The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR)-Short Form: Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure

1,390 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

A Confirmatory Factor-Analytic Evaluation of the Purpose in Life Test: Preliminary Psychometric Support for a Replicable Two-Factor Model (2010, background): “Rigorous procedures should be followed to ensure that such a form is a reliable and valid construct and a strong representation of the larger PIL, not to mention the need to consider salient issues such as bandwidth and fidelity (see for example, Aiken and Groth-Marnat 2006; Cronbach 1984; Reise et ”
Attachment theory at work: A review and directions for future research (2018, background): “Due to their popularity and sound psychometric properties, in most cases, an adapted version of the ECR‐”
Attached to monogamy? Avoidance predicts willingness to engage (but not actual engagement) in consensual non-monogamy (2015, methodology): “The ECR-S Avoidance subscale (a ¼ .82) reflects discomfort with closeness.”
Why brands should fear fearful consumers: How attachment style predicts retaliation (2012, background): “In contrast, avoidance represents the individual's view of the trustworthiness of other people and reflects a desire for self-reliance and reluctance to self-disclose (Wei et al., 2007; Zhang & Hazan, 2002).”