Experience of Close Relationships Questionnaire Short Version ECR-R-18

Abstract

The Experience of Close Relationships Questionnaire Short Version (ECR-R-18) is an 18-item, self-report psychometric instrument designed to assess individual differences in adult attachment styles within romantic partnerships. Developed by Tinakon Wongpakaran and Nahathai Wongpakaran (2012) as a streamlined adaptation of the 36-item Revised Experience of Close Relationships questionnaire (ECR-R; Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000), the instrument captures the two foundational orthogonal dimensions of adult romantic attachment: Attachment Anxiety (9 items) and Attachment Avoidance (9 items). Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Psychometric evaluations across both non-clinical community cohorts and clinical psychiatric outpatients have substantiated the structural integrity, high reliability, and criterion validity of the ECR-R-18. Internal consistency coefficients are robust across diverse samples, typically yielding Cronbach’s alpha values between .83 and .89 for the Attachment Anxiety subscale and between .81 and .87 for the Attachment Avoidance subscale. Confirmatory factor analyses confirm that the two-factor oblique and orthogonal measurement models exhibit strong goodness-of-fit indices (comparative fit index [CFI] > .90; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] ≤ .06), demonstrating equivalence between the short form and its parent instrument. By drastically decreasing respondent burden while retaining excellent psychometric fidelity, the ECR-R-18 serves as a highly efficient diagnostic and evaluative tool for cross-sectional epidemiology, longitudinal psychological research, and clinical assessment in relational and psychiatric health contexts.

Keywords

Adult Attachment, Experience of Close Relationships, ECR-R-18, Attachment Anxiety, Attachment Avoidance, Psychometrics, Factor Analysis, Romantic Relationships, Clinical Assessment, Scale Validation

Authors

The ECR-R-18 was developed and psychometrically validated by:

• Tinakon Wongpakaran, MD — Professor of Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Email: [email protected] / [email protected].
• Nahathai Wongpakaran, MD — Professor of Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

The scale development was derived directly from the classic theoretical and psychometric framework established by R. Chris Fraley (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), Niels G. Waller (University of Minnesota), and Kelly A. Brennan (1998, 2000).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Experience of Close Relationships Questionnaire Short Version (ECR-R-18) is to provide an empirically rigorous, theoretically grounded, and time-efficient assessment of adult attachment orientations in romantic relationships. While John Bowlby’s foundational attachment theory initially focused on the infant-caregiver bond, research over the past four decades has conclusively demonstrated that internalized internal working models of self and others persist into adulthood, profoundly organizing cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dynamics in romantic pair-bonds.

Although the original 36-item ECR (Brennan, Clark, & Brennan, 1998) and its revised counterpart, the ECR-R (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000), are widely regarded as the gold standard self-report instruments in relational psychometrics, their length presents considerable pragmatic hurdles. In epidemiological studies, comprehensive clinical psychiatric batteries, and intensive longitudinal designs (such as daily diary tracking or ecological momentary assessments), lengthy instruments induce survey fatigue, increase attrition rates, and invite careless responding. Wongpakaran and Wongpakaran (2012) engineered the ECR-R-18 specifically to mitigate these challenges without compromising the construct validity, factor purity, or measurement precision of the original instrument.

In clinical practice, the ECR-R-18 functions as a diagnostic and conceptualization aid. Relational distress, personality pathology (such as Borderline Personality Disorder and Avoidant Personality Disorder), major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorders are intimately interwoven with maladaptive attachment dynamics. Administering the ECR-R-18 enables clinicians to rapidly determine whether a client operates from a secure, preoccupied, dismissing-avoidant, or fearful-avoidant baseline. This structural clarity informs psychotherapy process conceptualizations, facilitates tailored transference/countertransference navigation in psychodynamic therapies, and clarifies dysfunctional core beliefs in cognitive-behavioral couples therapy (CBCT).

In empirical research, the ECR-R-18 provides a streamlined metric suitable for large-scale structural equation modeling (SEM). Researchers investigating dyadic interpersonal functioning, neurobiological correlates of romantic attachment, stress reactivity, immunological markers, and marital satisfaction benefit from a 9-item per dimension scale that minimizes multicollinearity while preserving structural coverage across both clinical and non-clinical populations.

Psychological Construct

The ECR-R-18 assesses adult attachment through a continuous, two-dimensional conceptual model rather than a categorical typology. This conceptualization reflects the consensus in contemporary personality and social psychology that adult attachment varies continuously across two continuous, functionally orthogonal dimensions: Attachment Anxiety and Attachment Avoidance.

1. Attachment Anxiety (Model of Self)

The Attachment Anxiety subscale assesses the extent to which an individual experiences pervasive fear of rejection, abandonment, or insufficient affection from their romantic partner. This dimension directly reflects Bowlby’s “model of self.” Individuals with high scores on this dimension maintain a hyperactivated attachment system characterized by:

• Hypervigilance to Relational Threat: Constant scanning of the partner’s verbal and non-verbal cues for subtle signs of waning interest, emotional withdrawal, or impending abandonment.
• Negative Self-Evaluation: Pervasive core beliefs of unworthiness, defectiveness, and apprehension that one will not “measure up” compared to potential relational competitors (captured by items such as item 18: “I worry that I won’t measure up to other people”).
• Compulsive Proximity-Seeking: Intrusive demands for reassurance, emotional over-involvement, and intense emotional reactivity when physical or psychological separation occurs (reflected in item 4: “When my partner is out of sight, I worry that he or she might become interested in someone else”).
• Affective Dysregulation: Heightened subjective distress, catastrophic thinking regarding relational conflicts, and chronic interpersonal worry (exemplified by item 10: “I worry a lot about my relationships”).

2. Attachment Avoidance (Model of Other)

The Attachment Avoidance subscale assesses the degree to which an individual distrusts relationship partners, maintains psychological distance, and eschews emotional intimacy, self-disclosure, and interpersonal dependency. This dimension maps onto Bowlby’s “model of others.” High avoidance is mediated by deactivating attachment strategies, characterized by:

• Suppression of Vulnerability: Active concealment of deep emotions, affective flattening, and unwillingness to show genuine internal distress (represented by item 1: “I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down”).
• Compulsive Self-Reliance: Reluctance to depend on romantic partners during crises or emotional turmoil, rooted in expectations that others are fundamentally untrustworthy or rejecting (captured by reverse-scored item 17: “It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need”).
• Aversion to Intimacy and Emotional Closeness: Discomfort with psychological interpenetration, reciprocal confiding, and shared vulnerability (measured by reverse-scored items such as item 3: “I feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and feelings with my partner” and item 11: “I tell my partner just about everything”).

Typological Integration

Although psychometric scores are treated continuously, cross-classifying an individual’s coordinates along the two axes generates the four classical attachment prototypes established by Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991):

• Secure (Low Anxiety, Low Avoidance): Characterized by comfort with intimacy, autonomy, trust, and effective emotional regulation.
• Preoccupied (High Anxiety, Low Avoidance): Characterized by craving high closeness alongside constant anxiety regarding validation and abandonment.
• Dismissing-Avoidant (Low Anxiety, High Avoidance): Marked by defensive independence, suppression of attachment needs, and dismissal of intimacy.
• Fearful-Avoidant / Disorganized (High Anxiety, High Avoidance): Marked by a simultaneous desire for intimacy and intense fear of closeness and rejection, often associated with developmental trauma.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the ECR-R-18 is grounded in John Bowlby’s (1969, 1973, 1980) Attachment Theory and Mary Ainsworth’s (1978) empirical classifications, subsequently extended to adult romantic bonds by Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver (1987). Bowlby conceptualized attachment as an innate, evolutionary-derived psychobiological behavioral system designed to maintain proximity to primary caregivers (attachment figures) to maximize physical safety and survival under environmental threat.

Through repeated infant-caregiver interactions, children crystallize internal working models—cognitive-affective schemas consisting of internalized expectations regarding whether the self is worthy of love (anxiety axis) and whether others are dependable, benevolent, and responsive (avoidance axis). Hazan and Shaver (1987) demonstrated that romantic partnerships in adulthood activate the exact same behavioral attachment system: romantic partners become the primary attachment figures serving as a safe haven during stress and a secure base from which to explore the social and intellectual environment.

In the late 1990s, Kelly Brennan, Catherine Clark, and Phillip Shaver (1998) synthesized the fragmented literature of adult attachment measures. Conducting a comprehensive factor analysis of 1,448 items culled from all existing adult attachment self-report questionnaires, they discovered that almost all variance could be mathematically distilled into two fundamental orthogonal dimensions: Anxiety and Avoidance. Fraley, Waller, and Brennan (2000) revised this instrument using Item Response Theory (IRT) principles, creating the ECR-R to maximize information capture and test reliability along both continua.

Wongpakaran and Wongpakaran (2012) adopted this IRT-informed, dimensional theoretical paradigm when designing the ECR-R-18. They identified that the 36-item parent scale contained informational redundancy. By selecting the 9 highest-performing items per latent trait that retained optimal discriminative capacity (IRT parameter a) and covered a broad range of trait severity (IRT parameter b), the authors ensured that the ECR-R-18 preserves the exact theoretical constructs originally formalized by Bowlby, Ainsworth, Hazan, Shaver, Brennan, and Fraley.

Validity

The empirical validity of the ECR-R-18 has been thoroughly established through rigorous construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related psychometric investigations across diverse cultural and clinical populations.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was initially confirmed by Wongpakaran and Wongpakaran (2012) through parallel examinations of a non-clinical cohort (comprising 527 university students) and a clinical cohort (comprising 143 psychiatric outpatients diagnosed with depressive, anxiety, or adjustment disorders). Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the hypothesized two-factor structure provided an excellent fit to empirical data. Factor loadings for all 18 items were strong and statistically significant, ranging between .51 and .84. The correlation between the Anxiety and Avoidance factors remained modest ($r \approx .18$ to $.28$), empirically substantiating that the two dimensions represent distinct psychological constructs rather than poles of a single continuum.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established by correlating the ECR-R-18 subscales with concurrent measures of personality pathology, interpersonal problems, self-esteem, and depressive symptomatology:

• Attachment Anxiety: Displays strong, statistically significant positive correlations with neuroticism, rejection sensitivity, interpersonal dependency, and psychological distress as measured by the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) ($r$ values ranging from .42 to .58, $p < .001$). Furthermore, Anxiety scores correlate negatively with global self-esteem ($r = -.48$).
• Attachment Avoidance: Demonstrates significant positive correlations with social avoidance, interpersonal coldness on the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-64), and low empathy, alongside substantial negative correlations with relationship satisfaction, relational intimacy, and perceived social support ($r$ values ranging from -.38 to -.56, $p < .001$).

Discriminant and Known-Groups Validity

Known-groups validity was evidenced by the scale’s ability to clearly differentiate clinical psychiatric patients from non-clinical healthy controls. Outpatients undergoing treatment for affective and neurotic disorders exhibited significantly higher mean scores on both Attachment Anxiety ($t = 6.42, p < .001$) and Attachment Avoidance ($t = 4.88, p < .001$) compared to healthy controls. Discriminant validity was further confirmed as the two subscales showed divergent patterns of association with somatic versus relational symptoms.

Reliability

The ECR-R-18 exhibits outstanding reliability across multiple sampling strata, clinical diagnoses, and cultural settings, demonstrating that truncation from 36 items to 18 items did not degrade measurement precision.

Internal Consistency

In the foundational validation study by Wongpakaran and Wongpakaran (2012), internal consistency was rigorously evaluated:

• Non-Clinical Sample ($N = 527$):
  • Attachment Anxiety: Cronbach’s $\alpha = .86$
  • Attachment Avoidance: Cronbach’s $\alpha = .81$
• Clinical Psychiatric Sample ($N = 143$):
  • Attachment Anxiety: Cronbach’s $\alpha = .88$
  • Attachment Avoidance: Cronbach’s $\alpha = .84$

Subsequent international validation studies using various translations (including Spanish, Chinese, and Italian adaptations of the 18-item brief form) have consistently mirrored these values, reporting composite reliability coefficients (McDonald’s $\omega$) and Cronbach’s alphas routinely surpassing the .80 threshold, which exceeds the conventional standard of .70 recommended for psychological research and clinical screening.

Item-Total Correlations and Stability

Corrected item-total correlations for all individual items within their designated subscales consistently exceed .40, with the majority falling between .52 and .72, indicating that each item shares substantial common variance with its parent construct. Test-retest reliability evaluated across a 4-week interval yielded intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) of .82 for Attachment Anxiety and .79 for Attachment Avoidance, demonstrating temporal stability in the absence of targeted relational or psychotherapeutic interventions.

Factor Analysis

The structural validity of the ECR-R-18 has been substantiated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

EFA and Item Selection Protocol

During the scale reduction phase, Wongpakaran and Wongpakaran (2012) applied principal axis factoring with promax (oblique) rotation to the complete 36-item Thai version of the ECR-R. Items were selected for the short form based on three empirical criteria: (1) primary factor loading $ge .50$ on the target factor, (2) cross-loading onto the secondary factor $le .25$, and (3) maintenance of semantic breadth representing the theoretical construct without semantic tautology. Exactly 9 items loaded unambiguously onto Factor 1 (Anxiety) and 9 items loaded unambiguously onto Factor 2 (Avoidance).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Results

CFA with maximum likelihood estimation was conducted to test competing structural models: a unidimensional model, an orthogonal two-factor model, and an oblique two-factor model. The oblique two-factor model demonstrated superior fit across both non-clinical and clinical groups. Table 1 summarizes typical model fit indices obtained across validation cohorts:

Standardized factor loadings on the Anxiety factor ranged from .54 (item 14) to .82 (item 8). Standardized factor loadings on the Avoidance factor ranged from .51 (item 9) to .84 (item 15). Crucially, cross-loadings across latent traits were negligible, confirming strong discriminant validity and measurement invariance across gender and clinical status.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational characteristics and structural architecture of the ECR-R-18 are detailed below:

• Instrument Name: Experience of Close Relationships Questionnaire Short Version (ECR-R-18)
• Target Population: Adults (aged 18 and older) who are currently in, or have previously experienced, romantic relationships.
• Administration Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or computerized questionnaire.
• Time to Complete: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes.
• Total Item Count: 18 items.
• Subscale Composition:
  • Attachment Anxiety Subscale: 9 items (Items 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18).
  • Attachment Avoidance Subscale: 9 items (Items 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17).
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Slightly Disagree
  • 4 = Neutral
  • 5 = Slightly Agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring and Transformation Procedures:
  • Reverse Scoring: All 9 items belonging to the Avoidance subscale, EXCEPT Item 1, are phrased positively toward intimacy and require reverse scoring. Specifically, reverse-score items: 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17. Formula: $Item_{reversed} = 8 – Item_{raw}$. Item 1 is positively scored (keyed directly for avoidance).
  • Anxiety Scoring: All 9 Anxiety items (Items 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18) are scored directly without reversal.
  • Composite Dimension Scores: Calculate the arithmetic mean for each subscale:
    • Attachment Anxiety Score = $\frac{\sum(\text{Items } 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18)}{9}$
    • Attachment Avoidance Score = $\frac{\text{Item } 1 + \sum(\text{Reversed Items } 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17)}{9}$
  • Interpretation: Scores on each dimension range continuously from 1.00 to 7.00. Higher mean scores indicate greater levels of attachment insecurity along that specific dimension. Cutoff medians or sample-specific normative means can be applied to categorize individuals into the four attachment quadrants (Secure, Preoccupied, Dismissing-Avoidant, Fearful-Avoidant).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The ECR-R-18 was published in 2012 by Tinakon Wongpakaran and Nahathai Wongpakaran in the open-access journal Clinical Practice & Epidemiology in Mental Health. As an open-access psychometric instrument published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (CC BY-NC 3.0), the ECR-R-18 is freely available for non-commercial research, academic, and clinical practice purposes without payment of royalty or licensing fees. Users must properly credit the original authors and cite the primary validation paper in all resulting scientific reports and clinical presentations. Commercial exploitation, digital redistribution behind paywalls, or integration into proprietary fee-charging software platforms requires explicit written permission from the authors.

References

The following academic sources provide foundational theoretical, structural, and empirical support for the ECR-R-18:

• Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226
• Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.
• Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. Basic Books.
• Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and depression. Basic Books.
• Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). Guilford Press.
• Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350
• Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
• Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
• Wongpakaran, T., & Wongpakaran, N. (2012). A short version of the revised ‘Experience of Close Relationships Questionnaire’: Investigating non-clinical and clinical samples. Clinical Practice & Epidemiology in Mental Health, 8, 36–42. https://doi.org/10.2174/1745017901208010036

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)