Psychometric Properties of the Brief Accessibility, Responsiveness, and Engagement Scale in a Community Sample of Turkish Adults

• Published date: 01 April 2021
• Author: Senem Zeytinoğlu‐Saydam,Gizem Erdem,Yudum Söylemez
• Date: 01 April 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12446

S Z

-S Ozyegin University

G EKoç University

Y S˙

Istanbul Bilgi University

Psychometric Properties of the Brief Accessibility,

Responsiveness, and Engagement Scale in a

Community Sample of Turkish Adults

Objective: The current study explored the psy-

chometric properties of the Brief Accessibility,

Responsivity, and Engagement (BARE) scale in

a sample of Turkish adults in ongoing committed

relationships (N=509).

Background: The sense of safety that results

from accessibility, responsiveness, and engage-

ment in a romantic relationship predicts more

positive expectations and affect about one’s

partner, as well as better emotion regulation

and communication skills in a relationship.

However, there are no studies investigating the

measurement of these behaviors in the context

of Turkish culture.

Method: The data for this study were collected

through either social media and online list-

servs or three college campuses in Istanbul

from November 2016 to June 2017. Partici-

pants were 27.26 (SD =9.82) years old on

average and mostly women (82.9%, n=422),

and approximately one quarter were married

(23.4%, n=121).

Department of Psychology, Ozyegin University,

Ni¸santepe Mah, Orman Sk. 34794 Çekmeköy-˙

Istanbul

(senem.zeytinoglu@ozyegin.edu.tr).

Key Words: attachment, adult, brief accessibility, responsiv-

ity, and engagement (BARE)scale, psychometric properties,

romantic relationships, turkish adults.

Results: Results showed that the BARE scale

demonstrated good internal and test–retest

reliability, as well as adequate concurrent and

discriminant validity. Conrmatory factor anal-

ysis supported the 12-item structure of the BARE

scale, but there was no support for the 2-item

by six-subscale structure in the Turkish sample.

Due to the high overlap between the BARE Self

and Partner subscales, the scale appears to be a

single-factor measure when used in the Turkish

context with a community sample of adults in

romantic relationships.

Conclusion: Further research is needed to test

the BARE scale’s psychometric qualities among

distressed and clinical samples, using reports of

both partners.

Attachment is a lasting and deep emotional

bond that connects one person with another

(Bowlby,1969). Attachment security is formed

during infancy and is characterized by secure

or insecure styles (i.e., avoidant or ambivalent)

or disorganized patterns in children’s responses

to separation from their primary care providers

(Ainsworth, etal., 1978). Attachment to the

primary caregiver in the early years is asso-

ciated with attachment in adult relationships

and the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral

components of those relationships (Mikulincer,

et al., 2002).

Family Relations 70 (April 2021): 557–574557

DOI:10.1111/fare.12446

558 Family Relations

Attachment security inuences the satis-

faction and quality of romantic relationships.

Individuals with secure attachment styles tend

to have long, stable, and satisfying roman-

tic relationships compared with individuals

with insecure attachment styles, who report

lower satisfaction, more frequent breakups,

conict, and intimate partner violence in their

relationships (Mikulincer & Shaver,2007).

Attachment security, as assessed in the Adult

Attachment Interview (AAI), is found to be

related to less negative affect, more respect,

and more open communication in couple

interaction(Wampleret al., 2003).Neverthe-

less, attachment security is not stable over

time; increasing empirical evidence shows

that attachment security can be relationship-

and partner-specic (Epstein etal.,2005;

Feeney, 2003).

Attachment security in adulthood is mea-

sured through two distinct dimensions: anxiety

andavoidance(Mikulincer&Shaver, 2007).

The levels of anxiety and avoidance affect

how the person deals with distress. Individuals

who are low on both anxiety and avoidance

tend to regulate their affect effectively in

times of relational distress. In contrast, indi-

viduals who score high on either dimension

tend to either deactivate (avoidance) or hyper-

activate (anxiety) their attachment system

to cope with relational distress (Cassidy &

Kobak, 1988).

These behavior patterns also affect attribu-

tions, expectations, emotions, and behaviors

in adultrelationships (Hazan&Shaver, 1987).

Individuals with high attachment anxiety worry

more about whether their partner will be

available and responsive to meet their needs.

Individuals high in attachment avoidance have

difculty trusting their partner and focus on

protecting their independence and seeking

emotional distance. Therefore, partners’ affect

regulation strategies also are affected by their

attachment security. In adult relationships, deac-

tivation is mostly characterized by suppressing

attachment needs, avoiding emotional engage-

ment with the partner, and redirecting the focus

to otherthings(Fraley, 2002). Hyperactivation,

in contrast, reveals itself in pursuing the partner

to get attention and love and may be perceived

by the partner as being clingy or even aggressive

(Fraley, 2002).

In a meta-analysis based on 73 previous stud-

ies, different effects of anxiety and avoidance

on relationship quality were examined (Li &

Chan, 2012). It was found that both anxiety and

avoidance were detrimental to the cognitive,

emotional, and behavioral aspects of relation-

ship quality. However, avoidance was more

negatively associated with general satisfaction,

connectedness, and support, whereas anxiety

was more positively associated with conict in

relationships.

Maternal sensitivity, dened as the degree of

accessibility and responsiveness, has been found

to be one of the critical behaviors of attachment

gures that promote an infant’s sense of safety

(Bowlby, 1969).Johnson (2008)suggested

that secure relationships in adulthood also are

characterized by these attachment behaviors.

Accessibility in adult relationships refers to part-

ners’ ability to stay emotionally open to each

other even when they feel insecure. Responsive-

ness is dened as partners’ accepting and tuning

in to each other’s emotions. Johnson(2008)

mentioned engagement as the third attachment

behavior; it entails partners reaching out in

comforting and soothing ways to each other,

with these behaviors associated with bonding

moments. The sense of safety that results from

accessibility, responsiveness,and engagement in

the romantic relationship predicts more positive

expectations and affect about the partner, as

well as better emotion regulation and communi-

cation skills in a relationship (Cobb et al., 2001;

Feeney, 2003). Unfortunately,to date, no studies

have investigated whether these behaviors are

indicative of secure attachment in cultures other

than individualistic cultures, such as the Turkish

culture.

A  A  A

Attachment security in adulthood is examined

using different methods (self-report, inter-

view, and observational) that mostly focus on

assessing individuals in terms of categories of

attachment styles. Hazan and Shaver(1987)

used a categorical approach where individuals

choose one of three types of adult attach-

ment style after reading descriptive paragraphs

(secure, avoidant, and preoccupied). In subse-

quent versions, continuous attachment scores

were computed (e.g., Fraley et al., 2000). One of

the most frequently used approaches is the AAI,

which focuses on the developmental aspect of

attachment style by assessing extensive narra-

tives of early attachment with parents (George