Content uploaded by Eleonora Gullone
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eleonora Gullone on Feb 06, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy
Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 12, 67–79 (2005)
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/cpp.433
The Inventory of
Parent and Peer
Attachment—Revised
(IPPA-R) for Children:
A Psychometric
Investigation
Eleonora Gullone* and Kym Robinson
Department of Psychology, Monash University, Australia
Despite the importance of attachment theory in developmental
research, there is an absence of valid and reliable tools with which to
assess attachment beyond infancy and prior to late adolescence. To
address this issue the present investigation reports on the revision
and psychometric evaluation of the Inventory for Parent and Peer
Attachment (IPPA, Armsden & Greenberg, 1987), a measure of attach-
ment developed for use with older adolescents and young adults. The
simplified revised measure (IPPA-R) was administered along with the
Parental Bonding Inventory (PBI; Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979)
and the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (SEI) to two samples of
youth: 118 youth aged 9–11 years; 163 youth aged 14–15 years. Our
findings provided support for the reliability and validity of the
revised measure. It was concluded that the IPPA-R constitutes a
useful tool for the assessment of both parent and peer attachment in
youth aged between 9 and 15 years. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
*Correspondence to: Associate Professor, E. Gullone, PhD,
FAPS, Department of Psychology, Monash University,
Monash, Victoria, Australia, 3800.
E-mail: E.Gullone@med.monash.edu.au
According to Bowlby’s (1969) evolutionary–
ethological attachment theory, the infant is
endowed with an ‘attachment behavioural
system’, which ensures sufficient proximity to
primary caregivers to promote the infant’s sur-
vival. Essentially, attachment theory describes a
fundamental normative process in early develop-
ment defined in terms of behavioural and affective
regulation. The attachment relationship represents
a ‘special type of social relationship’ (Bowlby, 1969,
p. 376) and involves an affective bond between
infant and caregiver that may be characterized in
terms of regulation of infant emotion.
An impressive amount of research has been
carried out, providing strong empirical support
for most of the key components of attachment
theory (Carlson & Sroufe, 1995; Rutter, 1995).
Given Bowlby’s proposals that the attachment
bond develops from birth and that it promotes sur-
vival in the young infant, it is not surprising that
the majority of this research has focussed on
infancy or early childhood. It is equally not sur-
prising that methods and measures for assessing
attachment have been developed primarily for
these early years of life. Perhaps the most fre-
quently cited method of assessing attachment is
the observational ‘strange situation’ method devel-
Assessment
68 E. Gullone and K. Robinson
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 12, 67–79 (2005)
oped by Mary Ainsworth and colleagues
(Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). Using
this method, researchers demonstrated that indi-
vidual differences in patterns of behaviour during
infancy can reliably be classified as secure or inse-
cure. Consistent with Bowlby’s theoretical propos-
als, these patterns of behaviour have been shown
to be moderately stable over long periods of time
under stable family and caretaking conditions (see,
e.g. Fraley, 2002; Hamilton, 2000; Lewis, Feiring, &
Rosenthal, 2000). Moreover, an affective bond char-
acterized by warmth, availability, trust, and
responsiveness with at least one individual
throughout the lifespan has been proposed to be
important for psychological adjustment (see, e.g.
MacDonald, 1992). Indeed, much research has
shown such a bond to be an important factor in
predicting resilience in individuals faced with sub-
stantial adversity (e.g. Cicchetti & Garmezy, 1993;
O’Connell-Higgins, 1994).
Reflecting the increased recognition of the impor-
tance of attachment across the lifespan (see, e.g.
Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994), research into attach-
ment relationships beyond the preschool years is
increasingly being conducted (e.g. Armsden &
Greenberg, 1987; Gullone, King, & Ollendick,
2002). Self-report measures of attachment have
been utilized to assess attachment in adolescence,
in comparison with the observational measures
utilized in infancy (Bretherton, 1985). Such
measures allow researchers to gain insight into
the cognitively based representations of individu-
als’ internal working models (Berlin & Cassidy,
1999).
However, only a very limited number of psy-
chometrically validated self-report measures that
assess cognitive representations of attachment
have been developed (e.g. West, Rose, Spreng,
Sheldon-Keller, & Adam, 1998). These have pri-
marily been developed for use with older adoles-
cents and/or adults. For example, the initial
version of the Parental Bonding Inventory (PBI)
developed by Parker et al. (1979) requires that
adults retrospectively respond in relation to their
experiences of parenting during their adolescent
years. Versions enabling current reporting of par-
enting perceptions by adolescents have since been
developed (e.g. Cubis, Lewis, & Dawes, 1989; Herz
& Gullone, 1999; Klimidis, Minas, & Ata, 1992;
Klimidas, Minas, Ata, & Stuart, 1992).
The PBI assesses attachment on two dimensions,
these being parental nurturance, ranging from
parental care and involvement to indifference and
neglect, and parental overprotection, ranging from
over-control to encouragement of independence
and autonomy. Studies using this measure with
adolescent samples have consistently found a pos-
itive association between self-esteem and the Care
dimension and a negative association between self-
esteem and the Overprotection dimension (e.g.
Herz & Gullone, 1999; Rice & Cummins, 1996).
Another self-report measure of attachment is the
Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA)
developed by Armsden and Greenberg (1987). In
line with Bowlby’s attachment theory, the IPPA
measures psychological security derived from rela-
tionships with significant others. In particular,
this measure assesses the quality of attachment to
parents and peers. For each of the parent and peer
scales of the IPPA, items are included to assess
three aspects of attachment including trust, com-
munication and alienation. Specifically, the Trust
scale measures the degree of mutual understand-
ing and respect in the attachment relationship, the
Communication scale assesses the extent and
quality of spoken communication and the Alien-
ation scale assesses feelings of anger and inter-
personal alienation.
In their psychometric investigation of the IPPA,
involving a sample of adolescents aged between
16 and 20 years, Armsden and Greenberg (1987)
found significant inter-correlations between all
subscales. Specifically, Trust and Communication
were found to be positively correlated (r=0.76 for
each of the parent and peer scales). In contrast, the
Alienation subscale was inversely correlated with
each of the Communication (r=-0.70 for parents
and r=-0.40 for peers) and Trust (r=-0.76 for
parents and r=-0.46 for peers) subscales.
Past research has demonstrated that relation-
ships characterized by high levels of acceptance,
warmth and trust between children and adoles-
cents and their parents as well as their peers are
positively associated with self-esteem (e.g. Gecas,
1971; Greenberg, Siegal, & Leitch, 1983; Walker
& Green, 1986). Consistent with such research,
Armsden and Greenberg (1987) found that higher
quality attachments with significant others (both
parents and peers), as assessed with the IPPA, were
related to more positive perceptions of oneself as
a family member and to higher scores on self-
concept as measured using the Tennessee Self-
Concept Scale (Fitts, 1965). Each of peer and parent
attachment scores were found to be significant pre-
dictors of adolescent self-esteem.
It is noteworthy, however, that the IPPA has been
demonstrated to be a valid measure of attachment
for the developmental periods of mid- to late ado-
IPPA-R for Children 69
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 12, 67–79 (2005)
lescence and early adulthood. Therefore, there
remains, in large part, a paucity of assessment tools
available to measure attachment representations
post-infancy and pre-adolescence (Green &
Goldwyn, 2002). Given the identified need for a
measure of attachment appropriate for use with
children and young adolescents, in the present
study we report the revision and psychometric
evaluation of the IPPA for children and young ado-
lescents. On the basis of the research reviewed
above, we propose that subscales of the revised
IPPA will correlate significantly both with each
other and with a valid measure of self-esteem (i.e.
Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory), in line with
correlations reported by Armsden and Greenberg
(1987). We also predict that scores on each of the
two dimensions of the PBI will correlate signifi-
cantly with the IPPA-R subscales. Specifically, we
predict that the Alienation subscale scores (parent
and peer) will correlate positively with scores on
the PBI Overprotection dimension but negatively
with the PBI Care dimension. In addition, we
predict that each of the Communication and Trust
subscales will correlate positively with the Care
dimension but negatively with the Overprotection
dimension.
METHOD
Participants
Twenty-five schools were contacted to participate
in the study, out of which six primary and three
secondary schools agreed to participate. This rep-
resents a 36% response rate for schools. The total
number of students recruited from the nine partic-
ipating schools was 281. The sample was divided
into two age-groups for data analysis. The first,
constituting the child group, was aged between 9
and 11 years (age: M=9.97, SD =0.72) and com-
prised a total of 118 (91 males, 27 females) grade
four and five students. The second group was
aged between 14 and 15 years (age M=14.16, SD
=0.37) and comprised a total of 163 (33 males,
130 females) participants. This group will subse-
quently be referred to as the young adolescent
sample. Only participants who were given writ-
ten parental consent to participate were involved
in the study. The overall parent consent rate
was 38.76%. This is consistent with other studies
requiring active consent (Hollman & McNamara,
1999).
Measures
The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment
(IPPA; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987)
The original version of the IPPA was developed
to measure attachment in older adolescents. It
assesses the positive and negative affective and
cognitive dimensions of adolescents’ relationships
with their parents and close friends. For each of the
28 items assessing parent attachment and the 25
items assessing peer attachment, respondents are
required to rate the degree to which each item is
true for them on a five-point scale ranging from
‘Almost always or always true’ to ‘Almost never or
never true’. The items in each of the scales (i.e.
parent, peer) were demonstrated through principal
components analysis to cluster into three factors
(trust; communication; anger and alienation). In
the present study, the IPPA-R was scored in accor-
dance with directions provided by Armsden and
Greenberg (1987) (see Armsden & Greenberg, 1987,
for details).
Using two samples of undergraduate students
who ranged in age from 16 to 20 years, Armsden
and Greenberg (1987) reported good internal
consistency for the IPPA with Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients ranging between 0.72 and 0.91 for the
sub-scales across both the parent and peer scales.
Good test–retest reliability for a sample of 18–20-
year-olds over a three-week period was also
reported with correlation coefficients ranging
between 0.86 for peer attachment and 0.93 for
parent attachment (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987).
Convergent validity has been reported on the
basis of moderate correlations between the IPPA
and other measures, including the Family Self-
Concept subscale of the Tennessee Self-Concept
Scale (r=0.78 with parent attachment; r=0.28 with
peer attachment) and the Social Self-Concept sub-
scale (r=0.46 with Parent attachment; r=0.57 with
Peer attachment). Also, significant positive corre-
lations between parent attachment and the Cohe-
sion (r=0.56), Expressiveness (r=0.52) and
Organization (r=0.38) subscales of the Family
Environment Scale (FES) have been reported. In
addition, significant negative correlations with the
Conflict (r=-0.36) and Control (r=-0.20) subscales
of the FES were reported (Armsden & Greenberg,
1987).
The Self-Esteem Inventory—School Form
(SEI; Coopersmith, 1981)
The SEI was used to measure self-esteem. This
measure was designed for use with respondents
70 E. Gullone and K. Robinson
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 12, 67–79 (2005)
aged between 8 and 15 years. It consists of 58 items
of which 50 items constitute a Global self-esteem
scale and eight items constitute a lie or defensive-
ness scale scale). Respondents are required to rate
each item on a two-point scale as either ‘Like me’
or ‘Unlike me’. Higher scores indicated higher self-
esteem. Although the SEI also yields four sub-scale
scores, for the present purposes only the total
Global self-esteem score was used.
The SEI has been shown to have good psycho-
metric properties. Kudar–Richardson reliability
estimates and split-half reliability coefficients have
been determined across large samples to range
between 0.81 and 0.92. The test–retest reliability
of the measure over a 12-month period has also
been shown to be good, with a test–retest coeffi-
cient of 0.64 for 104 children in grades 5 and 6
(Coopersmith, 1981). Adequate validity has also
been reported on the basis of significant positive
correlations between the SEI and an achievement
(r=0.33) as well as an intelligence measure (r=
0.30) (Coopersmith, 1981).
The Parental Bonding Instrument
(PBI; Parker et al. 1979)
As previously noted, the PBI was originally
developed to assess adults’ perceptions of their
parents’ behaviours and attitudes in their first 16
years of life. The instrument comprises 25 state-
ments assessing each of the Care (12 items) and
Overprotection (13 items) dimensions. The Care
item ‘Is emotionally cold to me’ was excluded
upon request from the university ethics committee,
who considered the item to be inappropriate for
the young sample involved in the present study.
Respondents were required to rate each of the
remaining 24 items as to how closely the statement
represented their parenting perceptions using a
four-point Likert scale ranging from very unlike to
very like.
The original version of the PBI has been shown
to have sound psychometric properties. Parker and
colleagues (1979) reported a split-half reliability of
0.88 for the Care scale and 0.74 for the Overpro-
tection scale. Test–retest reliability coefficients over
a three-week period were reported to be 0.76 for
the Care scale and 0.63 for the Overprotection
scale. Predictive validity has also been reported
through a number of studies examining the asso-
ciation with psychosocial morbidity. For example,
people with anxiety, phobic and depressive disor-
ders have been found to score higher on the Over-
protection dimension but lower on the Care
dimension (see, e.g. Parker, 1979a, 1979b, 1983;
Silove, 1986).
Of particular relevance in the current study, the
version of the PBI used was the revision reported
by Herz and Gullone (1999) wherein the wording
of the PBI was changed from retrospective to
current. Demonstrating validity for this revised
version, in two adolescent samples (an Anglo-
Australian and a Vietnamess sample), Herz and
Gullone reported significant positive correlations
between the SEI and the Care dimensions of the
PBI and significant negative correlations with the
Overprotection dimension. Good internal consis-
tency for each of the dimensions was also reported
in each of the adolescent samples.
Procedure
The IPPA items were reviewed and revised with a
view to simplifying the wording so as to promote
their comprehension by children and younger ado-
lescents. In addition, the five-point response scale
was simplified to a three-point scale with ‘always
true’, ‘sometimes true’ and ‘never true’ as the
response options. As shown in Table 1, 16 of the 28
parent attachment items and 14 of the 25 peer
attachment were revised. The revised items, as
detailed in Table 1, were independently evaluated
and endorsed by two primary school teachers prior
to being administered to the respondents.
Prior to data collection, approval was obtained
from the University ethics committee and the
governing body of Catholic schools in Victoria,
Australia. Following this, the principals of all
schools approached to participate were sent a letter
informing them of the study. The final nine princi-
pals who gave permission for their schools to par-
ticipate also nominated the classes of children in
their school which would be approached to be
involved in the study.
All parents of children in nominated classes
were provided with an explanatory statement and
consent form, via their children. Parents who pro-
vided consent for their child to participate in the
study were required to return a signed consent
form. Children were also asked to complete a
consent form as per ethics committee requirement.
The questionnaires were completed on a small
group basis and in a quiet room at the child’s
school during school hours. The measures were
counterbalanced across different groups to control
for possible order effects. The voluntary nature of
the child’s participation was clearly stated prior to
distributing the questionnaires. It was also empha-
IPPA-R for Children 71
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 12, 67–79 (2005)
Table 1. Original and revised items of the IPPA
Original item Revised item (where changed)
Parent Attachment Items
I feel my parents are successful as parents. My parents are good parents.
I have to rely on myself when I have a problem to solve. I can depend on my parents to help me solve a
problem (R)
I like to get my parents’ point of view on things I’m I like to get my parents’ view on things I’m
concerned about. worried about.
I feel it’s no use letting my feelings show. It helps to show my feelings when I’m upset (R).
My parents sense when I’m upset about something. My parents can tell when I’m upset about something.
Talking over my problems with my parents makes me I feel silly or ashamed when I talk about my
feel ashamed or foolish. problems with my parents.
I get upset easily at home. I easily get upset at home.
When we discuss things, my parents consider my point When I talk about things with my parents they listen
of view. to what I think.
My parents trust my judgement. My parents listen to my opinions.
My parents encourage me to talk about my difficulties. My parents support me to talk about my worries.
I don’t know whom I can depend on these days. I don’t know who I can depend on.
When I am angry about something, my parents try to When I am angry about something, my parents try
be understanding. to understand.
My parents don’t understand what I’m going through My parents understand my problems (R).
these days.
I can count on my parents when I need to get something I can count on my parents when I need to talk about
off my chest. a problem.
I feel that no one understands me. No one understands me.
If my parents know something is bothering me, they ask If my parents know that I am upset about
me about it. something, they ask me about it.
Peer Attachment Items
I like to get my friends’ point of view on things I’m I like to get my friends’ opinions on things I’m
concerned about. worried about.
My friends sense when I’m upset about something. My friends can tell when I’m upset about something.
When we discuss things, my friends consider my point When we talk, my friends listen to my opinion.
of view.
Talking over my problems with my friends makes me feel I feel silly or ashamed when I talk about my
ashamed and foolish. problems with my friends.
My friends encourage me to talk about my difficulties. My friends support me to talk about my problems.
I feel the need to be in touch with my friends more often. I feel the need to be around my friends.
My friends don’t understand what I’m going through My friends don’t understand my problems.
these days.
I feel alone or apart when I am with my friends. I do not feel like I belong when I am with my friends.
I feel my friends are good friends. My friends are good friends
When I am angry about something, my friends try to be When I am angry about something, my friends try
understanding. to understand.
My friends are concerned about my well-being. My friends care about the way I feel.
I can count on my friends when I need to get something I can count on my friends to listen when something
off my chest. is bothering me.
It seems as if my friends are irritated with me for no My friends get annoyed with me for no reason.
reason.
I tell my friends about my problems and troubles.
If my friends know something is bothering me, they ask If my friends know that I am upset about something,
me about it. they ask me about it.
(R) refers to revised items that are scored in reverse to their equivalent item on the original IPPA.
sized to the children that there were no correct
or incorrect answers but rather that it was the
answers that were most true for them that were of
interest to us. For the child sample, the directions
for questionnaire completion and the individual
questionnaire items were read aloud to the stu-
dents by the administrator of the questionnaires
(i.e. second author).
72 E. Gullone and K. Robinson
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 12, 67–79 (2005)
All participants completed the SEI and the mod-
ified version of the IPPA but only a sub-sample of
participants completed the PBI. For the Parent
Attachment section of the IPPA-R, participants
were asked to answer with regard to their rela-
tionship with both parents. The sub-sample who
completed the PBI comprised 43 participants (21
males, 22 females); 15 in the child group and 28
in the young adolescent group. Children were
instructed to nominate either mother or father and
to respond to the PBI items in relation to the nom-
inated parent. The average time required by the
children to complete the questionnaires varied
between 20 and 30 minutes depending on the age
of participants and the number of questionnaires
administered.
RESULTS
Below we report descriptive statistics for the mea-
sures used. These are followed by the internal con-
sistency coefficients for the IPPA-R total scores and
subscales by age group and sex. We then report the
correlations between the IPPA-R scores and the
other measures (i.e. PBI, SEI). We also report cor-
relations between the two scales of the IPPA-R
(i.e. Parent Attachment and Peer Attachment) as
well as inter-correlations between the IPPA-R sub-
scales. These are reported separately for each of the
age and sex groups.
Prior to conducting statistical analyses, integrity
issues related to the data were examined. Missing
data and outliers were identified and dealt with.
For example, it was found that 10 cases had
missing data for item 45 of the SEI. There were
other instances of missing data, although this was
the item missing the largest number of values.
Given that the missing data appeared to be ran-
domly scattered across cases and questionnaires, it
was considered acceptable to replace the missing
item value with the mean for that particular item.
To detect possible outliers, standardized scores
were computed for the total scores of each of the
variables. Scores in excess of ±3.29 were identified
as outliers. This resulted in the deletion of four
cases, reducing the overall sample size from 281 to
277.
Descriptive Statistics
A total score for each of the IPPA-R Parent and Peer
Attachment scales was calculated by obtaining a
sum of the Trust and Communication subscales
and then subtracting the Alienation subscale score.
The IPPA-R overall and sub-scale score means and
standard deviations are presented in Table 2. These
are provided for the overall sample as well as for
each age group and sex. Similarly, total SEI score
and PBI nurturance and overprotection means and
standard deviations for the overall sample as well
as for each age and sex group are provided in Table
2. No significant group differences were found for
self-esteem. In contrast, for the IPPA-R scores, there
were significant age-group and sex differences for
all of the IPPA-R sub-scales, with one exception
being the Alienation sub-scale of the Parent Attach-
Table 2. Means and standard deviations for the SEI, and the IPPA-R by age group and sex
Measure Children Adolescents Males Females Overall sample
MSD MSD MSD MSD MSD
Total SEI score 79.95 16.49 79.44 14.16 ns 77.66 16.01 78.39 14.60 ns 79.09 15.17
IPPA-R—Parents
Trust 14.83 2.00 13.83 2.67*** 14.79 1.99 13.81 2.70** 14.22 2.48
Communication 14.70 2.74 12.79 3.42*** 14.26 2.99 13.02 3.43** 13.53 3.31
Alienation 4.39 3.14 4.92 3.56 ns 3.94 2.80 5.26 3.69** 4.72 3.41
Total score 25.14 6.78 21.70 8.71*** 25.11 6.37 21.57 8.97*** 23.03 8.18
IPPA-R—Peers
Trust 14.26 3.06 15.76 2.97*** 13.94 3.07 16.06 2.79*** 15.19 3.08
Communication 11.51 3.73 14.12 3.55*** 10.84 3.39 14.70 3.29*** 13.11 3.83
Alienation 4.22 2.48 3.44 2.32** 4.40 2.39 3.28 2.32*** 3.74 2.41
Total score 21.55 8.16 26.45 7.94*** 20.37 7.73 27.48 7.52*** 24.56 8.36
PBI Care 27.87 3.70 26.71 4.81 ns 26.75 3.04 27.43 5.43 ns 27.12 4.44
PBI Overprotection 15.73 7.38 12.14 6.89 ns 13.67 6.56 13.14 7.89 ns 13.40 7.19
t-test outcomes noted as ns =not significant, **p<0.01, *** p<0.001.
IPPA-R for Children 73
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 12, 67–79 (2005)
ment scale. No significant age-group differences
were found for this sub-scale. The significant age-
group differences were due to the child sample
scoring significantly higher on the Communication
and Trust sub-scales as well as on the overall
Parent Attachment scale compared with the ado-
lescent sample. In contrast, the differences relating
to Peer Attachment were due to the adolescent
sample scoring significantly higher than the child
sample on Trust, Communication, and overall Peer
Attachment but lower on the peer Alienation
sub-scale.
With regard to the significant sex differences,
males scored higher than females on parent Trust
and Communication as well as on overall IPPA-R
parent attachment but lower on parent Alienation.
In contrast, females scored higher on two (i.e. Trust
and Communication) of the IPPA-R peer attach-
ment sub-scales but lower on the Alienation sub-
scale. Females also scored higher than males on
overall Peer Attachment. It is important to
note, however, that the female sample was over-
represented by older participants while the male
sample was over-represented by younger partici-
pants. This may explain why the trends for males
and females are generally the same as those for the
two age-groups.
Descriptive statistics and t-test comparisons for
the PBI revealed no significant age-group or sex
differences in ratings for parental nurturance or
overprotection. The means and standard devia-
tions for the two dimensions are shown in Table 2.
Cronbach’s Alpha Internal Consistency
Internal consistency analyses were carried out for
each of the measures. Alpha coefficients were
determined for the two dimensions of the PBI, for
overall SEI, and for the overall IPPA-R Peer and
Parent Attachment scales as well as for each IPPA-
R sub-scale. These were determined for the overall
sample and by age and sex groups. The results
are shown in Table 3. As is evident upon examina-
tion of Table 3, the internal consistency coefficients
did not differ markedly across the sub-groups,
with the exception of the alpha coefficients for PBI
Care. For this variable, there was a marked differ-
ence, with a more acceptable alpha being yielded
for the older age group of participants and for
females. On the whole, the coefficients demon-
strated good internal consistency for all of the
variables, with the exception of those for the
Alienation sub-scale of the Peer Attachment scale,
which were somewhat weaker, but nevertheless
acceptable.
Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients Between
the IPPA-R and the Other Measures
Convergent validity coefficients between the IPPA-
R and self-esteem scores, as well as with the PBI
dimensions of Care and Overprotection, are shown
in Table 4. What is clearly evident is that the over-
all Parent Attachment score of the IPPA-R was
strongly positively correlated with the Care dimen-
sion of the PBI and moderately negatively corre-
lated with the Overprotection dimension of the
PBI. With the exception of the Parent Communica-
tion subscale of the IPPA-R, the sub-scales of the
Parent Attachment scale were moderately corre-
lated with the PBI dimensions. However, the cor-
relations were generally smaller than those with
the total Parent Attachment score. Peer Attachment
Table 3. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the overall SEI, PBI Care and Overprotection dimensions, and the IPPA-
R scales as well as its sub-scales, by age group and sex
Measure Children Adolescents Males Females Overall
Self-Esteem 0.90 0.87 0.89 0.87 0.88
Parent Attachment
Trust 0.83 0.85 0.77 0.77 0.78
Communication 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.83 0.82
Alienation 0.76 0.81 0.60 0.69 0.79
Peer Attachment
Trust 0.80 0.86 0.82 0.88 0.86
Communication 0.84 0.86 0.80 0.86 0.87
Alienation 0.66 0.68 0.63 0.65 0.69
Parental Care 0.65 0.85 0.52 0.88 0.80
Parental Overprotection 0.80 0.86 0.74 0.86 0.84
74 E. Gullone and K. Robinson
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 12, 67–79 (2005)
and its sub-scales were also found to be moderately
correlated with the PBI Care dimension. In con-
trast, the Overprotection dimension was not found
to correlate significantly with the IPPA-R peer
attachment measure.
With regard to self-esteem, on the whole, the cor-
relation coefficients were found to be significant
and moderately sized. Whilst for the child group
there was no apparent difference in the strength of
the correlations across Parent and Peer Attach-
ment, for the adolescent group the coefficients
were somewhat stronger between self-esteem and
Parent Attachment compared with Peer Attach-
ment. No marked sex differences were apparent in
the strength of the correlations. As expected, the
coefficients were positive for all IPPA-R scales with
the exception of Alienation.
Inter-Correlations Between the IPPA-R Scales
and Subscales by Age Group
Table 5 shows the inter-correlation coefficients
between the Parent and Peer Attachment total and
sub-scale scores, by age group. Not surprisingly,
the within scale (i.e. Parent Attachment, Peer
Attachment) correlations were found to be consis-
tently higher than those across scales (i.e. Parent
Attachment scores with Peer Attachment scores).
This was true for each of the child and adolescent
Table 4. Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficients between the IPPA-R scores with self-esteem and the PBI
by age group and sex
Measure Self-esteem score PBI (overall sample)
Children Adolescents Males Females Care Overprotection
Parent Attachment 0.51*** 0.65*** 0.49*** 0.62*** 0.73*** -0.51**
Trust 0.41*** 0.60*** 0.41*** 0.57*** 0.45** -0.40*
Communication 0.28** 0.51*** 0.20* 0.49*** 0.45** -0.05
Alienation -0.60*** -0.65*** -0.63*** -0.64*** -0.58*** 0.57***
Peer Attachment 0.50*** 0.33*** 0.45*** 0.47*** 0.36* -0.24
Trust 0.49*** 0.33*** 0.42*** 0.44*** 0.44** -0.25
Communication 0.31** 0.27*** 0.22* 0.43*** 0.42** -0.29
Alienation -0.59*** -0.35*** -0.59*** -0.38*** -0.33* 0.15
Significance levels are for one-tailed correlations.
*p<0.05, **p<0.01, *** p<0.001.
Table 5. Pearson’s product-moment inter-correlation coefficients between the IPPA-R scale and subscale scores by
age group
Measure Parent Attachment Peer Attachment
Trust Communication Alienation Trust Communication Alienation
Parent Attachment (overall) 0.87*** 0.85*** -0.87***
0.90*** 0.90*** -0.90***
Trust 0.67*** -0.64*** 0.30** 0.28** -0.15
0.74*** -0.74*** 0.24** 0.21** -0.18*
Communication -0.53*** 0.26** 0.30** -0.16
-0.68*** 0.20** 0.24** -0.20**
Alienation -0.31** -0.20* -0.33***
-0.13*-0.06 0.29***
Peer Attachment (overall) 0.92*** 0.91*** -0.78***
0.93*** 0.93*** -0.81***
Trust 0.79*** -0.62***
0.82*** -0.66***
Communication -0.53***
-0.61***
Significance levels are for one-tailed correlations.
*p<0.05, **p<0.01, *** p<0.001.
Coefficients for the adolescent sample are given in italics and bold font.
IPPA-R for Children 75
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 12, 67–79 (2005)
age groups. Also, each of the Parent and Peer
overall attachment scores correlated highly with
their respective sub-scale scores. Correlations
between sub-scales, within each of the Parent and
Peer attachment scales, were also consistently
moderately high. Finally, there were no marked
differences in the patterns of association between
the two age groups, although the correlations
between scales tended to be stronger for the
younger group and those within scales tended to
be somewhat higher for the older group.
Table 6 shows the correlations between the same
variable pairs as Table 5, this time by sex. As with
the coefficients in Table 5, the within scale correla-
tions were found to be consistently higher than
those across scales. This was true for each of the
male and female sub-groups. Again, the overall
attachment scores for each of Parent and Peer
Attachment correlated strongly with their respec-
tive sub-scale scores. As with the age-groups, there
were no marked differences in the patterns of asso-
ciation between males and females.
DISCUSSION
Despite its central place in developmental theories
(Rutter, 1995), the incorporation of the attachment
construct into research involving participants
beyond infancy and prior to late adolescence
has been difficult given the limited availability
of age appropriate measures (Green & Goldwyn,
2002).
On the basis of several criteria, including its
assessment of key aspects of the attachment rela-
tionship (i.e. trust, communication and alienation)
and its demonstrated psychometric soundness, we
considered the IPPA an appropriate measure to
adapt for use with children. To that end, we sim-
plified the wording of the IPPA items. Specifically,
16 of the 28 parent attachment items were revised,
as were 14 of the 25 peer attachment items.
Investigation of the revised measure’s psycho-
metric properties included an initial set of analyses
aimed at examining whether age and sex differ-
ences on the IPPA-R scale and subscale scores
would be found. These analyses yielded significant
differences, indicating that the IPPA-R is sensitive
to age and sex differences. In relation to age dif-
ferences, the early adolescent group scored signi-
ficantly higher than the child group on overall Peer
Attachment as well as Trust and Communication.
In contrast, adolescents scored lower on the peer
Alienation subscale compared to the child group.
When examining Parent Attachment, on the whole,
the child group scored significantly higher than the
adolescent group on all scores, with the exception
of the Alienation subscale, for which there were
no age-group differences. It is important to note,
however, that this should not be interpreted as an
indication that attachments to parents are less
Table 6. Pearson’s product-moment inter-correlation coefficients between the IPPA-R scale and subscale scores by
sex
Measure Parent Attachment Peer Attachment
Trust Communication Alienation Trust Communication Alienation
Parent Attachment (overall) 0.86*** 0.82*** -0.79***
0.90*** 0.92*** -0.92***
Trust 0.61*** -0.59*** 0.27** 0.25** -0.17 ns
0.78*** -0.74*** 0.30*** 0.31*** -0.19*
Communication -0.35*** 0.23* 0.30** -0.09 ns
-0.74*** 0.21** 0.26** -0.24**
Alienation -0.29** -0.16 ns 0.39***
-0.24** -0.23** 0.33***
Peer Attachment (overall) 0.92*** 0.89*** -0.78***
0.93*** 0.93*** -0.81***
Trust 0.75*** -0.64***
0.83*** -0.63***
Communication -0.51***
-0.60***
Significance levels are for one-tailed correlations.
*p<0.05, **p<0.01, *** p<0.001.
Coefficients for the female sample are given in italics and bold font.
76 E. Gullone and K. Robinson
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 12, 67–79 (2005)
important for adolescents’ psychological wellbeing
compared to that of children (cf. Gecas, 1972;
O’Donnell, 1976) as is indicated by the correlations
found between IPPA-R scale and subscale scores
and self-esteem (as will be discussed in more detail
below).
Sex differences on the IPPA-R scale and subscale
scores were the result of males generally scoring
higher than females on Parent Attachment but
females scoring higher than males on peer attach-
ment. Given that the sex differences on the
Alienation subscale for both parent and peer were
in the opposite direction, the findings indicated
that males reported more positive attachments
with their parents than did females. In contrast,
females reported more positive attachments with
their peers compared with males. These differences
are intriguing and warrant further investigation to
determine whether they are a reflection of real
differences in attachment relationships or whether
they are related to response style on the self-report
measure.
Analyses relating to the reliability of the IPPA-R
demonstrated that the internal consistency coeffi-
cients did not differ markedly by age or sex group.
The coefficients ranged between 0.60 (on Parent
Alienation for males) and 0.88 (on Peer Trust for
females) and thus indicated adequate to good
internal consistency for each of the IPPA-R sub-
scales across the sub-samples investigated. The
coefficients yielded were highly comparable to
those reported by Armsden and Greenberg (1987)
for the IPPA, which ranged between 0.72 and 0.91
for the sub-scales across both the parent and peer
scales.
Consistent with the work by Armsden and
Greenberg with the IPPA, we examined convergent
validity by correlating reports on the IPPA-R with
reports on self-esteem. In general, moderate corre-
lations in the predicted direction were found for all
scores on the IPPA-R and therefore provided
support for the validity of the revised measure. The
reason is not clear but correlations were weakest
on the Communication subscale scores across both
Parent and Peer Attachment and particularly for
the male and child sub-samples. It is also impor-
tant to note that, whilst the differences were not
large, there was some tendency for the correlations
between self-esteem and Parent Attachment to be
stronger for the adolescent sub-sample compared
with the child sub-sample. This is consistent with
outcomes reported in studies comparing peer and
parent relationships in relation to psychological
adjustment. Such studies have primarily shown
that post-adolescence, youths’ perceptions of their
relationships with their parents remain more
important than those with peers (see, e.g., Gecas,
1972; O’Donnell, 1976).
As was predicted, the overall Parent Attachment
score of the IPPA-R was strongly positively
correlated with the Care dimension of the PBI
and moderately negatively correlated with the
Overprotection dimension of the PBI. For the most
part, the sub-scales of the Parent Attachment scale
were also moderately correlated with the PBI
dimensions. Peer Attachment and its sub-scales
were also found to be significantly correlated with
the PBI Care dimension. In contrast, the Overpro-
tection dimension was not found to correlate
significantly with the IPPA-R peer attachment
measure. The different pattern of association
between the PBI with IPPA-R Parent versus
Peer Attachment is not surprising since parental
overprotection would not be expected to
significantly spill over into peer relationship
quality. In contrast, care, otherwise referred to as
warmth and nurturance, has been identified as a
central factor in the development of intimate
relationships across the lifespan (cf. Griffin &
Bartholomew, 1994; MacDonald, 1992). It is also of
interest that, in contrast to the findings relating to
self-esteem, the correlation analyses between the
PBI and the IPPA-R did not reveal the Communi-
cation subscale to be weakly correlated with the
Care dimension.
Finally, we examined the interrelationships
between the IPPA-R scales and subscales. Our find-
ings were highly consistent with those reported by
Armsden and Greenberg (1987). Specifically, we
found that each of the total IPPA-R Parent and Peer
Attachment scores correlated strongly with their
respective sub-scale scores. Correlations between
sub-scales, within scales, were also consistently
moderately strong. Comparison of the correlation
coefficients across age and sex sub-groups did not
reveal any major differences, suggesting that the
IPPA-R assessed the constructs in a comparable
way across sub-groups. These findings therefore
lend further support to the validity of the revised
measure.
Notwithstanding these promising findings, the
limitations of the study need to be acknowledged.
First, our sample was limited by an unequal rep-
resentation of males and females in the two age
groups of participants, with the child group being
over-represented by males and the adolescent
group being over-represented by females. Thus,
the analyses involving the age and sex sub-samples
IPPA-R for Children 77
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 12, 67–79 (2005)
warrant replication in order to determine their
validity. A second limitation relates to the small
sample involved in the convergent validity analy-
ses using the PBI. Although the outcomes were as
predicted, these findings can only be considered
tentative and need to be replicated.
In conclusion, our findings provide strong
support for the reliability and validity of the
revised IPPA. We found adequate to good internal
consistency for the IPPA-R Parent and Peer Attach-
ment scales as well as for each of the subscales. The
adequately sized correlations between the IPPA-R
total and subscale scores and another measure of
parent bonding (i.e. PBI: Parker et al., 1979) indi-
cate that the IPPA-R is a valid measure of attach-
ment in children and young adolescents. The
equally robust correlations found with self-esteem
are consistent with past research using the IPPA
with adolescents and young adults (Armsden &
Greenberg, 1987). This consistency provides good
indication that the revised IPPA is a sound tool for
the assessment of attachment in children and
adolescents aged between 9 and 15 years. Given
the limited attachment measures for children and
younger adolescents, the present study makes an
important contribution to the developmental
literature.
APPENDIX—THE IPPA-R
Parent Scale Items
1. My parents respect my feelings.
2. My parents are good parents.
3. I wish I had different parents.
4. My parents accept me as I am.
5. I can’t depend on my parents to help me solve
a problem.
6. I like to get my parents’ view on things I’m
worried about.
7. It does not help to show my feelings when I am
upset.
8. My parents can tell when I’m upset about
something.
9. I feel silly or ashamed when I talk about my
problems with my parents.
10. My parents expect too much from me.
11. I easily get upset at home.
12. I get upset a lot more than my parents know
about.
13. When I talk about things with my parents they
listen to what I think.
14. My parents listen to my opinions.
15. My parents have their own problems, so I don’t
bother them with mine.
16. My parents help me to understand myself
better.
17. I tell my parents about my problems and
troubles.
18. I feel angry with my parents.
19. I don’t get much attention at home.
20. My parents support me to talk about my
worries.
21. My parents understand me.
22. I don’t know who I can depend on.
23. When I am angry about something, my parents
try to understand.
24. I trust my parents.
25. My parents don’t understand my problems.
26. I can count on my parents when I need to talk
about a problem.
27. No one understands me.
28. If my parents know that I am upset about
something, they ask me about it.
Peer Scale Items
1. I like to get my friends’ opinions on things I’m
worried about.
2. My friends can tell when I’m upset about
something.
3. When we talk, my friends listen to my opinion.
4. I feel silly or ashamed when I talk about my
problems with my friends.
5. I wish I had different friends.
6. My friends understand me.
7. My friends support me to talk about my
worries.
8. My friends accept me as I am.
9. I feel the need to be around my friends more
often.
10. My friends don’t understand my problems.
11. I do not feel like I belong when I am with my
friends.
12. My friends listen to what I have to say.
13. My friends are good friends.
14. My friends are fairly easy to talk to.
15. When I am angry about something, my friends
try to understand.
16. My friends help me to understand myself
better.
17. My friends care about the way I feel.
18. I feel angry with my friends.
19. I can count on my friends to listen when some-
thing is bothering me.
20. I trust my friends.
78 E. Gullone and K. Robinson
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 12, 67–79 (2005)
21. My friends respect my feelings.
22. I get upset a lot more than my friends know
about.
23. My friends get annoyed with me for no reason.
24. I tell my friends about my problems and
troubles.
25. If my friends know that I am upset about some-
thing, they ask me about it.
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S.
(1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the
strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Armsden, G.C., & Greenberg, M.T. (1987). The inventory
of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences
and their relationship to psychological well-being
in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16,
427–454.
Berlin, L., & Cassidy, J. (1999). Relations among relation-
ships: Contributions from attachment theory and
research. In J. Cassidy, & P.R. Shaver (Eds), Handbook
of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications
(pp. 688–712). New York: Guilford.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment.
New York: Basic.
Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and
prospect. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 50, 3–35.
Carlson, E.A., & Sroufe, L.A. (1995). Contribution of
attachment theory to developmental psychopathology.
In D. Cicchetti, & D.J. Cohen (Eds), Developmental
psychopathology Volume 1: Theory and methods (pp.
581–616). New York: Wiley.
Cicchetti, D., & Garmezy, N. (1993). Prospects and
promises in the study of resilience. Development and
Psychopathology, 5, 497–502.
Coopersmith, S. (1981). Self-esteem inventories. Palo Alto
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Cubis, J., Lewis, T., & Dawes, F. (1989). Australian ado-
lescents’ perceptions of their parents. Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 23, 35–47.
Fitts, W.H. (1965). Tennessee Self-Concept Scale Manual.
Nashville: Counselor Recordings and Tests.
Fraley, R.C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to
adulthood: Meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of
developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 6, 123–151.
Gecas, V. (1971). Parental behavior and dimensions of
adolescent self-evaluation. Sociometry, 34, 466–482.
Gecas, V. (1972). Parental behavior and contextual varia-
tions in adolescent self-esteem. Sociometry, 35, 332–345.
Green, J., & Goldwyn, R. (2002). Annotation: Attachment
disorganisation and psychopathology: New findings
in attachment research and their potential implications
for developmental psychopathology in childhood.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 835–846.
Greenberg, M., Siegal, J., & Leitch, C. (1983). The nature
and importance of attachment relationships to parents
and peers during adolescence. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 12, 373–386.
Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self
and other: Fundamental dimensions underlying
measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 67, 430–445.
Gullone, E., King, N.J., & Ollendick, T.H. (June, 2002).
The role of attachment style in the development of
childhood depression. Paper presented at the Third
International Conference on Child and Adolescent Mental
Health, Brisbane.
Hamilton, C.E. (2002). Continuity and discontinuity of
attachment from infancy through adolescence. Child
Development, 71, 690–694.
Herz, L., & Gullone, E. (1999). The relationship between
self-esteem and parenting style: A cross-cultural
comparison of Australian and Vietnamese-Australian
adolescents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30,
742–761.
Hollman, C.M., & McNamara, J.R. (1999). Considerations
in the use of active and passive parental consent
procedures. The Journal of Psychology, 133, 141–156.
Klimidis, S., Minas, I.H., & Ata, A.W. (1992). The PBI-BC:
A brief current form of the Parental Bonding Instru-
ment for adolescent research. Comprehensive Psychiatry,
33, 374–377.
Klimidis, S., Minas, I.H., Ata, A.W., & Stuart, G.W. (1992).
Construct validation in adolescents of the brief current
form of the Parental Bonding Instrument. Comprehen-
sive Psychiatry, 33, 378–383.
Lewis, M., Feiring, C., & Rosenthal, S. (2000). Attachment
over time. Child Development, 71, 707–720.
MacDonald, K. (1992). Warmth as a developmental con-
struct: An evolutionary analysis. Child Development, 63,
753–773.
O’Connell-Higgins, G. (1994). Resilient adults: Overcoming
a cruel past. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
O’Donnell, W.J. (1976). Adolescent self-esteem related
feelings toward parents and friends. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 5, 179–185.
Parker, G. (1979a). Reported parental characteristics in
relation to depressive disorders. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 134, 138–147.
Parker, G. (1979b). Reported parental characteristics
of agoraphobics and social phobics. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 135, 555–560.
Parker, G. (1983). Parental ‘affectionless control’ as
an antecedent to adult depression: A risk factor
delineated. Archives of General Psychiatry, 40, 956–
960.
Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L.B. (1979). A parental
bonding instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychol-
ogy, 52, 1–10.
Rice, K.G., & Cummins, P.N. (1996). Late adolescent and
parent perceptions of attachment: An exploratory
study of personal and social well-being. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 75, 50–57.
Rutter, M. (1995). Clinical implications of attachment
concepts: Retrospect and prospect. Journal of Child Psy-
chology and Psychiatry, 4, 549–571.
Silove, D. (1986). Perceived parental characteristics and
reports of early parental deprivation in agoraphobic
IPPA-R for Children 79
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 12, 67–79 (2005)
patients. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychia-
try, 20, 365–369.
Walker, L.S., & Green, J.W. (1986). The social context of
adolescent self-esteem. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
15, 315–322.
West, M., Rose, S., Spreng, S., Sheldon-Keller, A., &
Adam, K. (1998). Adolescent attachment question-
naire: Abrief assessment of attachment. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 27, 661–673.
