Valiente (2011)
Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire	Spanish	Moran, Lecannelier, and Rodriguez (2014)
Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire	Farsi	Firoozabadi, Abedi, Aliyari, Zolfaghari, and Ghanizadeh (2014)
Cartes Modèles Individuels de Relation	Spanish	Balluerka, Lacasa, Gorostiaga, Muela, and Pierrehumbert (2011)
Inventory of Parents and Peers Attachment for Adolescents	Spanish	Pardo, Pineda, Carrillo, and Castro (2006)
	Greek	Charalampous et al. (2016)
	Chinese	Song, Thompson, and Ferrer (2009)
	Turkish	Raja, McGee, and Stanton (1992)
Perceived Rearing Behavior Scale, Children and Adolescent Versions	Spanish	Penelo Werner (2009)
	Chinese	Zhongquan, Li, and Lisong (2012)
	Dutch	Markus et al. (2003)

An additional use of the data summarized in Table 1 would be assessment of changes in IWMs across the life span, as fluency and dominance of a second language increases. Indeed, attachment security that emerges in adolescence or adulthood may occur within the context of relationships navigated in an individual’s second language. For instance, an individual may transition from attachment insecurity with their parent to attachment security with their romantic partner, potentially transitioning from a native language to a second language as the dominant language of attachment through the natural course of development. In that case, the assessment of their IWM in the second language could facilitate production of a coherent, emotionally laden narrative associated with the security felt toward their partner, whereas assessment in their native language could generate a narrative characterized by greater insecurity. This possibility remains a completely open field of experimental study—as do related lines of inquiry regarding shifting IWMs and temporally similar changes in linguistic dominance.

It would be neglectful to omit mentioning that many nonnative English speakers will also identify with a minority culture. Although the effect of culture on attachment interviews is outside the scope of this review and has been well-reviewed elsewhere, it bears mentioning that there have long been concerns that the measurement of attachment is biased against non-Western cultures and that measures developed in the United States and Western Europe would overclassify other ethnic groups as insecurely attached. Some studies have demonstrated the overrepresentation of insecurity among children from parts of Africa, Japan, Indonesia, and Israel (see Miyake, Chen, & Campos, 1985; van, IJzendoorn, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2010; van Ijzendoorn & Sagi-Schwartz, 2008) as feared. However, most evidence suggests that secure attachments are readily detected across varied cultures (van Ijzendoorn & Sagi-Schwartz, 2008), that intracultural differences are larger than intercultural differences (van Ijzendoorn & Sagi-Schwartz, 2008), and that attachment styles are quite similar across studies conducted with many cultures (van IJzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2010) as long as sensitivity to cultural manifestations of parenting and care are considered. Similar conclusions have been drawn by a small body of researchers examining story- and script-based assessments of IWMs across cultures (Rodrigues-Doolabh et al., 2001; Rodrigues-Doolabh et al., 2003). Still cultural differences may not be at the forefront of an interviewer or researcher’s mind, as he or she endeavors to conduct an AAI or CAI or develop a story- or script-based prompt. Moreover, subtle changes in behavior, body language, and affective and cognitive processing capacities during the task (McNamara, 1997; Pavlenko, 2006), while possibly enhancing the quality of the clinical interaction (Appelman, 2000; Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010), may pose an additional barrier when an interviewer fails to consider the relevance of the interviewee’s culture. The effects of culture may be particularly profound during attachment tasks. Indeed, it is well noted within cognitive and achievement testing that when a psychological assessment possesses a high degree of both linguistic demand and cultural loading, it is most subject to validity issues (e.g., Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005). Although IWM interviews have not been placed within this Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix before, the reality that these interviews and tasks have both high linguistic demand and cultural loading suggests that interviewee performance may be most negatively impacted.

To our knowledge, no study has examined the effect of nonnative language assessment on the CAI, AAI, or story- and script-based tasks. In our view, these are critical tasks for future research, in light of research suggesting that the linguistic demand, emotional content, and cultural loading of constructs affects their validity when administered in a second language. In identifying areas for future research, we wish to highlight the work of Mallinckrodt and Wang (2004) who endeavored to translate the Experiences in Close Relationships scale into Chinese, assess the semantic equivalence of items when administered in English versus in Chinese to bilingual speakers, and evaluate the psychometric properties of each version of the scale in a bilingual sample. This study reported promising results for a questionnaire-based measure of attachment, but no such study has been conducted with interview-, story-, or script-based measures, which we suggest will be more affected by second-language assessment. Still, the guidelines of Mallinckrodt and Wang (2004) for measure translation and assessment may serve as a model for researchers seeking to address the fundamental question of this review empirically—how is the assessment of IWMs affected when conducted in an individual’s nonnative tongue?

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Allen

J. P.

Miga

E. M.

(2010). Attachment in adolescence: A move to the level of emotion regulation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 181-190. doi:10.1177/0265407509360898

Alonso-Arbiol

Balluerka

Shaver

(2007). A Spanish version of the Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) Adult Attachment Questionnaire. Personal Relationships, 14, 45-63.

Altarriba

(2003). Does cariño equal “liking”? A theoretical approach to conceptual nonequivalence between languages. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 3, 305-322.

Altarriba

Bauer

L. M.

(2004). The distinctiveness of emotion concepts: A comparison between emotion, abstract, and concrete words. American Journal of Psychology, 117, 389-410.

Altarriba

Santiago-Rivera

A. L.

(1994). Current perspectives on using linguistic and cultural factors in counseling the Hispanic client. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 25, 388-397.

Anooshian

L. J.

Hertel

P. T.

(1994). Emotionality in free recall: Language specificity in bilingual memory. Cognition and Emotion, 8, 503-514.

Appelman

(2000). Attachment experiences transformed into language. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 70, 192-202. doi:10.1037/h0087760

Arrindell

W. A.

Sanavio

Aguilar

Sica

Hatzichristou

Eisemann

. . . Van der Ende

(1999). The development of a short form of the EMBU1 Swedish acronym for egna minnen beträffande uppfostran (“my memories of upbringing”): Its appraisal with students in Greece, Guatemala, Hungary and Italy. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 613-628. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00192-5

Ayçiçegi

Harris

C. L.

(2004). Bilinguals’ recall and recognition of emotion words. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 977-987.

10.

Azimah Muhammad

Shamsuddin

Omar

Azhar Shah

Mohd Amin

. (2014). Validation of the Malay version of the parental bonding instrument among Malaysian youth using exploratory factor analysis. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences, 21, 51-59.

11.

Bacharaki

Spyridonidis

Georgiades

Stathakis

(2006). Adult Attachment Interview: Classification of the secure type. Psychiatriki, 3, 237-245.

12.

Bacro

(2011). French validation of the child-father and child-mother attachment perceptions security scale. Retrieved from http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/158118936

13.

Bakermans-Kranenburg

M. J.

van IJzendoorn

M. H.

(1993). A psychometric study of the Adult Attachment Interview: Reliability and discriminant validity. Developmental Psychology, 29, 870-879.

14.

Balluerka

Lacasa

Gorostiaga

Muela

Pierrehumbert

(2011). Versión reducida del cuestionario CaMir (CaMir-R) para la evaluación del apego. Psicothema, 23, 486-494.

15.

Barone

(2003). Developmental protective and risk factors in borderline personality disorder: A study using the adult attachment interview. Attachment & Human Development, 5, 64-77. doi:10.1080/1461673031000078634

16.

Behrens

K. Y.

Kondo-Ikemura

(2011). Japanese children’s amae and mothers’ attachment status as assessed by the adult attachment interview. International Journal of Psychology, 46, 368-376.

17.

Behzadi

Parker

(2015). A Persian version of the parental bonding instrument: Factor structure and psychometric properties. Psychiatry Research, 225, 580-587. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2014.11.042

18.

Berlin

L. J.

Cassidy

Appleyard

(2008). The influence of early attachments on other relationships. In Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 333-347). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

19.

Bond

M. H.

Lai

(1986). Embarrassment and code-switching into a second language. The Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 179-186.

20.

Borelli

J. L.

David

D. H.

Rifkin-Graboi

Sbarra

D. A.

Mehl

M. R.

Mayes

L. C.

(2013). Language use in the Adult Attachment Interview: Evidence for attachment-specific emotion regulation. Personal Relationships, 20, 23-37.

21.

Bouthillier

Tremblay

Hamelin

Julien

Scherzer

(1996). French-Canadian translation of a questionnaire evaluating adult attachment styles. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 28(1), 74-77. doi:10.1037/0008-400X.28.1.74

22.

Bowlby

(1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52, 664-678. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1982.tb01456.x

23.

Bretherton

(1991). Pouring new wine into old bottles: The social self as internal working model. In Gunnar

Sore

L. A.

(Eds.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology: Self process in development (Vol. 23, pp. 1-41). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

24.

Bretherton

(1995). A communication perspective on attachment relationships and IWMs. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 2, 310-322.

25.

Bretherton

Ridgeway

Cassidy

(1990). Assessing internal working models of the attachment relationship. In Mark

T. G.

Cichetti

Cummings

E. M.

(Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 273-308). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

26.

Brown

L. S.

Wright

(2003). The relationship between attachment strategies and psychopathology in adolescence. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 4, 351-367. doi:10.1348/147608303770584728

27.

Buchanan

T. W.

(2007). Retrieval of emotional memories. Psychological Bulletin, 5, 761-779.

28.

Busonera

Martini

P. S.

Zavattini

G. C.

Santona

(2014). Psychometric properties of an Italian version of the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R) Scale. Psychological Reports, 114, 785-801. doi:10.2466/03.21.PR0.114k23w9

29.

Calkins

S. D.

(2004). Early attachment processes and the development of emotional self-regulation. In Baumeister

R. F.

Vohs

K. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 324-339). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

30.

Cameron

(2002). Measuring vocabulary size in English as an additional language. Language Teaching Research, 2, 145-173.

31.

Cassidy

Sherman

L. J.

Jones

J. D.

(2012). What’s in a word? Linguistic characteristics of adult attachment interviews. Attachment & Human Development, 141(1), 11-32. doi:10.1080/14616734.2012.636649

32.

Charalampous

Kokkinos

C. M.

Apota

Iliadou

Iosifidou

Moysidou

. . . Vriza

(2016). Pre-adolescents’ representations of multiple attachment relationships: The role of perceived teacher interpersonal behavior. Learning Environments Research, 19, 63-86. doi:10.1007/s10984-015-9196-z

33.

Chen

Cohen

Johnson

J. G.

Kasen

Sneed

J. R.

Crawford

T. N.

(2004). Adolescent personality disorders and conflict with romantic partners during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6, 507-525. doi:10.1521/pedi.18.6.507.54794

34.

Clahsen

Felser

(2006). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 564-570. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.10.002

35.

Coppola

Vaughn

B. E.

Cassibba

Costantini

(2006). The attachment script representation procedure in an Italian sample: Associations with adult attachment Interview scales and with maternal sensitivity. Attachment & Human Development, 8, 209-219. doi:10.1080/14616730600856065

36.

Costantini

Cassibba

Coppola

Castoro

(2012). Attachment security and language development in an Italian sample: The role of premature birth and maternal language. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 2, 85-92. doi:10.1177/0165025411426682

37.

Dana

R. H.

(2000). Handbook of cross-cultural and multicultural personality assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

38.

De Jong

N. H.

Groenhout

Schoonen

Hulstijn

J. H

. (2015). Second language fluency: Speaking style or proficiency? Correcting measures of second language fluency for first language behavior. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 223-243. doi:10.1017/S0142716413000210

39.

Deklyen

Greenberg

M. T.

(2008). Attachment and psychopathology in childhood. In Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 637-665). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

40.

Dewaele

J. M.

(2004). The emotional force of swearwords and taboo words in the speech of multilinguals. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 25, 204-222.

41.

Dewaele

J. M.

(2008). The emotional weight of I love you in multilinguals’ languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1753-1780.

42.

Doll

Mentz

Witte

E. H.

(1995). A contribution to a theory of four attachment styles: Measurement problems and correlates of three integrated behavior systems. Zeitschrift Für Sozialpsychologie [Social Psychology], 26, 148-159.

43.

Dunningan

McNall

Mortime

J. T.

(1993). The problem of metaphorical nonequivalence in cross-cultural survey research: Comparing the mental health statuses of Hmong refugee and general population adolescents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 344-365.

44.

Dykas

M. J.

Cassidy

(2011). Attachment and the processing of social information across the life span: Theory and evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 19-46. doi:10.1037/a0021367

45.

Dykas

M. J.

Woodhouse

S. S.

Cassidy

Waters

H. S.

(2006). Narrative assessment of attachment representations: Links between secure base scripts and adolescent attachment. Attachment & Human Development, 8, 221-240.

46.

Egeland

Farber

E. A.

(1984). Infant–mother attachment: Factors related to its development and changes over time. Child Development, 3, 753-771. doi:10.2307/1130127

47.

Faria

Soares

Silva

Bastos

(2015). Epistemological development and attachment in European college students. Journal of College Student Development, 56, 845-860.

48.

Fernandez

A. M.

Dufey

(2015). Adaptation of Collins’ revised adult attachment dimensional scale to the Chilean context. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 28, 242-252. doi:10.1590/1678-7153.201528204

49.

Fiacconi

C. M.

Dekraker

Köhler

(2015). Psychophysiological evidence for the role of emotion in adaptive memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 5, 925-933.

50.

Firoozabadi

Abedi

Aliyari

Zolfaghari

Ghanizadeh

(2014). Psychometric characteristics of the Persian (Farsi) version of attachment style questionnaire. Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences, 39, 506-514.

51.

Foa

E. B.

Kozak

M. J.

(1986). Emotional processing of fear: Exposure to corrective information. Psychological Bulletin, 991(1), 20-35.

52.

Fogel

(1993). Developing through relationships: Origins of communication, self, and culture. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

53.

Fonagy

Target

(2007). The rooting of the mind in the body: New links between attachment theory and psychoanalytic thought. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 2, 411-456.

54.

Fontanil

Ezama

Alonso

(2013). Validation of the Scale of Preferences and Expectations in Close Interpersonal Relationships (EPERIC). Psicothema, 25, 275-281. doi:10.7334/psicothema2012.125

55.

Fossati

Feeney

J. A.

Donati

Donini

Novella

Bagnato

. . . Maffei

(2003). On the dimensionality of the Attachment Style Questionnaire in Italian clinical and nonclinical participants. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 55-79.

56.

Fournier

Brassard

Shaver

P. R.

(2011). Adult attachment and male aggression in couple relationships: The demand-withdraw communication pattern and relationship satisfaction as mediators. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 1982-2003. doi:10.1177/0886260510372930

57.

Fraley

R. C.

Shaver

P. R.

(2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4, 132-154.

58.

George

Kaplan

Main

(1985). Adult attachment interview protocol. (Unpublished manuscript). University of California at Berkley.

59.

Gojman

Millán

Carlson

Sánchez

Rodarte

González

. . . Hernández

(2012). Intergenerational relations of attachment: A research synthesis of urban/rural Mexican samples. Attachment & Human Development, 14, 553-566. doi:10.1080/14616734.2012.727255

60.

Gomez-Beneyto

Pedrós

Tomás

Aguilar

Leal

(1993). Psychometric properties of the Parental Bonding Instrument in a Spanish sample. Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology, 28, 252-255.

61.

Gray

S. G.

Hughes

H. H.

Schneider

L. J.

(1982). Physiological responsivity to a socially stressful situation: The effect of level of moral development. Psychological Record, 32, 29-34.

62.

Guedeney

Fermanian

Bifulco

(2010). Construct validation study of the Relationship Scale Questionnaire on an adult sample. Encephale, 36(1), 69-76.

63.

Hanak

Dimitrijevic

(2013). A Serbian version of modified and Revised Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (SM–ECR–R). Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 530-538. doi:10.1080/00223891.2013.778271

64.

Harris

C. L.

(2004). Bilingual speakers in the lab: Psychophysiological measures of emotional reactivity. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 25, 223-247.

65.

Harris

C. L.

Ayçiçegi

Gleason

J. B.

(2003). Taboo words and reprimands elicit greater autonomic reactivity in a first language than in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 561-579.

66.

Harris

C. L.

Gleason

J. B.

Ayçiçegi

(2006). When is a first language more emotional? Psychophysiological evidence from bilingual speakers. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 56, 257-283.

67.

Hauck

Schestatsky

Terra

Knijnik

Sanchez

Freitas

L. H.

(2006). Cross-cultural adaptation of parental bonding instrument to Brazilian Portuguese. Revista De Psiquiatria Do Rio Grande Do Sul, 28. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0101-81082006000200008&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt

68.

Helms

J. E.

(1992). Why is there no study of cultural equivalence in standardized cognitive ability testing? American Psychologist, 47, 1083-1101. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.47.9.1083

69.

Homayounpoour

Movahedi

(2012). Transferential discourse in the language of the mother. Canadian Journal of Psychoanalysis, 20, 114-143.

70.

Hsu

C. T.

Jacobs

A. M.

Conrad

(2015). Can Harry Potter still put a spell on us in a second language? An fMRI study on reading emotion–laden literature in late bilinguals. Cortex, 63, 282-295.

71.

Hutchinson

J. M.

Whiteley

H. E.

Smith

C. D.

Connors

(2003). The developmental progression of comprehension-related skills in children learning EAL. Journal of Research in Reading, 1, 19-32. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.261003

72.

Ivaz

Costa

Duñabeitia

J. A.

(2016). The emotional impact of being myself: Emotions and foreign-language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 489-496. doi:10.1037/xlm0000179

73.

Jang

Rim

Woo

(2015). Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Modified Adult Attachment Scale for the use of medically ill patients. Psychiatry Investigation, 12, 483-490.

74.

Javier

R. A.

Barroso

Muñoz

M. A.

(1993). Autobiographical memory in bilinguals. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 319-338.

75.

Kao

Travis

(2005). Development of the Expectations of Filial Piety Scale—Spanish version. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52, 682-688. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03635.x

76.

Kapci

Kucuker

(2006). The parental bonding instrument: Evaluation of its psychometric properties with Turkish University students. Turkish Journal of Psychiatry, 17, 1-10.

77.

Kavlak

Sirin

(2009). The Turkish version of Maternal Attachment Inventory. International Journal of Human Sciences, 6, 188-202.

78.

Kinginger

(2004). Bilingualism and emotion in the autobiographical works of Nancy Huston. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 25, 159-178. doi:10.1080/01434630408666527

79.

Kisser

Wendell

Spencer

Waldstein

(2012). Neuropsychological performance of native versus non-native English speakers. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 27, 749-755.

80.

Kitamura

Suzuki

T. A.

(1993). A validation study of parental bonding instrument in Japanese population. Journal of Neuropsychiatry, 47, 29-36.

81.

Kliewer-Neumann

J. D.

Bovenschen

Roland

I. C.

Lang

Spangler

Nowacki

(2015). Accessing disturbance of attachment symptoms using interview technique. Prax Kinderpsychol Kinderpsychiatr, 64, 759-773. doi:10.13109/prkk.2015.64.10.759

82.

Kooiman

C. G.

Klaassens

E. R.

Van Heloma Lugt

J. Q.

Kamperman

A. M.

(2013). Psychometrics and validity of the Dutch Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised (ECR–r) in an outpatient mental health sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 217-224. doi:10.1080/00223891.2012.740540

83.

Kvrgic

Beck

Cavelti

Kossowsky

Stieglitz

Vauth

(2012). Focusing on the adult attachment style in schizophrenia in community mental health centers: Validation of the Psychosis Attachment Measure (PAM) in a German-speaking sample. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 58, 362-373. doi:10.1177/0020764011399004

84.

Kwan

H. C.

Leung

M. T.

(2015). The Path model of parenting style, attachment style, self-regulation and Smartphone addiction. In Montague

Ming Tan

(Eds.), Applied psychology: Proceedings of the 2015 Asian Congress of Applied Psychology (pp. 178-191). Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.

85.

Lacasa

Mitjavila

Ochoa

Balluerka

(2015). The relationship between attachment styles and internalizing or externalizing symptoms in clinical and nonclinical adolescents. Anales De Psicología [Annals of Psychology], 31, 422-432.

86.

Lafontaine

Lussier

(2003). Bidimensional structure of attachment in love: Anxiety over abandonment and avoidance of intimacy. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 35(1), 56-60. doi:10.1037/h0087187

87.

Lee

McCreary

Breitmayer

Kim

M. J.

Yang

(2013). Promoting mother-infant interaction and infant mental health in low-income Korean families: Attachment-based cognitive behavioral approach. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 18, 265-276. doi:10.1111/jspn.12034

88.

Lečbych

Pospíšilíková

(2012). Ceská verze škály Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR): Pilotní studie posouzení vztahové vazby v dospĕlosti [The czech Version of the Experience in Close Relationships Scale (ECR): A Pilot study of Assessment of Attachment in Adulthood]. E-psychologie, 6(3), 1-11.

89.

F. M.

G. Y.

(2001). A preliminary study on Adult Attachment Questionnaire. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 3, 190-192.

90.

T. G.

Kazuo

(2006). Measuring adult attachment: Chinese adaptation of the ECR scale. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 38, 399-406.

91.

Lin

W. L.

(2002, September). The transformation of family relationships in adolescence: An approach from attachment theory. Paper presented at a meeting of Quantitative Studies in Family System Research, Taipei, Taiwan.

92.

Liu

Fang

(2011). Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the parental bonding instrument. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48, 582-589. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.10.008

93.

Magaz

A. M.

Chorot

Sandin

Santed

M. A.

Valiente

R. M.

(2011). Estilos de apego y acoso entre iguales (bullying) en adolescentes [Attachment patterns and peer bullying in adolescents]. Revista De Psicopatologia Y Psicologia Clinica, 16, 207-221.

94.

Main

Kaplan

Cassidy

(1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1-2), 66-104. doi:10.2307/3333827

95.

Mak

Bond

Simpson

Rholes

(2010). Adult attachment, perceived support, and depressive symptoms in Chinese and American cultures. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 29, 144-165.

96.

Malley-Morrison

Soon You

Mills

R. B.

(2000). Young adult attachment styles and perceptions of elder abuse: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 15, 163-184.

97.

Mallinckrodt

Wang

(2004). Quantitative methods for verifying semantic equivalence of translated research instruments: A Chinese version of the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 368-379. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.3.368

98.

Marcos

L. R.

(1976). Linguistic dimensions in the bilingual patient. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 36, 347-354.

99.

Markus

M. T.

Lindhout

I. E.

Boer

Hoogendijk

T. H.

Arrindell

W. A.

(2003). Factors of perceived parental rearing styles: The EMBU-C examined in a sample of Dutch primary school children. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 503-519. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00090-9

100.

Marmolejo

Diliberto-Macaluso

K. A.

Altarriba

(2009). False memory in bilinguals: Does switching languages increase false memories? American Journal of Psychology, 122(1), 1-16.

101.

McGinnies

(1949). Emotionality of perceptual defense. Psychological Review, 56, 244-251.

102.

McNamara

T. F.

(1997). Interaction in second language performance assessment: Whose performance? Applied Linguistics, 18, 446-466.

103.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

104.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

Pereg

(2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 77-102. doi:10.1023/A:1024515519160

105.

Miljkovitch

Pierrehumbert

Karmaniola

Bader

Halfon

(2005). Assessing attachment cognitions and their associations with depression in youth with eating or drug misuse disorders. Substance Use & Misuse, 40, 605-623. doi:10.1081/JA-200055349

106.

Minde

Vogel

(2006). Culturally sensitive assessment of attachment in children aged 18–40 months in a South African township. Infant Mental Health Journal, 27, 544-558.

107.

Miyake

Chen

S. J.

Campos

J. J.

(1985). Infant temperament, mother’s mode of interaction, and attachment in Japan: An interim report. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 276-297.

108.

Mohr

Preisig

M. B.

Fenton

Ferrero

(1999). Validation of the French version of the parental bonding instrument in adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 1065-1074.

109.

Moran

K. J.

Lecannelier

A. F.

Rodriguez

T. J.

(2014). Estudio de validación de un cuestionario de apego en adolescentes [Validation study of attachment questionnaire in adolescents]. Revista Chilena De Pediatría, 85, 437-442. doi:10.4067/S0370-41062014000400005

110.

Moreira

Martins

Gouveia

M. J.

Canavarro

M. C.

(2015). Assessing adult attachment across different contexts: Validation of the Portuguese version of the Experiences in Close Relationships–Relationship Structures Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1, 22-30. doi:10.1080/00223891.2014.950377

111.

Natividade

J. C.

Medeiros

V. K.

(2015). An attachment measure: Brazilian version of Experiences in Close Relationship Scale–Short Form (ECR-R-Brasil). Psicologia USP, 26, 484-494. doi:10.1590/0103-656420140086

112.

Navarro-Aresti

Iraurgi

Iriarte

Martinez-Pampliega

(2016). Maternal Antenatal Attachment Scale (MASS): Adaptation to Spanish and proposal for a brief version of 12 items. Archive’s of Women’s Mental Health, 19(1), 95-103.

113.

Olssøn

Sørebø

Ø.

Dahl

A. A.

(2010). The Norwegian version of the Experiences in Close Relationships measure of adult attachment: Psychometric properties and normative data. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 64, 340-349. doi:10.3109/08039481003728586

114.

Opitz

Degner

(2012). Emotionality in a second language. Neuropsychologia, 50, 1961-1967.

115.

Pardo

M. E.

Pineda

Carrillo

Castro

(2006). Psychometric analysis of the Inventory of parent and peer attachment in a sample of Colombian adolescents. Revista Interamericana De Psicología [Interamerican Journal of Psychology], 40, 289-302.

116.

Pavlenko

(2002). Bilingualism and emotions. Multilingual, 21, 45-78.

117.

Pavlenko

(2006). Bilingual selves. In Pavlenko

(Ed.), Bilingual minds (pp. 1-32). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multilingual.

118.

Penelo Werner

. (2009). Cuestionarios de estilo educativo percibido por niños (EMBU-C), adolescentes (EMBU-A) y progenitores (EMBU-P): Propiedades psicométricas en muestra clínica española (Dissertation of Universidad Autónoma de España). Retrieved from https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/tesis/2009/tdx-0526110-145711/tdx.html

119.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Booth

R. J.

Francis

M. E.

(2007). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC [Computer software]. Austin, TX: LIWC.net.

120.

Pierrehumbert

Mühlemann

Antonietti

J. P.

Sieye

Halfon

(1995). Étude de validation d’une version francophone du Q-Sort d’attachement de Waters et Deane. Enfance, 3(1), 293-315.

121.

Pietromonaco

P. R.

Barrett

L. F.

(2000). The IWMs concept: What do we really know about the self in relation to others? Review of General Psychology, 2, 155-175.

122.

Qadir

Stewart

R. F.

Khan

Prince

(2005). The validity of the parental bonding instrument as a measure of maternal bonding among young Pakistani women. Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology, 40, 276-282.

123.

Raja

S. N.

McGee

Stanton

W. R.

(1992). Perceived attachments to parents and peers and psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 471-485.

124.

Rhodes

R. L.

Ochoa

S. H.

Ortiz

S. O.

(2005). Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students: A practical guide. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

125.

Röder

Hein

Fingerle

(2015). The Child Attachment Interview: Application in a German-speaking sample and its correlations with personality and aggression. Child Indicators Research, 8, 789-799. doi:10.1007/s12187-014-9273-3

126.

Rodrigues-Doolabh

Wais

Zevallos

Rodrigues

(2001). Attachment scripts across cultures. In Meeting of the society for research in child development. Retrieved from http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/attachment/srcd2001/CrossCulture/LR-SRCD2110.PDF

127.

Rodrigues-Doolabh

Zevallos

Turan

Green

(2003, March). Attachment scripts across cultures: Further evidence for a universal secure base script. In Waters

Waters

(Chairs), Script-like representations of secure base experience: Evidence of cross-age, cross-cultural, and behavioral links. Poster symposium presented at the Biennial Meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Tampa, FL.

128.

Rotaru

Rusu

(2013). Psychometric properties of the Romanian version of Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised Questionnaire (ECR-R). Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 78, 51-55. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.249

129.

Rozvadský Gugová

Heretik

Hajdúk

. (2014). Psychometric properties of the Slovak version of Experiences in Close Relationships-Revisited (ECR-R) on general adult sample. Studia Psychologica, 1, 37-52.

130.

Sagi

van IJzendoorn

M. H.

Scharf

Koren-Karie

Joels

Mayseless

(1994). Stability and discriminant validity of the adult attachment interview: A psychometric study in young Israeli adults. Developmental Psychology, 5, 771-777.

131.

Sakman

Harma

Savaş

. (2016). Turkish mothers’ attachment orientations and mental representations of their children. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 34, 49-63. doi:10.1080/02646838.2015.1092020

132.

Schindler

Thomasius

Sack

Gemeinhardt

Kustner

Eckert

(2005). Attachment and substance use disorders: A review of the literature and a study in drug dependent adolescents. Attachment & Human Development, 7, 207-228. doi:10.1080/14616730500173918

133.

Schmitt

Diniz

Alcalay

Durkin

Allensworth

Echegaray

. . . Zupaneie

(2004). Patterns and universals of adult romantic attachment across 62 cultural regions: Are models of self and of other pancultural construct? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 367-402.

134.

Schrauf

R. W.

Rubin

D. C.

(1998). Bilingual autobiographical memory in older adult immigrants: A test of cognitive explanations of the reminiscence bump and the linguistic encoding of memories. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 437-457.

135.

Selcuk

Gunaydin

Sumer

Uysal

(2005). A new measure for adult attachment styles: The psychometric evaluation of Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised (ECR-R) on a Turkish sample. Turkish Psychological Articles, 81(1), 1-11.

136.

Sheinbaum

Berry

Barrantes-Vidal

(2013). Spanish version of the psychosis attachment measure: Adaptation process and psychometric properties of Spanish version of the psychosis attachment measure. Salud Mental, 36, 403-409.

137.

Shi

Bureau

J. F.

Easterbrooks

M. A.

Zhao

Lyons-Ruth

(2012). Childhood maltreatment and prospectively observed quality of early care as predictors of antisocial personality disorder features. Infant Mental Health Journal, 33, 55-69. doi:10.1002/imhj.20295

138.

Shmueli-Goetz

Target

Fonagy

Datta

(2008). The child attachment interview: A psychometric study of reliability and discriminant validity. Developmental Psychology, 4, 939-956. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.4.939

139.

Sideridis

Kafetsios

(2008). Perceived parental bonding, fear of failure and tress at school. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 119-130.

140.

Solomon

George

(2008). The measurement of attachment security and related constructs in infancy and early childhood. In Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 383-416). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

141.

Someya

Uehara

Kadowaki

Tang

S. W.

Takahashi

(2000). Effects of gender difference and birth order on perceived parenting styles, measured by the EMBU scale, in Japanese two-sibling subjects. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 54, 77-81.

142.

Song

Thompson

Ferrer

(2009). Attachment and self-evaluation in Chinese adolescents: Age and gender differences. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 1267-1286.

143.

Sotelo-Dynega

M. F.

(2013). English language proficiency and test performance and test performance: An evaluation of bilingual students with the Woodcock-Johnson II test of cognitive abilities. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 781-797.

144.

Stievenart

Roskam

Meunier

J. C.

van

Moortele

(2011). The reciprocal relation between children’s attachment representations and their cognitive ability. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 58-66. doi:10.1177/0165025410370790

145.

Sümer

(2006). Categorical and dimensional comparison of the adult attachment measures. Turkish Journal of Psychology, 21, 1-22.

146.

Sümer

Güngör

(1999). Psychometric evaluation of adult attachment measures on Turkish samples and a cross-cultural comparison. Turkish Journal of Psychology, 43, 71-106.

147.

Sümer

Şendağ

M. A.

(2009). Attachment to parents during middle childhood, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Turkish Journal of Psychology, 24(63), 102-103.

148.

Target

Fonagy

Shmueli-Goetz

Data

Schneider

(2007). The Child Attachment Interview (CAI) protocol. (Unpublished manuscript). London, England: University College London.

149.

Tatsuma

Tatsuya

(2016). Measuring attachment security in middle childhood: Construction of a Japanese version of the Kerns Security Scale. Japanese Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 72-82.

150.

Tausczik

Y. R.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24-54.

151.

Tsagaraskis

Kafetsios

Stalikas

(2007). Reliability and validity of the Greek version of the Revised Experience in Close Relationships measure of adult attachment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 47-55. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.23.1.47

152.

U.K. Office for National Statistics. (2011). 2011 census data catalogue. Retrieved from https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/2011census/2011censusdata/2011censusdatacatalogue

153.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). Detailed languages spoken at home and ability to speak English for the population 5 years and over: 2009-2013. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2013/demo/2009-2013-lang-tables.html

154.

van Bakel

H. A.

Riksen-Walraven

J. M

. (2004). Stress reactivity in 15-month-old infants: Links with infant temperament, cognitive competence, and attachment security. Developmental Psychobiology, 44, 157-167. doi:10.1002/dev.20001

155.

van IJzendoorn

M. H.

Bakermans-Kranenburg

M. J

. (2010). Invariance of adult attachment across gender, age, culture, and socioeconomic status? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(2), 200-208.

156.

van IJzendoorn

M. H.

Dijkstra

Bus

A. G

. (1995). Attachment, intelligence, and language: A meta-analysis. Social Development, 2, 115-128. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.1995.tb00055.x

157.

van Ijzendoorn

M. H.

Sagi-Schwartz

. (2008). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: Universal and contextual dimensions. In Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 880-905). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

158.

van IJzendoorn

M. H.

van Vliet-Visser

. (1988). The relationship between quality of attachment in infancy and IQ in kindergarten. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 149, 23-28.

159.

Vaughn

B. E.

Waters

H. S.

Coppola

Cassidy

Bost

K. K.

Veríssimo

(2006). Script-like attachment representations and behavior in families and across cultures: Studies of parental secure base narratives. Attachment & Human Development, 8, 179-184.

160.

Vega

Lasser

Afifi

A. M.

(2016). School psychologists and the assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse students. Contemporary School Psychology, 20, 218-229. doi:10.1007/s40688-015-0075-5

161.

Venta

Bailey

Muñoz

Shmueli-Goetz

(2016). Entrevista sobre apego para la juventud [The child attachment interview]. (Unpublished manuscript). Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston State University.

162.

Venta

Sharp

Newlin

(2015). A descriptive study of symptom change as a function of attachment and emotion regulation in a naturalistic adolescent inpatient setting. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 24, 95-104. doi:10.1007/s00787-014-0532-0

163.

Venta

Shmueli-Goetz

Sharp

(2014). Assessing attachment in adolescence: A psychometric study of the child attachment interview. Psychological Assessment, 26, 238-255. doi:10.1037/a0034712

164.

Veríssimo

Monteiro

Vaughn

B. E.

Santos

A. J.

Waters

(2005). Coordination between a dynamic model of maternal attachment and child secure base behavior. Análise Psicológica, 23, 85-95.

165.

Verschueren

Dossche

Marcoen

Mahieu

Bakermans-Kranenburg

(2006). Attachment representations and discipline in mothers of young school children: An observation study. Social Development, 15, 659-675. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2006.00363.x

166.

Wang

C. D.

Mallinckrodt

B. S.

(2006). Differences between Taiwanese and U.S. cultural beliefs about ideal adult attachment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 192-204. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.53.2.192

167.

Waters

H. S.

Rodrigues-Doolabh

(2001, April). Are attachment scripts the building blocks of attachment representations. Biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, DC.

168.

Waters

H. S.

Waters

(2006). The attachment working models concept: Among other things, we build script-like representations of secure base experiences. Attachment & Human Development, 8, 185-197.

169.

Waters

T. A.

Steele

R. D.

Roisman

G. I.

Haydon

K. C.

Booth-LaForce

(2016). A linguistic inquiry and word count analysis of the adult attachment interview in two large corpora. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 48, 78-88. doi:10.1037/cbs0000035

170.

Y. J.

Thierry

(2012). How reading in a second language protects your heart. The Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 6485-6489.

171.

Zaccagnino

Cussino

Preziosa

Veglia

Carassa

(2015). Attachment representation in institutionalized children: A preliminary study using the Child Attachment Interview. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 22, 165-175.

172.

Zhongquan

Lisong

(2012). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of a short-form of the EMBU among Chinese adolescents. Psychological Reports, 110, 263-275. doi:10.2466/02.08.09.21.PR0.110.1.263-275