صفحات اجتماعی ندای مهر

RELATIONSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

RELATIONSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

This section provides a brief introduction to the Relationship Questionnaire (Bartholomew & Horowitz‚ 1991) and the Relationship Scales Questionnaire (Griffin & Bartholomew‚ 1994). Readers are advised to conduct a review of the relevant literature in order to thoroughly acquaint themselves with the concept of adult attachment and the wide array of measures available to assess adult attachments in close relationships (see‚  for example‚ Phil Shaver's attachment web page . Also included in this section are answers to frequently asked questions related to the use of the Relationship Questionnaire and the Relationship Scales Questionnaire.
We want to emphasize that research papers testing the validity of the model do not rely on these self-report measures.  Specifically‚  validation results in Bartholomew & Horowitz (1991) relied on ratings obtained from the Peer Attachment Interview (PAI).   Further‚ validation of the attachment dimensions (Griffin & Bartholomew‚ 1994) are based on multiple measures of attachment including interview measures.
Self-Report Attachment Measures:
Relationship Questionnaire (RQ; Bartholomew & Horowitz‚ 1991).
The RQ is a single item measure made up of four short paragraphs‚ each describing a prototypical attachment pattern as it applies in close adult peer relationships.  Participants are asked to rate their degree of correspondence to each prototype on a 7-point scale.  An individual might rate him or herself something like: Secure 6‚ Fearful 2‚ Preoccupied 1‚ Dismissing 4.  These ratings (or "scores") provide a profile of an individual's attachment feelings and behaviour.
The RQ can either be worded in terms of general orientations to close relationships‚ orientations to romantic relationships‚ or orientations to a specific relationship (or some combination of the above). It can also be reworded in the third person and used to rate others' attachment patterns. For instance‚ we have had close same sex friends and romantic partners rate themselves and their friend or partner.
The RQ was designed to obtain continuous ratings of each of the four attachment patterns‚ and this is the ideal use of the measure. However‚ if necessary‚ the RQ can also be used to categorize participants into their best fitting attachment pattern. The highest of the four attachment prototype ratings can be used to classify participants into an attachment category. A problem arises when two or more attachment prototypes are rated equally high.  To deal with this‚ we also ask participants to choose a single‚  best fitting attachment pattern.   However‚ if they have not chosen a best fitting attachment pattern‚ the researcher can either de‎lete the participant(s) from the data set‚ or use a method of randomly (perhaps flipping a coin) se‎lecting one of the two prototypes as the attachment category.  Unfortunately‚ if there is a 3-way tie for highest rating and a best fitting attachment pattern has not been chosen‚ then there is no option but to de‎lete that participant's data. Although the RQ can be used categorically‚ we do NOT recommend doing so. A continuous approach‚ using prototypes or dimensions‚ is the best approach.
**It is important to administer BOTH the forced-choice paragraph (1st page of measure) AND the likert rating scales of the paragraphs (2nd page of measure)‚ even if you will not use the RQ categorically. Completing the forced-choice paragraph first serves as a counterbalancing effect to minimize order effects when participants rank the degree to which each prototype is self-ch‎aracterizing.

DERIVING SELF-MODEL AND OTHER-MODEL ATTACHMENT DIMENSIONS FOR THE RQ
The underlying attachment dimensions can be derived from linear combinations of the prototype ratings obtained from the RQ (or the composite attachment measure‚ see below).
Self Model - patterns ch‎aracterized by positive self models minus patterns ch‎aracterized by negative self models [i.e. (secure plus dismissing) MINUS (fearful plus preoccupied)] . If you wish your results to correspond in the same direction to the ‘anxiety’ dimension often referred to in the attachment field‚ the calculation can be reversed [i.e. (fearful plus preoccupied) MINUS (secure plus dismissing)]. In the latter calculation‚ higher scores will refer to more negative models of self.
Other Model - patterns ch‎aracterized by positive other models minus patterns ch‎aracterized by negative other models [i.e. (secure plus preoccupied) MINUS (fearful plus dismissing)].
You are encouraged to read:

Griffin‚ D.‚ & Bartholomew‚ K. (1994). Models of the self and other: Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology‚ Vol. 67‚ 430-445.
Griffin‚ D.‚  & Bartholomew‚ K. (1994).    Metaphysics of measurement:  The case of adult attachment.  In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.)‚ Advances in personal relationships‚ Vol. 5:  Attachment processes in adulthood (pp.17-52).  London: Jessica Kingsley.
PLEASE READ THE DIRECTIONS!
1. Following are descriptions of four general relationship styles that people often report.
Please read each description and CIRCLE the letter corresponding to the style that best describes you or is closest to the way you generally are in your close relationships.
A. It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortable depending on them and ha‎ving them depend on me. I don’t worry about being alone or ha‎ving others not accept me.
B. I am uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close relationships‚ but I find it difficult to trust others completely‚ or to depend on them. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others.
C. I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others‚ but I often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships‚ but I sometimes worry that others don’t value me as much as I value them.
D. I am comfortable without close emotional relationships. It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient‚ and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me.

Page 2
2. Please rate each of the following relationship styles according to the extent to which you think each description corresponds to your general relationship style.
A. It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortable depending on them and ha‎ving them depend on me. I don’t worry about being alone or ha‎ving others not accept me.
B. I am uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close relationships‚ but I find it difficult to trust others completely‚ or to depend on them. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others.
C. I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others‚ but I often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships‚ but I sometimes worry that others don’t value me as much as I value them.
D. I am comfortable without close emotional relationships‚ It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient‚ and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me.

Not at all
like me
Somewhat
like me
Very much
like me
Style A.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Style B.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Style C.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Style D.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/faculty/bartholomew/s

استخدام روانشناس و مشاور در تهران
جستجوی روانشناس و مشاور نزدیک شما
مشاوره رایگان ندای مهر