Attachment Style Questionnaire - Short Form (ASQ-SF)

Client Name Dummy Client Date administered 21 May 2025

Date of birth (age) 1 Jan 2000 (25) Time taken 4 min 51s
Assessor Dr Website Administration

Attachment Style
Score Percentile Descriptor
Avoidant Attachment (Range -5 to 75) 42 90 High
Anxious Attachment (Range -18 to 57) 26 69 Average

Attachment Subscales
Score Percentile Descriptor
Discomfort with Closeness (Range 9 to 54) (Avoidant) 39 80 High
Relationships as Secondary (Range 4 to 24) (Avoidant) 16 93 High
Preoccupation with Relationships (Range 5 to 30) (Anxious) 20 74 Average
Need for Approval (Range 5 to 30) (Anxious) 18 58 Average
Confidence in Interpersonal Interactions (Range 6 to 36) 25 56 Average

ASQ-SF Attachment Style

Anxious Attachment vs Avoidant Attachment

100

Dismissing-Avoidant Fearful-
Avoidant

75
Avoidant Attachment
(Percentile)

Client's Primary
50 Attachment Style

Secure Anxious-
Preoccupied

25

0
0 25 50 75 100
Anxious Attachment
(Percentile)

Page 1 of 6
 Client Name Dummy Client

Interpretation
The client's results on the ASQ-SF indicate a primary attachment pattern of Dismissive-Avoidant
Attachment Style. This pattern shows predominantly avoidant features with typical levels of
relationship anxiety. This combination indicates someone who primarily manages relationship
challenges through distancing strategies, while maintaining typical levels of concern about
relationships.

Pattern Information:
Primary Pattern: Dismissive-Avoidant Attachment Style
Pattern Key: This analysis is determined by the client's combination of High Avoidant
Attachment and Average Anxious Attachment.

Primary Attachment Pattern Analysis:

Interpersonal Implications:
Relationships typically show a pattern of emotional distancing. Common characteristics include:
tendency to maintain relationships at a distance, difficulty with emotional intimacy, preference for
structured or defined relationships, and careful management of emotional engagement.
Professional relationships often function well due to natural boundaries.

Therapeutic Considerations:
Therapeutic work might focus on gradually expanding capacity for emotional connection while
respecting current relationship patterns. The typical anxiety level may support engagement in
therapeutic work.

The following items contributed to the client's high score on the Avoidant Attachment scale of the
ASQ-SF:
- 2. I prefer to depend on myself rather than other people (Strongly agree)
- 3. I prefer to keep to myself (Strongly agree)
- 12. I find it difficult to depend on others (Agree)
- 27. Other people have their own problems, so I don’t bother them with mine (Agree)
- 4. Achieving things is more important than building relationships (Slightly agree)

Scoring and Interpretation Information

For comprehensive information on the ASQ-SF, see here.

Scores consist of two main attachment styles, Avoidant Attachment and Anxious Attachment
alongside subscales. The scoring system is based on a combination of direct subscale scores
and adjustments using the Confidence subscale items to provide a more nuanced measure of
attachment security:

- Avoidant Attachment (score range -5 to 75): This scale reflects the extent to which an
individual avoids intimacy and is distrusting of others. It is computed by summing Discomfort
with Closeness and Relationships as Secondary scores and then subtracting items 1, 14 & 28
from the Confidence subscale

- Anxious Attachment (score range -18 to 57): This scale reflects excessive need for
reassurance, fear of rejection, and desire to merge with relationship partners. It is computed by
summing Preoccupation and Need for Approval scores and subtracting items 24, 26 & 29 from
the Confidence subscale.

Page 2 of 6
 Client Name Dummy Client

Scoring and Interpretation Information (cont.)

The five subscales provide detailed information about specific aspects of attachment and
interpersonal functioning:

- Discomfort with Closeness (Items 2, 3, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 27; score range: 9 to 54):
This subscale measures an individual's tendency to maintain emotional and psychological
distance in relationships. It reflects fundamental difficulties with intimacy and vulnerability,
including discomfort with emotional closeness and reluctance to share personal feelings or rely
on others. High scores suggest a pronounced tendency to maintain rigid emotional boundaries
and may indicate defensive strategies developed to protect against perceived relationship
threats or emotional pain. This discomfort often manifests in behaviours such as emotional
withdrawal, difficulty trusting others, and resistance to deepening relationships beyond a
superficial level.

- Relationships as Secondary (Items 4, 5, 6, 9; score range: 4 to 24):

This subscale assesses the extent to which an individual prioritises relationships relative to other
aspects of life, such as work, personal achievements, or independent pursuits. It reflects the
degree of investment in interpersonal connections and willingness to acknowledge and attend to
relationship needs. High scores indicate a tendency to devalue the importance of relationships,
often manifesting as excessive self-reliance and a strong preference for maintaining
independence from others. This pattern may represent either a defensive strategy or a genuine
preference for autonomy, with implications for how individuals balance personal and relational
needs.

- Preoccupation with Relationships (Items 13, 17, 22, 23, 25; score range: 5 to 30):
This subscale measures the extent of cognitive and emotional investment in relationships,
particularly concerning worries about relationship status and stability. It reflects the intensity of
an individual's focus on relationship dynamics and their tendency to monitor, analyse, and worry
about their relationships. High scores indicate significant hypervigilance to relationship cues and
excessive concern about relationship status, often leading to difficulties maintaining perspective
or engaging in non-relationship activities. This preoccupation can manifest as constant
relationship monitoring, difficulty concentrating on other tasks due to relationship concerns, and
a tendency to overanalyse relationship interactions.

- Need for Approval (Items 7, 8, 10, 19, 21; score range: 5 to 30):
This subscale assesses the degree to which an individual depends on others' validation and
acceptance for maintaining self-worth and emotional stability. It reflects sensitivity to rejection
and criticism, as well as the strength of need for others' approval and acceptance. High scores
indicate excessive dependency on external validation and heightened sensitivity to others'
opinions, often manifesting as people-pleasing behaviours, difficulty making independent
decisions, and intense fear of rejection. This need for approval can significantly impact
relationship dynamics, decision-making processes, and overall emotional well-being.

- Confidence in Interpersonal Interactions (Items 1, 14, 28, 24, 26, 29; score range: 6 to 36):
This subscale measures the degree of security and comfort an individual experiences in
relationship contexts. Unlike the other subscales, higher scores on this dimension indicate more
secure attachment patterns. It reflects an individual's capacity for balanced relationship
engagement, including comfort with both intimacy and autonomy. High scores suggest healthy
self-reliance combined with the ability to form and maintain meaningful relationships, seek
support when needed, and navigate relationship challenges effectively. This subscale plays a
unique role in the scoring system, as items from it are subtracted from both attachment

Page 3 of 6
 Client Name Dummy Client

Scoring and Interpretation Information (cont.)

dimensions to adjust for security, reflecting the buffering effect of interpersonal confidence
against both anxious and avoidant tendencies.

Each score is converted to a percentile based on normative data, and descriptors (Low,
Average, High) are assigned based on percentile ranges:
- Low: 25th percentile or below
- Average: 26th to 74th percentile
- High: 75th percentile or above
Percentiles are computed based on an adult community sample, where a percentile of 50
represents typical patterns of responding. Participants in the community sample (n = 3,576)
ranged in age from 15 to 73 years and were predominantly (90%) of Anglo-Australian
background.

The interpretative text includes the Primary Attachment Pattern Analysis. This pattern analysis is
based upon the specific combination of score descriptors (Low, Average, High) across all
dimensions. These patterns range from secure styles (e.g., "Secure Style") to various insecure
patterns (e.g., "Fearful-Avoidant Style", "Dismissive-Avoidant Style"). Each pattern provides
specific insights into attachment organisation and relationship dynamics, along with associated
therapeutic implications and approaches. The interpretation considers interactions between the
avoidant and anxious scales to provide a comprehensive understanding of the person's
attachment style and its implications for relationships and therapeutic work. The specificity of the
overall Attachment Pattern allows for highly tailored therapeutic recommendations and insights
into potential treatment challenges and opportunities.

Client Responses
Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly
Disagree Agree
disagree disagree agree agree

I feel confident that other people will be there for me

1
when I need them 1 2 3 4 5 6

2 I prefer to depend on myself rather than other people 1 2 3 4 5 6

3 I prefer to keep to myself 1 2 3 4 5 6

Achieving things is more important than building

4
relationships 1 2 3 4 5 6

Doing your best is more important than getting on

5
with others 1 2 3 4 5 6

If you’ve got a job to do, you should do it no matter

6
who gets hurt 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 It’s important to me that others like me 1 2 3 4 5 6

I find it hard to make a decision unless I know what

8
other people think 1 2 3 4 5 6

Page 4 of 6
 Client Name Dummy Client

Client Responses (cont.)

Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly
Disagree Agree
disagree disagree agree agree

9 My relationships with others are generally superficial 1 2 3 4 5 6

10 Sometimes I think I am no good at all 1 2 3 4 5 6

11 I find it hard to trust other people 1 2 3 4 5 6

12 I find it difficult to depend on others 1 2 3 4 5 6

I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I

13
would like 1 2 3 4 5 6

14 I find it relatively easy to get close to other people 1 2 3 4 5 6

15 I find it easy to trust others 6 5 4 3 2 1

16 I feel comfortable depending on other people 6 5 4 3 2 1

I worry that others won’t care about me as much as

17
I care about them 1 2 3 4 5 6

18 I worry about people getting too close 1 2 3 4 5 6

19 I worry that I won’t measure up to other people 1 2 3 4 5 6

20 I have mixed feelings about being close to others 1 2 3 4 5 6

I wonder why people would want to be involved with

21
me 1 2 3 4 5 6

22 I worry a lot about my relationships 1 2 3 4 5 6

I wonder how I would cope without someone to love

23
me 1 2 3 4 5 6

24 I feel confident about relating to others 1 2 3 4 5 6

25 I often feel left out or alone 1 2 3 4 5 6

26 I often worry that I do not really fit with other people 6 5 4 3 2 1

Other people have their own problems, so I don’t

27
bother them with mine 1 2 3 4 5 6

Page 5 of 6
 Client Name Dummy Client

Client Responses (cont.)

Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly
Disagree Agree
disagree disagree agree agree

If something is bothering me, others are generally

28
aware and concerned 1 2 3 4 5 6

I am confident that other people will like and respect

29
me 1 2 3 4 5 6

Page 6 of 6

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)