ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Attachment Style and Defense Mechanisms in Parents Who Abuse

Their Children
Phebe Cramer, PhD,* and Francis D. Kelly, EdD†

Shaver, 1998), thus combining low avoidance and high anxiety.

Abstract: Adult attachment style, defense mechanisms, and personal history
Even more disturbed attachment is the Dismissive style, character-
of abuse was studied in a group of abusive parents. As a group, these parents
ized by a negative model of others and a positive model of the self
made unusually high use of the defense of denial; this was especially true of
(Brennan and Shaver, 1998), thus combining high avoidance and
those with a Fearful attachment style. However, the use of Identification was
low anxiety. Most disturbed is Fearful attachment, which combines
characteristic of those with a Preoccupied attachment style. Further, personal
high avoidance with high anxiety.
abuse history was related to adult attachment style. Those who reported
having been abused as a child were less likely to have a Secure attachment
style, and a history of physical or sexual abuse was associated with a EARLY ABUSE AND ADULT ATTACHMENT
Preoccupied style. In general, these findings support the deactivating/hyper- Negative early experience is likely to influence adult attach-
activating defensive theory of Mikulincer et al (Emotion Regulation in ment style (Bowlby, 1988), Fraley et al. (1998) have suggested the
Couples and Families: Pathways to Dysfunction and Health. 2006; pp manner in which early abuse would produce specific adult attach-
77–99. Washington (WA): American Psychological Association). ment styles. For example, the early experience that adults can not be
relied on to provide a secure base of support, because of rejection,
Key Words: Child abuse, attachment, defense mechanisms. unpredictability or other unavailability, may result in a Dismissive
(J Nerv Ment Dis 2010;198: 619 – 627) attachment style, which keeps the attachment system in a relatively
complete state of deactivation, by focusing attention away from
attachment-related issues. Adults with this attachment style are less
likely to be responsive to their child’s emotional needs, and in fact

T he occurrence of child abuse is a serious and increasing social

problem. The most recent data (2006) from the Center for
Disease Control and Prevention cites maltreatment (the terms
are likely to feel threatened and/or made anxious by these needs,
which in turn might elicit abusive behavior toward the child (Fraley
et al., 1998).
“abuse” and “maltreatment” are used interchangeably) of more than Alternatively, the same early negative experience could
900,000 children having been confirmed by child protective services produce clinging and attempts to maintain proximity, if proxim-
during 2006, and this is considered to be a “vast understatement” of ity-seeking is a viable option, resulting in a hyperactivation of the
actual occurrence (American Psychological Association, 2008, p. attachment system—processes that are opposite to those of the
47). There is also evidence for the intergenerational transmission of Dismissive style (Shaver and Mikulincer, 2002). These proxim-
abuse. Studies of this issue agree that about one-third of adults who ity-seeking behaviors are characteristic of the Preoccupied at-
were abused as children in turn become abusers of their own tachment style.
children (e.g., Kaufman and Zigler, 1989; Malinowsky-Rummell
and Hansen, 1993). ADULT ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR AND ATTACHMENT
In addition to the result that abuse may beget further abuse, There is little research evidence available regarding the rela-
research shows further negative results. Children who have been tion between adult abusive behavior and adult attachment style. The
abused are more aggressive during childhood and adulthood, have only study known to the authors that investigated the attachment
cognitive deficits, are intellectually and academically delayed, and style of parents who were actually abusive, including neglect,
as parents have unrealistic expectations of their children, resulting in domestic violence, and psychological and sexual abuse is that of
frustration and maltreatment (Arcaya and Gerber, 1990; Azar et al., Ammaniti et al. (2004). The results showed that the attachment style
1984; Blizard and Bluhm, 1994). of those who were currently abusive (88% insecure) did not differ
from those who were not currently abusive (84% insecure), but all
ADULT ATTACHMENT those who had been abused as children were different from a control
Empirical study of the adult attachment system has identified group who had not experienced abuse in childhood (45% insecure).
4 different styles of attachment, based on the orthogonal dimensions These findings suggest that the early experience of abuse is critical
of avoidance and anxiety (cf. Fraley et al., 1998). These attachment in determining the attachment style of abusive parents.
styles can be conceptualized as additive linear combinations of the
2 dimensions, which in turn allow the 4 styles to be rank ordered in ATTACHMENT AND DEFENSIVE OPERATIONS
terms of degree of attachment disturbance. Least disturbed is Secure
Attachment theory includes the concept of defense and the
attachment, which is a combination of low avoidance and low
assumption that defenses are linked with attachment processes.
anxiety; more disturbed are the Preoccupied, who possess a positive
Attachment style has been described as a defensive operation that
model of others but a negative model of the self (Brennan and
results from the activation or deactivation of the attachment system
(Mikulincer et al., 2008; Shaver and Mikulincer, 2008). Further, it
*Department of Psychology, Williams College, Williamstown, MA; and †Private appears that these defensive operations will differ for persons with
Practice, Greenfield, MA. different attachment styles (Mikulincer et al., 2008, p. 34).
Send reprint requests to Phebe Cramer, PhD, Department of Psychology, Williams Ordinarily, activation of the attachment system results in
College, Williamstown, MA 01267. E-mail: [email protected].
Copyright © 2010 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
attempts to gain support and love. When this is successful, a Secure
ISSN: 0022-3018/10/19809-0619 attachment develops, which does not require reality-distorting de-
DOI: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e3181ef3ee1 fenses (Mikulincer et al., 2008). If this is not successful, defensive

The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease • Volume 198, Number 9, September 2010 www.jonmd.com | 619
Cramer and Kelly The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease • Volume 198, Number 9, September 2010

suppression of the attachment system occurs via deactivating strat- regarding the relation between ego defense mechanisms and attach-
egies, which are characteristic of the Avoidant (Dismissive and ment style. The present study will address this question.
Fearful) attachment styles. These strategies involve the defense There are several methods available to assess the use of ego
mechanism of denial— denial of attachment needs, denial or over- defense mechanisms (Cramer, 2006). One approach that has been
looking one’s own weaknesses or faults, failure to attend to attach- used successfully in both experimental and observational research is
ment related cues, and avoidance of emotional involvement (Shaver based on the coding of narrative material. Using a detailed Defense
and Mikulincer, 2008). In the case of the Anxious (Preoccupied) Mechanism coding Manual (DMM; Cramer, 1991a), the use of 3
style, hyperactivation occurs, including rumination, increased efforts defenses— denial, projection, and identification— can be ascertained
to gain the significant other’s attention, and loyalty to the other. For from a series of Thematic Apperception Test stories (Murray, 1943).
Preoccupieds, the desire for closeness with the relationship partner Defense scores based on this coding have been shown to increase
can lead to the use of the defense of identification, seen in an illusory when the story-teller is under stress (e.g., Cramer, 1991b, 1998), to
sense of similarity and blurring of boundaries between self and be related to self-reported violence (Porcerelli et al., 2004), and to be
other. The use of both the deactivating and hyperactivating defenses related to psychopathology (Cramer, 1999).
may contribute to adjustment, but they are likely to break down
under severe stress. EGO DEFENSES AND ABUSE: THEORY
Research has determined that deactivating defensive opera- Theoretically, the 3 defenses of denial, projection, and iden-
tions are preemptive—i.e., they occur at the time of encoding tification have been implicated in the occurrence of child abuse.
stimulus events, rather than being postemptive, or occurring at the Abusive parents are described as having distorted perceptions of
time of memory retrieval (Fraley et al., 2000; Fraley and Shaver, their children, because of their reliance on these defenses. There are
1997; Fraley and Brumbaugh, 2007). Fraley and Brumbaugh (2007) several reasons why the use of denial might be characteristic of
also noted that preemptive strategies result in the individual being abusive parents, especially whether they themselves were abused as
less likely to recognize the emotional implications of interpersonal a child. That is, because the abuse of these individuals occurred at an
events. This suggests the possibility that the person who uses a early stage in which they were unable to physically defend them-
preemptive defensive strategy would be less likely to recognize the selves against the abuser (Arcaya and Gerber, 1990; Briere and
negative implications of abusive treatment of a child. Runtz, 1993; Prodgers, 1984), and because denial was the defense
that was available to the young child to defend against both the
physical pain and the anger over the emotional betrayal of the
ATTACHMENT AND EGO MECHANISMS OF caretaker, it is likely that the use of the defense of denial was
DEFENSE intensified at that time (Lewis, 1992; Spaccarelli, 1994) and became
The idea that there are nonconscious mechanisms of defense a characteristic style of reacting to stress as the child advanced in
was early proposed by S. Freud (1894) and developed by A. Freud age. In fact, research has shown that children with stressful early
(1936). These ego mechanisms of defense include denial, projection, lives make excessive use of the immature defense of denial when
and identification, among others. In the attachment literature, use of they become adults (Cramer and Block, 1998). In adulthood, this use
these defense mechanisms contributes to deactivating and hyperac- of denial could prevent the individual from recognizing his/her
tivating defense strategies. As described above, the deactivating abusive behavior.
strategy depends on various manifestations of the ego defense of Projection may also play a role in the parent’s abusive
denial. The deactivating strategy may also include the defense of behavior. Parents may project their own negative qualities onto the
projection, which has been described as being especially character- child, who is then perceived as having the disowned negative
istic of the Avoidant (Dismissive and Fearful) attachment styles. In characteristics. In turn, this provides the parent with justification to
defensive projection, unwanted self-traits are projected onto others. use harsh or abusive disciplinary measures (e.g., Bradley and Peters,
The defense of projective identification (Mikulincer and Horesh, 1991; Bugental and Johnston, 2000; McGuigan et al., 2000).
1999), which increases the similarity between the self and other, Further, in carrying out the current abuse, the abusive parent
thus avoiding a sense of separateness, has been considered as part of may have adopted the punitive critical attitude of their own parent
the Anxious (Preoccupied) style, contributing to the hyperactivating (Prodgers, 1984; Finzi et al., 2003) – i.e., they may identify with
strategy. Mikulincer and Horesh define projective identification as a their own abusive parent. “By impersonating the aggressor, assum-
mechanism in which the individual projects actual-self-traits onto ing his attributes or imitating his aggression, the child transforms
others, thus increasing self-other similarity and a sense of closeness. himself from the person threatened into the person who makes the
Although projective identification is a developmentally immature threat” (Freud, 1936, p. 121)—i.e., the child transforms the self
defense, when defined in this way it fits under the larger category of from being powerless to being powerful. Identification also
the defense of identification, as assessed with the Defense Mecha- preserves the attachment with the abusive parent, which is
nism Manual (Cramer, 1991a). Research on the immature ego adaptive in childhood. In adulthood, it is maladaptive because it
defense of splitting—the failure to integrate good and bad images of prevents the individual from accurately perceiving abusive be-
self or of other— has found this defense to be related to both havior (Blizard and Bluhm, 1994).
attachment Anxiety and Avoidance (Lopez, 2001). Thus, theoretically, denial, projection and identification may
Understanding the use of ego defense mechanisms makes it all play an important role in the personality and behavior of the
clear that the insecure individual’s negative perception of others, abusive parent. Further, since early abuse is believed to interfere
which is characteristic of the Dismissive and Fearful attachment with the maturation of ego functions, defense mechanisms, and
style, is derived not only from their own negative attachment impulse control (Blizard and Bluhm, 1994; Arcaya and Gerber,
experience—i.e., their personal history of abuse— but also from the 1990) greater use of the immature defense of denial by these adults
use of the ego defenses of denial, projection, and splitting. Similarly, might be expected.
the idealization and wish for enmeshment that is characteristic of the
Preoccupied attachment style (Main et al., 1985) is linked with the EGO DEFENSES AND ABUSE: RESEARCH
use of (projective) identification and splitting. However, apart from Only a small amount of research has studied the relation
the studies cited above, there is little research evidence available between defense use and abuse. We look first at defense use by

620 | www.jonmd.com © 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease • Volume 198, Number 9, September 2010 Abusive Parents: Attachment and Defense

children who have been maltreated. Children who were physically

abused were found to use more denial, projection, and introjection, TABLE 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
as determined from clinical interview ratings and the child’s self- Age Mean, 30.82; SD, 9.58; range, 19–51
report, than those who were neglected, who in turn used these Sex, %
defenses more frequently than a nonabused, control group (Finzi et Male 31.4%
al., 2002; Finzi et al., 2003). The authors note that both the avoidant Female 68.6%
attachment style and the use of primitive defenses are survival
Ethnicity, %
strategies adopted by abused children to cope with painful anxiety.
White 90%
Looking next at the defense use of adults who had been
abused as children, Romans et al. (1999) found that women who had Latino/African American 10%
been sexually abused, as compared with those with no abuse, scored Residence, %
higher on the Immature scale of the Defense Style Questionnaire Rural communities 15%
(Andrews et al., 1993). Similarly, in a sample of adult psychiatric Small towns 75%
outpatients, those who reported a history of childhood sexual Cities 10%
abuse were rated on the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Education, %
Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) Defensive Functioning Scale ⬍12 yr 15%
(American Psychiatric Association, DSM-IV-TR, 2000) as using 12 yr 60%
more immature, image-distorting defenses, as compared with
⬎12 yr 25%
those individuals reporting no history of abuse (Callahan and
Economic level, %
Hilsenroth, 2005). Self-reported abuse in childhood has also been
found to be related to college students’ self-reported defense use Working poor/indigent 90%
(Finzi-Dottan and Karu, 2006). Middle class 10%
Finally, in the only study of abusive parents, Brennan et al. SD indicates standard deviation.
(1990) compared abusers with a normal reference group and with
anxiety disorder patients. Abusive parents were found to score
higher on the Defense Style Questionnaire Immature scale.
Type of Child Abuse
The type of abuse the participant inflicted on the child was
THE PRESENT STUDY determined from Department of Social Services’ reports to the court.
We know that abuse in early childhood is sometimes related These included domestic violence, neglect, and physical or sexual
to becoming an adult abuser. But not all individuals with an early abuse. Domestic violence was defined as documented physical,
abuse history do become abusive. Other factors, such as chronic sexual, and/or severe emotional partner abuse that were determined,
poverty, recent job loss, and social isolation (Goodman et al., 1998) by the court, to produce negative effects on the child that were
have been indicated as being related to being abusive. As discussed serious enough to warrant removal of the child from the home.
by Kaufman and Zigler (1989), “being maltreated as a child puts one Neglect was defined as educational, emotional, physical, or super-
at risk for becoming abusive, but the path between these 2 points is visory needs of the child not being met. Physical abuse required
far from direct or inevitable” (p.129). Further, both theory and evidence of injury of the child, as noted by pediatrician or nurse
research point to a relation between early abuse and attachment, practitioner. Sexual abuse required diagnosis by pediatric examina-
between attachment and defensive operations, and between defense tion or disclosure by the child to a mandated reporter. When more
use and perpetrating abuse. than one type of abuse was present, the more serious form was
In the present study, we examine a group of adults who have coded— e.g., if both Neglect and Physical Abuse occurred, child
been court-cited for abusing/maltreating their children, for their abuse was coded as Physical Abuse.
attachment style, use of defense mechanisms, and experience of
early abuse. On the basis of theory and previous research, we expect
that, as compared with the general population, these individuals will Attachment Styles
more likely to be insecurely attached, more likely to use immature Attachment style was assessed with the Relationship Ques-
defenses, and more likely to have experienced personal abuse. We tionnaire (Bartholomew and Horowitz, 1991), which consists of 4
also investigate the possibility that different defenses may be asso- short paragraphs, each describing a different style of attachment.
ciated with different attachment styles—namely, that the immature Participants were asked to select the one attachment category that
defense of denial will be most characteristic of the Avoidant (Dis- best described their own attachment pattern. This method for assess-
missive and Fearful) style, whereas Identification will be most ing attachment style has been shown to be positively associated with
characteristic of the Anxious (Preoccupied) style. the 3 category measure of Brennan et al. (1991), and is assumed to
be equally stable (Brennan and Shaver, 1998). These data were used
to assess Attachment Style (Secure, Preoccupied, Dismissive, or
METHODS Fearful), the latter 3 categories indicating Insecure attachment.
In addition, for 21 of the participants, a measure of the 4
Participants attachment styles based on the Relationship Style Questionnaire
The parents came from 86 families who were court-ordered (RSQ: Griffin and Bartholomew, 1994) was available. A test by chi
for assessment, subsequent to the Department of Social Services’ square indicated the 2 measures were significantly associated, chi
removal of the child from the home because of maltreatment. Either square (df ⫽ 9) ⫽ 36.80, p ⬍ 0.001, supporting the validity of the
the mother (n ⫽ 59) or the father (n ⫽ 27) was seen for assessment. Relationship Questionnaire measure used in the present study. Al-
These parents ranged in age from 19 to 51, mean ⫽ 30.82, SD ⫽ though a 3 category measure (ECR: Experience in Close Relation-
9.58. Children varied in age from infancy to elementary school age, ships: Fraley et al., 2000) has also been used to assess attachment
with a few adolescents. Other demographic characteristics are given style, for both the 3 and 4 category measures the underlying
in Table 1. orthogonal dimensions are anxiety and avoidance, “and so it does

© 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins www.jonmd.com | 621

Cramer and Kelly The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease • Volume 198, Number 9, September 2010

the total score. For example, a Relative Denial score was com-
TABLE 2. Defense Mechanism Manual Scoring Categories: puted according to the formula: Raw Denial score/Total raw
Denial, Projection, Identificationa defense score (Raw Denial ⫹ Raw Projection ⫹ Raw Identifica-
Denial tion). These Relative Defense scores were used throughout in the
Omission of major characters or objects analyses that follow.
Misperception The DMM measure of defense mechanisms has been demon-
Reversal strated in previous studies to have adequate inter-rater reliability,
with children, adolescents and adults (e.g., Cramer, 1991a, 2006;
Statements of negation
Cramer and Kelly, 2004; Hibbard et al., 1994; Porcerelli et al., 1998;
Denial of reality
Sandstrom and Cramer, 2003). The construct validity of the DMM
Overly maximizing the positive or minimizing the negative has been demonstrated with experimental studies designed to test
Unexpected goodness, optimism, positiveness, or gentleness specific hypotheses derived from defense mechanism theory. For
Projection example, based on the theoretical tenet that the use of defense
Attribution of hostile feelings or intentions, or other normatively unusual mechanisms should increase under conditions of stress, both chil-
feelings or intentions, to a character dren and college students have been found to show an increase in
Additions of ominous people, animals, objects, or qualities age-appropriate defense use following stress-inducing experimental
Magical or autistic thinking interventions, such as presumed failure (Cramer and Gaul, 1988),
Concern for protection from external threat rejection by a playmate (Sandstrom and Cramer, 2003), criticism of
Apprehensiveness of death, injury or assault creative ability (Cramer, 1991b) and challenge to sex-role orienta-
Themes of pursuit, entrapment and escape tion (Cramer, 1998).
Bizarre story or theme Personal History of Abuse
Identification Information regarding the participant’s own experience of
Emulation of skills abuse was obtained from clinical interviews with the participants,
Emulation of characteristics, qualities, or attitudes carried out by a licensed psychologist. This self-reported Personal
Regulation of motives or behavior History of Abuse was coded as No Abuse, Domestic Violence,
Self-esteem through affiliation Neglect, and Physical or Sexual Abuse. Where more than one type
Work; delay of gratification of abuse was reported, the more serious form was coded.
Role differentiation
Moralism RESULTS
a
A more complete version of the coding system appears in Cramer (1991a); and Attachment Styles
available at: williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Cramer/cramer.html.
Of the 86 participants, 41% were rated as Secure, 14% as
Preoccupied, 21% as Dismissive, and 24% as Fearful. As compared
with other, nonabusive samples of college students (Bartholomew
not matter much which quantitative measure is used” (Brennan and and Horowitz, 1991; Brennan and Shaver, 1995, 1998; Table 3), the
Shaver, 1998, p. 839). present sample has more Dismissive and Fearful individuals, and
fewer rated as Secure.
Defense Mechanisms
All participants were seen individually. Each was given the Defense Mechanisms
standard instructions for telling stories to 6 TAT cards (Murray, 1943). The Defense scores are given in Table 4. A Defense (3) ⫻
These included Cards 1 (boy with a violin); 2 (country scene with Sex (2) repeated measures ANOVA indicated a significant effect
young woman in foreground, man and pregnant woman in back); 3 GF for Defense, F (2,168) ⫽ 32.88, p ⬍ 0.001, eta2 ⫽ 0.28. The
(boy huddled on floor, gun alongside); 4 (woman clutching shoulders of interaction with Sex was not significant. F (2,168) ⫽ 0.66. The
man, who is turned away); 12 M (man lying on couch, older man significant Defense effect was due to the high use of Denial and
leaning over him); and 13 MF (woman lying on bed, man standing with Projection, as compared with the low use of Identification, ts (85) ⫽
arm across face). Stories were recorded and subsequently coded, using 8.10 and 7.38, ps ⬍ 0.001, ds ⫽ 1.49 and 1.64. The high use of Denial
the Defense Mechanism Manual (DMM: Cramer, 1991a). (42%) is especially striking for a sample of adults as compared with
Each of the 516 stories told was scored by a highly experi- other adult samples (e.g., Cramer and Block, 1998, age 23, 27%;
enced coder who has demonstrated high inter-rater reliability for 15 Cramer and Tracy, 2005, age 30, 26%; Cramer, 2008, age 38, 21%)
different previous samples. The rater had no knowledge of the (Table 3).
story-teller’s Attachment category, personal history of abuse, or sex.
The stories were scored for the presence of 3 defense mechanisms— Personal History of Abuse
denial, projection, and identification—according to the DMM. For Thirty-six persons (42%) reported no Personal History of abuse.
each defense, there are 7 categories representing different aspects of Fifty persons (58%) reported that they had experienced some maltreat-
the defense; each category is scored as many times as it occurs in ment as children. This included 9 cases (10%) of Domestic violence, 5
each story. (Table 2). The scores for each category are then summed, cases (6%) of Neglect, and 36 cases (42%) of Physical or Sexual abuse
yielding a total score for denial, for projection, and for identification. (Table 5). Because of the small number of cases in some subgroups, this
In turn, these 3 defense scores may be added together to provide a factor is coded Some/None in subsequent analyses.
Total Defense score. A recent large scale study of adults in the general population
To control for differences in story length, which might influ- found an incidence of 4.9% of documented abuse (including neglect,
ence the possibility of receiving a defense score, raw defense scores physical and sexual maltreatment as a child), and of 9.1% when
were transformed into proportional, or relative defense scores. For relying on self-reported abuse (Johnson et al., 1999). As compared
each person, the sum of all 3 defenses was computed to obtain a with the general population, the incidence of personal abuse in the
total defense score. Then, each individual defense was divided by present sample (58%) is noticeably higher.

622 | www.jonmd.com © 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease • Volume 198, Number 9, September 2010 Abusive Parents: Attachment and Defense

TABLE 3. Comparison of Present Sample With Previous Nonclinical Samples: Attachment and Defense Mechanisms
Brennan and Shaver Bartholomew and Horowitz Brennan and Shaver
Cramer/Kelly N ⴝ 86 (1998) N ⴝ 1407 (1991) N ⴝ 77 (College (1995) N ⴝ 242
Attachment (Abusive Parents) (College Undergraduates) Undergraduates) (Standardization Sample)
Secure 41% 48% 47% 53%–58%
Preoccupied 14% 15% 14% 21%–22% (Anxious)
Dismissive 21% 16% 18% 21%–26% (Avoidant)
Fearful 24% 21% 21%
Defense Mechanisms (Relative Cramer/Kelly N ⴝ 86 Cramer and Block (1998) Cramer and Tracy (2005) Cramer (2008) N ⴝ 84
Scores) (DMM) Mean Age ⴝ 31 yr N ⴝ 91 Age ⴝ 23 yr N ⴝ 62 Mean Age ⴝ 30 yr Mean Age ⴝ 38
Denial 0.42 0.27 0.26 0.21
Projection 0.38 0.50 0.49 0.51
Identification 0.20 0.23 0.25 0.28

child abuse was not related to parents’ Attachment Style, Per-

TABLE 4. Defenses, as Related to Attachment Style and sonal history of abuse, or Defense use, and so this factor was
Personal History of Abuse: Means and Standard Deviations dropped from further study.
Denial Projection Identification
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Relation Between Attachment Style and Defense
Attachment style Use
Secure 0.40 (0.18) 0.40 (0.16) 0.20 (0.13) An Attachment style (4) ⫻ Defense (3) repeated measures
ANOVA indicated a significant effect for Defense, F (2,164) ⫽ 29.62,
Preoccupied 0.38 (0.10) 0.38 (0.15) 0.24 (0.12)
p ⬍ 0.001, eta2 ⫽ 0.26. There was also a significant Defense x
Dismissive 0.37 (0.20) 0.42 (0.19) 0.21 (0.16)
Attachment style linear effect, F (3,82) ⫽ 2.85, p ⬍ 0.04, eta2 ⫽ 0.10.
Fearful 0.51 (0.12) 0.34 (0.12) 0.16 (0.10) The use of Denial was greatest in the Fearful group (Table 4; Fig. 1),
Personal history of abuse whereas the use of Identification was greatest in the Preoccupied group
No abuse 0.43 (0.16) 0.39 (0.15) 0.18 (0.14) (Table 4 and Fig. 2). T tests confirmed that Fearfuls made greater use of
Some abuse 0.41 (0.17) 0.38 (0.16) 0.21 (0.12) Denial than Dismissives, t (37) ⫽ 2.70, p ⬍ 0.01, d ⫽ 0.85, than
Domestic violence 0.46 (0.20) 0.39 (0.18) 0.14 (0.12) Preoccupieds, t (31) ⫽ 3.22, p ⬍ 0.003, d ⫽ 1.19, and than Secures,
Neglect 0.57 (0.18) 0.29 (0.16) 0.13 (0.05) t (54) ⫽ 2.42, p ⬍ 0.01, d ⫽ 0.70. However, Preoccupieds made greater
Physical/sexual 0.38 (0.15) 0.39 (0.16) 0.23 (0.12) use of Identification than Fearfuls, t (31) ⫽ 2.16, p ⬍ 0.04, d ⫽ 0.77.
Total group Also, there was a tendency of borderline significance, with a medium
effect size, for Projection to be used more by Dismissives than by
Mean (SD) 0.42 (0.16) 0.38 (0.16) 0.20 (0.13)
Fearfuls, t (37) ⫽ 1.74, p ⬍ 0.09, d ⫽ 0.56. (Table 4; Fig. 3.)
SD indicates standard deviation. Testing defense use within each attachment group showed
that all attachment groups made greater use of denial than identifi-
cation, ts (17,11,20,34) ⫽ 2.30, 2.78, 8.56, and 4.52, ps ⫽ 0.02 to
TABLE 5. Personal History of Abuse as Related to 0.001, ds ⫽ 0.92 to 3.18. Further, Fearfuls made greater use of
Attachment Style denial than projection, t (20) ⫽ 3.80, p ⬍ 0.01, d ⫽ 1.49. For the
other 3 attachment styles, the use of denial and projection did not
Frequency of Personal History of Abuse differ. In addition, Fearfuls, Dismissives, and Secures made greater
Secure Preoccupied Dismissive Fearful Total use of Projection than Identification, ts (20,17,34) ⫽ 4.38, 3.12, and
5.01, ps ⬍ 0.006, ds ⫽ 1.63, 1.22 and 1.35. However, for Preoccu-
Personal history pieds, the use of projection and identification did not differ, t (11) ⫽
of abuse 1.86, p ⫽ 0.09.
No abuse 21 (60%) 2 (17%) 6 (33%) 7 (33%) 36 (42%)
Some abuse 14 (40%) 10 (83%) 21 (67%) 14 (67%) 50 (58%) Relation Between Personal History of Abuse and
Domestic 5 (14%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 3 (14%) 9 (10%) Attachment Style
violence The association between the individual’s Personal Abuse
Neglect 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 2 (11%) 2 (9%) 5 (6%) History (Some/None) and Attachment Style was significant, chi
Physical/ 8 (23%) 10 (83%) 9 (50%) 9 (43%) 36 (42%) square (3) ⫽ 9.03, p ⬍ 0.03. Table 5 shows that the reporting of No
sexual Abuse History was more frequent among the Secures (21/36 ⫽
Totala 35 (41%) 12 (14%) 18 (21%) 21 (24%) 86 (100%) 58%) than among the Preoccupieds, Dismissives, and Fearfuls
a
Frequencies (and percent) of the 4 attachment styles in the total sample.
(2/36 ⫽ 5%; 6/36 ⫽ 17%; 7/36 ⫽ 19%).

Relation Between Personal History of Abuse and

Defense Use
Type of Child Abuse We next tested the relation between Defense use and Personal
Type of child abuse included 22 cases of Domestic vio- History of Abuse. A Personal Abuse History (Some/None) ⫻
lence (26%), 54 cases of Neglect (63%), and 10 cases of Physical/ Defense (3) repeated measures ANOVA indicated a significant
Sexual abuse (11%). Preliminary analyses indicated that type of effect for Defense, F (2,168) ⫽ 35.28, p ⬍ 0.001, eta2 ⫽ 0.29.

© 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins www.jonmd.com | 623

Cramer and Kelly The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease • Volume 198, Number 9, September 2010

Attachment Style x Denial

0.55

0.5

Mean Relative Denial Score

0.45

0.4

0.35
FIGURE 1. Attachment style and denial. Secure Preoccupied Dismissive Fearful

Attachment Style x Identification

0.26

0.24
Mean Relative Identification Score

0.22

0.2

0.18

0.16

FIGURE 2. Attachment style and iden- 0.14

tification. Secure Preoccupied Dismissive Fearful

Denial and Projection were used more often than Identification. The experienced Domestic Violence, t (43) ⫽ 1.93, ps ⬍ 0.06, d ⫽ 0.72,
Defense ⫻ Abuse History interaction was not significant (Table 4). both with large effect sizes. In addition, persons who reported Physical/
Sexual Abuse used less Denial than those who reported being Ne-
Further Examination of Personal History of Abuse,
glected, t (39) ⫽ ⫺ 2.60, p ⬍ 0.01, d ⫽ 1.24.
as Related to Attachment Style and Defense Use
Next, a chi square for Personal Abuse History (4) ⫻ Attach-
Although the number of individuals in the Personal Abuse
ment Style (4) was significant, chi square (9) ⫽ 18.53, p ⬍ 0.03. In
History subgroups was small, 2 exploratory analyses were carried
addition to the relation between No Abuse History and Secure
out to examine a possible relation of type of Personal Abuse History
(4) to Defense use (3) and to Attachment Style (4). Because of the attachment mentioned above, a history of physical/sexual abuse was
small N, these results should be considered only suggestive and associated with the Preoccupied attachment style (10/12 ⫽ 83%), as
should be followed up with larger samples. compared with the Dismissive (9/18 ⫽ 50%), the Fearful (9/21 ⫽
First, an ANOVA for Personal Abuse History (4) ⫻ Defense use 43%), or the Secure style (8/35 ⫽ 23%) (Table 5).
(3) was conducted. In addition to the significant effect for Defense, Taken together, these 2 analyses suggest that the Preoccupied
F (2,164) ⫽ 27.86, p ⬍ 0.001, eta2 ⫽ 0.10, there was a significant Attachment Style is associated with the use of Identification as a
Defense x Abuse History linear effect, F (3,82) ⫽ 2.97, p ⬍ 0.04, defense and with a Personal History of Physical/Sexual Abuse. As
eta2 ⫽ 0.10 (Table 4.) Those who reported Physical/Sexual Abuse used will be discussed later, this combination of Identification and a
more Identification than the Neglecteds, t (11.55) (T-test with unequal history of Physical/Sexual Abuse may be seen as contributing to the
variances) ⫽ 3.13, p ⬍ 0.009, d ⫽ 0.85, and more than those who had current abusive behavior of the parent.

624 | www.jonmd.com © 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease • Volume 198, Number 9, September 2010 Abusive Parents: Attachment and Defense

Attachment Style x Projection

0.44

0.42
Mean Relative Projection Score

0.4

0.38

0.36

0.34

0.32

0.3 FIGURE 3. Attachment style and

Secure Preoccupied Dismissive Fearful projection.

Relation Between Attachment Style and Failure to Dismissive attachment styles both orient away from processing
Encode emotional information—i.e., are both deactivating. The present
Previous research using memory tests has found that deacti- findings suggest that Dismissives may use a somewhat different
vating Dismissing and Fearful (Avoidant) individuals make greater controlling strategy (Cooper et al., 2009; Maier et al., 2005;
use of Preemptive defenses than do hyperactivating Preoccupieds Niedenthal et al., 2002), for Dismissives used denial less often than
(Fraley et al., 2000). Preemptive defenses are characterized by a the Fearfuls, and showed a tendency to use projection more often.
“failure to encode” stimuli, which is conceptually consistent with the The Preoccupied (Anxious) style was differentiated from the
DMM Denial Category 1 (Omission: see Table 2), in that Omission Dismissive and Fearful (Avoidant) groups in 2 important ways.
represents a failure to acknowledge the presence of a stimulus item. First, the Preoccupieds were more likely to report a personal history
To test for Attachment Style differences in “failure to encode,” of having been physically or sexually abused. In addition, in contrast
DMM Omission scores (Denial Category 1) for the 4 Attachment to the deactivating operations of the Fearful group, the Preoccupied
Style groups were compared by a univariate ANOVA. The results individuals were more likely to use the hyperactivating defense
indicated a significant Attachment style effect, F(3,82) ⫽ 3.15, p ⬍ mechanism of Identification.
0.03, eta2 ⫽ 0.10. A comparison of Attachment groups by t test This combination of personal abuse history and identification
indicated that the Fearfuls had higher Omission scores than the other suggests that different factors may contribute to the abusive behavior of
3 groups, ts(54, 31, 37) ⫽ 2.16, 2.54, and 2.23, ps ⫽ 0.03– 0.01, Preoccupieds, as compared with Dismissives and Fearfuls. The ego
ds ⫽ 0.60 – 0.94, which did not differ. defense of Identification contributes to the hyperactivating strategy by
allowing the individual to stay close (i.e., attached), psychologically, to
DISCUSSION the individual’s own parent. At the same time, this identification with an
abusive parent likely contributes, at least in part, to the current abusive
As compared with the general population, the abusive parents
behavior—i.e., identification with the aggressor. If the defense of
in the present sample are more likely to have experienced personal
Identification is combined with Projection, the likelihood of engaging in
abuse as a child, and are more likely to report themselves as having
abusive behavior increases. Just as their own parent treated them as
an insecure attachment style. Further, a most striking finding with
‘bad’ and deserving of punishment, the current Projection of their
these abusive parents is their very high use of denial, as compared
‘badness’ onto their child results in their perception of the child as bad,
with other, nonabusive samples. The use of denial was especially
and because of Identification with their own parent, their child is seen
true of those individuals with a Fearful attachment style. Notably,
as “deserving” of punishment.
Fearful (Avoidant) parents were also found to have higher scores for
Those individuals who reported a Secure attachment style
Omission of (failure to encode) prominent aspects of the stimulus
were less likely to report a history of abuse than the other attachment
picture than any of the other Attachment groups. Projection, previ-
groups. However, like the other attachment groups, they made
ously described as part of the deactivation strategy (Mikulincer and
strong use of Denial. As with the other attachment groups, the use of
Horesh, 1999) was also frequently used by the group of abusive
denial protects the Secure abusive parents from recognizing the
parents. However, it is denial, and its deactivating function, that
harmful effects of their abusive behavior.
most clearly characterizes these parents. Such strong use of denial
likely prevents these parents from recognizing the harm caused by
their abusive behavior. Limitations
These findings are consistent with, and support the position In interpreting these findings, it is important to keep in mind
that the Avoidant attachment style is characterized by preemptive, that both the Attachment measure and the information on Personal
deactivating defensive operations (Fraley and Shaver, 1997; Shaver History of Abuse are self-report measures. As has been noted in a
and Mikulincer, 2008), but they indicate that the Fearful component previous study of abusive parents, the fact that they were seen for
of the Avoidant style use this strategy more than the Dismissives. court assessment likely motivated them to present themselves in the
This latter finding is relevant for the question of whether Fearful and best possible light (Brennan et al., 1990). This likelihood, plus their

© 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins www.jonmd.com | 625

Cramer and Kelly The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease • Volume 198, Number 9, September 2010

strong use of Denial, raises the question of a self-presentation bias, Ammaniti M, Nicolais G, Speranza AM (2004) Trauma and attachment: An
which may have influenced their self-reporting – for example, investigation in abusive parenting. Arch Psychiatry Psychother. 6:9 –22.
reporting a Secure attachment style. However, to the extent that Andrews G, Singh J, Bond M (1993) The defense style questionnaire. J Nerv Ment
Dis. 181:246 –256.
there was a bias in the self-report of attachment style, this would
likely weaken the associations found for the several insecure attach- Arcaya JM, Gerber GL (1990) An object relations approach to the treatment of
child abuse. Psychotherapy. 27:619 – 626.
ment styles with defense use and personal history of abuse.
Azar ST, Robinson DR, Hekimian E, Twentyman CT (1984) Unrealistic expec-
Also, it is conceivable that parents might have biased their tations and problem-solving ability in maltreating and comparison mothers.
self-report of personal history of abuse, although it is not clear J Consult Clin Psychol. 52:687– 691.
whether they would think it advantageous to report no abuse or some Bartholomew K, Horowitz L (1991) Attachment styles among young adults:
abuse. It is noteworthy that the self-reporting in the present sample A test of a four-category model. J Pers Soc Psychol. 61:226 –244.
of having experienced personal abuse (58%) is considerably higher Blizard RA, Bluhm AM (1994) Attachment to the abuser: Integrating object-
than that found in the general population (9%). In any case, if the relations and trauma theories in treatment of abuse survivors. Psychotherapy.
parents misreported no abuse when in fact some abuse had occurred, 31:383–390.
this bias would also likely weaken the present results that demon- Bowlby J (1988). A Secure Base: Clinical Applications of Attachment Theory.
London (United Kingdom): Routledge.
strate the relation of a history of personal abuse with current
Brennan J, Andrews G, Morris-Yates A, Pollock C (1990) An examination of
attachment style and defense use. defense style in parents who abuse children. J Nerv Ment Dis. 178:592–595.
The present study also examines the role of only 3 defense Brennan KA, Shaver PR (1995) Dimensions of adult attachment, affect regulation
mechanisms. It is possible that other defenses are related to attach- and romantic relationship. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 21, 267–283.
ment style, personal history of abuse, and abusive behavior. How- Brennan KA, Shaver PR (1998) Attachment styles and personality disorders:
ever, the present findings present a significant, cohesive pattern Their connections to each other and to parental divorce, parental death, and
showing the interrelation of these factors with the use of the 3 perceptions of parental caregiving. J Pers. 66:835– 878.
defenses. Brennan J, Shaver PR, Tobey AE (1991) Attachment styles, gender and parental
Another consideration is that the sample size of the present problem drinking. J Soc Pers Relat. 8:451– 466.
study may have limited the power to detect some interconnections. Bradley EJ, Peters R (1991) Physically abusive and nonabusive mothers’ percep-
tions of parenting and child behavior. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 61:455– 460.
Because of the relatively small number of individuals in several
subgroups, the results should be considered preliminary and in need Bugental D, Johnston C (2000) Parental and child cognitions in the context of the
family. Ann Rev Psychol. 51:315–344.
of follow up with additional studies. However, this is the only
Briere J, Runtz M (1993) Childhood sexual abuse. Long-term sequelae and
empirical study of abusive parents of which we are aware that implications for psychological assessment. J Interpers Violence. 8:312–330.
examines the inter-relations of personal abuse history, defense use Callahan KL, Hilsenroth MJ (2005) Childhood sexual abuse and adult defensive
and attachment style, and offers a theoretical rationale for these functioning. J Nerv Ment Dis. 193:473– 479.
relations. Cooper RM, Rowe AC, Penton-Voak IS, Ludwig C (2009) No reliable effects of
Finally, in our thinking about the present findings, we are emotional facial expression, adult attachment orientation, or anxiety on the
assuming that many of these abusive adults were insecurely attached allocation visual attention in the spatial cueing paradign. J Res Pers. 43:643–
as children, and that they made strong use of Denial at that time. The 652.
present study does not provide us with information regarding either Cramer P (1991a) The Development of Defense Mechanisms: Theory, Research
and Assessment. New York (NY): Springer-Verlag.
the attachment style or defense use of these individuals when they
Cramer P (1991b) Anger and the use of defense mechanisms in college students.
were children. Indeed, there is very little research information J Pers. 59:39 –55.
available regarding the relation between defense use and attachment Cramer P (1998) Threat to gender representation: Identity and identification.
in children. In the only study of which we are aware, four-year-olds J Pers. 66:335–357.
who were insecurely attached were found to use more denial in Cramer P (1999) Personality, personality disorders and defense mechanisms.
negative situations involving their mothers, as compared with those J Pers. 67:535–554.
who were securely attached (Lay et al., 1995). Nevertheless, lacking Cramer P (2006) Protecting the Self: Defense Mechanisms in Action. New York
this information, the present findings show clearly that abusive (NY): Guilford Press.
adults make unusually strong use of the defense of Denial. Cramer P (2008) Identification and the development of competence: A 44-year
longitudinal study from late adolescence to late middle age. Psychology and
Aging. 23:410 – 421.
CONCLUSIONS Cramer P, Block J (1998) Preschool antecedents of defense mechanism use in
Parents who are abusive are more likely to report having expe- young adults. J Pers Soc Psychol. 74:159 –169.
rienced abuse when they were a child, are more likely to report having Cramer P, Gaul R (1988) The effects of success and failure on children’s use of
an insecure attachment style, as assessed by the Relationship Question- defense mechanisms. J Pers. 56:729 –742.
naire (Bartholomew and Horowitz, 1991), and are more likely to use the Cramer P, Kelly FD (2004) Defense mechanisms in adolescent conduct disorder
and adjustment reaction. J Nerv Ment Dis. 192:139 –145.
defense of Denial, as assessed with the Defense Mechanism Manual
Cramer P, Tracy A (2005) The pathway from child personality to adult adjust-
(Cramer, 1991a), as compared with the general population. The findings ment: The road is not straight. J Res Pers. 39:369 –394.
suggest that, within this abusive sample, different defenses may be Finzi R, Har-Even D, Shnit D, Weizman A (2002) Psychosocial characterization
associated with different attachment styles. Denial was especially char- of physically abused children from low socioeconomic households in compar-
acteristic of the Fearful style, Projection tended to be associated with the ison to neglected and nonmaltreated children. J Child Fam Stud. 11:441– 453.
Dismissive style, and Identification was more likely to be associated Finzi R, Har-Even D, Weizman A (2003) Comparison of ego defenses among
with the Preoccupied style. physically abused children, neglected and non-maltreated children. Compr
Psychiatry. 44:388 –395.
Finzi-Dottan R, Karu T (2006) From emotional abuse in childhood to psychopa-
REFERENCES thology in adulthood. J Nerv Ment Dis. 194:616 – 621.
American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Fraley RC, Brumbaugh CC (2007) Adult attachment and preemptive defenses:
Mental Disorders (4th ed). Washington (DC): American Psychiatric Associa- Converging evidence on the role of defensive exclusion at the level of
tion. encoding. J Pers. 75:1033–1050.
American Psychological Association (2008). Monitor. Washington (DC): Amer- Fraley RC, Davis KE, Shaver PR (1998) Dismissing-Avoidance and the defensive
ican Psychiatric Association. organization of emotion, cognition and behavior. In JA Simpson, WS Rholes

626 | www.jonmd.com © 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease • Volume 198, Number 9, September 2010 Abusive Parents: Attachment and Defense

(Eds), Attachment Theory and Close Relationships (pp 249 –279). New York Main M, Kaplan N, Cassidy J (1985) Security in infancy, childhood and adult-
(NY): Guilford Press. hood: A move to the level of representation. In I Bretherton, E Waters (Eds),
Fraley RC, Garner JP, Shaver PR (2000) Adult attachment and the defensive Growing Points in Attachment Theory and Research. Monographs of the
regulation of attention and memory: Examining the role of preemptive and Society for Research in Child Development 50 (1–2, Serial No. 209, pp
postemptive defensive processes. J Pers Soc Psychol. 79:816 – 826. 66 –106).
Fraley RC, Shaver PR (1997) Adult attachment and the suppression of unwanted Malinowsky-Rummel R, Hansen DJ (1993) Long-term consequences of child-
thoughts. J Pers Soc Psychol. 73:1080 –1091. hood physical abuse. Psychol Bull. 114:68 –79.
Freud A (1936) The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense. New York (NY): McGuigan WM, Vuchinich S, Pratt C (2000). Domestic violence, parents’ views
International Universities Press. of their infant and risk for child abuse. J Fam Psychol. 20:613– 624.
Freud S (1894) The Neuro-Psychoses of Defence (Std ed, Vol 3, pp 45– 61). Mikulincer M, Shaver PR, Cassidy J, Berant E (2008) Attachment-related defen-
London (United Kingdom): Hogarth Press. sive processes. In JH Obegi, E Berant (Eds), Attachment Theory and Research
Goodman GS, Emery RE, Haugaard JJ (1998) Developmental psychology and the in Clinical Work With Adults (pp 293–327). New York (NY): Guilford Press.
law: Divorce, child maltreatment, foster care and adoption. In IE Sigel, KA Mikulincer M, Horesh N (1999) Adult attachment style and the perception of
Renninger (Eds), Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol 4: Child Psychology in others: The role of projective mechanisms. J Pers Soc Psychol. 76:1022–1034.
Practice (5th ed, pp 775– 876). New York (NY): Wiley.
Murray HA (1943) Thematic Apperception Test manual. Cambridge (MA):
Griffin DW, Bartholomew K (1994) Models of the self and other: Fundamental Harvard University Press.
dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. J Pers Soc Psychol.
67:430 – 445. Niedenthal PM, Brauer M, Robin L, Innes-Ker AH (2002) Adult attachment and
the perception of facial expression of emotion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 82:419 –
Hibbard S, Farmer L, Wells C, Difillipo E, Barry W, Korman R, Sloan P (1994)
433.
Validation of Cramer’s defense mechanisms manual for the TAT. J Pers
Assess. 63:197–210. Porcerelli JH, Thomas S, Hibbard S, Cogan R (1998) Defense mechanism
Johnson JG, Cohen P, Brown J, Smailes EM, Bernstein DP (1999) Childhood development in children, adolescents and late adolescents. J Pers Assess.
maltreatment increases risk for personality disorders during early adulthood. 71:411– 420.
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 56:600 – 606. Porcerelli JH Cogan R, Kamoo R, Leitman S (2004) Defense mechanisms and
Kaufman J, Zigler E (1989) The intergenerational transmission of child abuse. In self-reported violence toward partners and strangers. J Pers Assess. 82:317–
D Cicchetti, V Carlson (Eds), Child Maltreatment: Theory and Research on the 320.
Causes and Consequences of Child Abuse and Neglect (pp 129 –150). New Prodgers A (1984) Psychopathology of the physically abusing parent: A compar-
York (NY): Cambridge University Press. ison with the borderline syndrome. Child Abuse Neglect. 8:411– 424.
Lay KL, Waters E, Posada G, Ridgeway D (1995) Attachment security, affect Romans SE, Martin JL, Morris E, Herbison GP (1999) Psychological defense
regulation and defensive responses to mood induction. In E Waters, B Vaughn, styles in women who report childhood sexual abuse: A controlled community
G Posada, K Kondo-Ikemura (Eds), Culture, Caregiving and Cognition: Per- study. Am J Psychiatry. 156:1080 –1085.
spectives on Secure Base Phenomena and Attachment Working Models. Mono-
graphs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60, (Serial No. 244, Sandstrom M, Cramer P (2003) Girls’ use of defense mechanisms following peer
2–3), (pp 179 –198). rejection. J Pers. 71:605– 627.
Lewis DO (1992) From abuse to violence: Psychophysiological consequences of Shaver PR, Mikulincer M (2002) Attachment-related psychodynamics. Attach-
maltreatment. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 31:383–391. Hum Dev. 4:133–161.
Lopez FG (2001) Adult attachment orientations, self-other boundary regulation Shaver PR, Mikulincer M (2008) Adult attachment and cognitive and affective
and splitting tendencies in a college sample. J Couns Psychol. 48:440 – 446. reactions to positive and negative events. Soc Pers Psychol Compass. 2:1844 –
Maier MA, Bernier A, Perkun R, Zimmermann P, Strasser K, Grossmann KE 1865.
(2005) Attachment state of mind and perceptual processing of emotional Spaccarelli S (1994). Stress, appraisal and coping in child sexual abuse:
stimuli. Attach Hum Dev. 7:285–295. A theoretical and empirical review. Psychol Bull. 116:340 –362.

© 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins www.jonmd.com | 627