messinger1 what security of attachment predicts. messinger2 review n most infants are attached but...
TRANSCRIPT
Messinger 2
Review
Most infants are attached but only 2/3 of infants are typically securely attached.
There is strong but limited experimental evidence and extensive evidence from meta-analyses that caregiver sensitivity predicts secure attachment
What does secure attachment predict?
Messinger 3
What does secure attachment predict? Describe the stability (or instability) of attachment security
as in infancy? What evidence supports the idea that attachment security
predicts the timing of puberty in girls? What does insecure and disorganized attachment predict in
childhood? Describe and explain correspondences between parental
and infant security of attachment. EC. Describe the effects of double insecurity. 10 points.
The figure was correct.
Messinger 4
The Big Question
How do early experiences of attachment relationships impact later relationships?
Through behavioral and then internal representations of what can be expected from relationships
Messinger 5
Internal Working Models
Mental representations of the availability of the attachment figure and what to do when the attachment system is activated
• Mental rules for organizing, accessing, and limiting access to information relevant to attachment.
Impact individual differences in strange situation behavior and, hence, infant attachment classification.
What infant expects:
6
Evidence for Infants’ InternalWorking Models of Attachment. 2007.Susan C. Johnson, Carol S. Dweck, and Frances S. Chen
Messinger 7
The Big Question
How do early experiences of attachment relationships impact later relationships?– Early infancy to later infancy– Infancy to childhood– Infancy to adulthood– Infancy to parenthood
Messinger 8
Impact of early experiencesStability Attachment classification should be stable
– If you’re secure, you should remain secure
Or Transition should be linked to life-events
– Negative events: Secure -> Insecure– Positive events: Insecure -> Secure
9
Strange Situation classification shows only moderate stability
Similar to Seifer et al., MLS findings
And similar to Belsky, Campbell, Cohn, & Moore, 1996 findings
NICHD, 2001, Dev. Psy
Messinger 10
Stability of infant classification?
75% stability in ABC from 12 to 18 months– five studies of "nonrisk" samples, N = 205 (1980s)
46-55% (non-significant) ABC ‘stability’ from 12 to 18 months– 1 study with 3 independent samples (n = 125, n = 90,
and, with fathers (n = 120) (1990s)– Bigger single sample– Coding Disorganization may influence coding
• Belsky et al. 1996
Messinger 11
Large scale study stability
Modest stability for A, B, C, and D classifications from 15 to 36 months– Low maternal sensitivity from 24 to 36 months
predicted shift from secure to insecure– Higher maternal sensitivity from 24 to 36 months
predicted change from insecure to secure NICHD Early Child Care Research Network
Marginal stability for A, B, C, and D classifications from 18 to 36 months– Kappa = .06; p < .05
Maternal Lifestyle Study
Messinger 12
Disorganized stability
Disorganized infants show reasonably stable categorization in the Strange Situation – two studies; r=.34 over a mean of 25 months
Also have higher stress reactions (salivary cortisol) than other infants
• Meta-analysis: Van Ijzendoorn, Schuengel, & Bakermans-Kranenburg (1999)
Messinger 14
The Big Question
How do early experiences of attachment relationships impact later relationships?– Early infancy to later infancy– Infancy to childhood– Infancy to adulthood– Infancy to parenthood
Messinger 15
Is security a ‘vaccination’?
Most competent 3-yr-olds have both secure attachment (at 15 mo) & (relatively) high-sensitive mothering (at 24 mo)– NICHD Study of Early Child Care
Insecurely attached children who subsequently experienced high-sensitive mothering significantly outperformed secure children who subsequently experienced low-sensitive mothering.
Belsky, J. and R. M. P. Fearon (2002). "Early attachment security, subsequent maternal sensitivity, and later child development: Does continuity in development depend upon continuity of caregiving?" Attachment & Human Development 4(3): 361-387.
Sensitivitybeyond attachment
Messinger 16
Fraley, R. C., Roisman, G. I., & Haltigan, J. D. (2013). The legacy of early experiences in development: Formalizing alternative models of how early experiences are carried forward over time. Dev Psychol, 49(1), 109-126.
Messinger 18
Attachment & emotional development In 2nd and 3rd yrs, secure children less angry.
– Higher attachment less fear and anger at 33 mo Insecure children's negative emotions increased:
– Avoidant children fearful– Resistant children were most fearful / least joyful,
distress even in episodes designed to elicit joy.
– Disorganized/ unclassifiable children more angry. • Kochanska, G. Child Development. 2001, 72 474-490
Insecure & disorganized risk of externalizing problems Disorganized at elevated risk, weaker effects for
avoidance & resistance Meta-analysis, 69 samples (5,947).
– overall d = 0.31 (95% CI: 0.23, 0.40) • Larger effects for boys, clinical samples, observation-
based outcome assessments, attachment assessments other than the Strange Situation.
Fearon, R. P., M. J. Bakermans-Kranenburg, et al. (2010). "The significance of insecure attachment and disorganization in the development of children s externalizing behavior: A meta-analytic study." Child Development 81(2): 435-456.
Messinger 20
Nonsecure (avoidant) internalizing/externalizing
Messinger 21
Dis
orga
nize
d
exte
rnal
izin
g
(Groh, Roisman, van Ijzendoorn, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & Fearon, 2012)
Based on 42 independent samples (N = 4,614),
Messinger 24
But insecure attachment may have positive functions The function of attachment is safety Avoidance minimizes unfruitful attempts to elicit
caregiving Resistance maximizes attention to separation &
minimizes separation Even disorganization balances exposure to a
threatening but needed caregiver Security may not be the only way to ‘get it right.’
• Crittenden (Dahra Jackson)
Attachment and Maturation
Evolutionary framework– Does infant attachment
change maturation?– Does attachment signal
challenges an infant faces?– Away from Mental Health
conceptualization Difficult environment
=> Earlier menarche
Mattson 25
Belsky, Houts, & Fearon 2010
Attachment-Maturation Model
Early menarche: insecure over-represented
Is insecurity a better fit to certain environments?
Mattson
controlled for mother’s age of menarcheBelsky, Houts, & Fearon 2010
Messinger 28
Attachment and Children's Peer Relations
“Small-to-moderate” association between attachment security to mother and quality of children’s peer relations – meta-analysis of 63 studies indicates
Effects “higher for studies that focused on children's close friendships rather than on relations with other peers.” – Effects larger after early childhood
“Gender & cultural differences … minimal”– A Quantitative Review (Schneider et al ’2001)
Messinger 30
The Big Question
How do early experiences of attachment relationships impact later relationships?– Early infancy to later infancy– Infancy to childhood– Infancy to adulthood– Infancy to parenthood
Messinger 32
Stability: Infant to adult
2 studies report significant levels of stability between infant attachment security and adult security
2 studies do not – But 1 did not use a traditional strange situation
In all studies, negative life events associated with transitions from infant security to adult insecurity– But negative life events (e.g. divorce, parental
depression) are not the same in all studies
Messinger 33
The Big Question
How do early experiences of attachment relationships impact later relationships?– Early infancy to later infancy– Infancy to adulthood– Infancy to childhood– Infancy to parenthood
Messinger 34
Overview
Introduction to the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI)
Correspondence between parents’ security of attachment (from AAI) and their children’s security of attachment
Practice the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI)
Messinger 35
A Big Question
Do parents’ representation of their own attachment experiences relate – presumably through their own parenting behaviors – to the attachment classification of their children in the next generation?
To answer such questions, attachment theory has moved to the level of representation.
Messinger 36
In adulthood
Internal working models impact attachment behavior– Mental representations of the availability of the
attachment figure – What to do when the attachment system is
activated Purpose of the Adult Attachment Interview
is to classify these internal working models.
Messinger 37
Interview
18 questions with follow-up probes, semi-structured, hour-long, transcribed verbatim– 5 adjectives describing each parent with
supporting (or contradicting) memories– what occurred when upset (when the
attachment system was activated)– impact of those experience on current
functioning– current relationship with parents
Messinger 39
How Speakers are Categorized
As Autonomous (secure), Dismissing (avoidant), or Preoccupied (resistant)– And, independently, as Unresolved/Disorganized
Not based on experiences themselves But on speaker’s current relationship to the
experiences– how they’ve processed their past
Based on the coherence of their discourse
Messinger 40
Discourse coherence
Adherence or violation of Grice’s maxims of coherent discourse– Quality: Have evidence for what you say.– Quantity: Be succinct but complete. – Relation: Be relevant.– Manner: Be clear and orderly.
Helps categorize speakers as autonomous, dismissing, or preoccupied– Disorganized categorized in 3 main categories
Messinger 41
Specifics of the Hypothesized Link Autonomous parents are sensitively responsive
and promote security Dismissive parents avoid acknowledging
attachment needs of infants – who respond by minimizing attachment needs and
becoming avoidant
Preoccupied parents do not respond to infant attachment needs predictably– Who respond by chronic attempts to achieve security
Messinger 42
Correspondence
Adult state of mind Infant SS behavior Autonomous
– Coherent narrative
Dismissing – Generalized normalizing
without specific examples
Preoccupied– Long, entangled narratives
Unresolved– Lapses in reasoning
Secure - – Soothed by parent
Avoidant – Does not make contact with parent
or express attachment needs
Resistant – Not comforted by parent
Disorganized– No coherent strategy
Messinger 43
Autonomous (secure)
“Presentation and evaluation of attachment-related experiences is coherent and consistent and their responses are clear, relevant, and reasonably succinct” whether or not experiences themselves were positive or negative.
• (van IJzendoorn, 1995, p. 388)
Messinger 44
Dismissing (Avoidant)
Minimize attachment-related experiences– Avoid activating attachment system
Describe parents with positive adjectives that are unsupported or contradicted by memories that are recounted – Violating the quality maxim
Messinger 45
Preoccupied (Resistant)
Preoccupied by attachment figures and attachment-related experiences.– Attachment system chronically activated
Transcripts tend to be lengthy and unfocussed– Violating the quantity maxim
Messinger 46
Unresolved - Disorganized Link
Unresolved parents are frightened or frightening in dealing with attachment issues.
Infants often respond to a parent who is threatening rather than comforting with disorganized attachment behavior– No clear strategy.
Messinger 47
Validity of AAI
Classifications are stable– 2 months, 3 months, 1.5 years
Not related to IQ measures– 6 of 7 studies
Discourse style relates to attachment– not interviews about job
Messinger 48
Parent-Infant Attachment Correspondence Meta-analysis of 13 studies using three major
categories 75% secure vs. insecure agreement (K=.49) 70% three-way agreement (K=.46)
– Prebirth AAI show 69% three-way agreement (K=.44)
• Bakermans-kranenburg, M. J. & Vanijzendoorn, M. H. (1993). A Psychometric Study of the Adult Attachment Interview - Reliability and Discriminant Validity. Developmental Psychology, 29, 870-879.
Messinger 52
Parent-Infant Correspondence
Parental Attachment
Dismissing AutonomousPreoccupied
Insecure-Avoidant
Count
(ExpectedCount)
116
(51.2)
46
(105.5)
27
(32.3)
Secure
Count
(ExpectedCount)
53
(109.1)
304
(225.0)
46
(68.9)
Infa
nt
Att
ach
men
t
Insecure-Resistant
Count
(ExpectedCount)
10
(18.7)
19
(38.5)
40
(11.8)
Messinger 53
Parent-Infant Attachment Correspondence Meta-analysis of 9 studies (k=9, n=548)
using four major categories Secure versus insecure, 74% Four-way agreement, 63%
– Prebirth AAI show 65% four-way agreement
• Which parent category is not so strong a predictor of infant category?
Messinger 54
Parent-Infant Correspondence Parental Attachment Dismissing Autonomous Preoccupied Unresolved
Insecure-Avoidant
Count (Expected
Count)
62
(23)
29
(58)
14
(10)
11
(25)
Secure Count
(Expected Count)
24
(57)
210
(144)
14
(25)
39
(62)
Insecure-Resistant
Count (Expected
Count)
3
(6)
9
(14)
10
(3)
6
(6)
Infa
nt A
ttach
men
t
Disorganized
Count (Expected
Count)
19
(23)
26
(59)
10
(10)
62
(25)
Messinger 56
How might link work?
Parental attachment accounted for 12% of variation in observed parental responsiveness– Meta-analysis of 10 studies (r = .34)
Parental sensitive responsiveness is, in turn, associated with infant attachment security– van Ijzendoorn meta-analysis (r = .22)
Messinger 57
Putting the pieces together
Total Observed association, r = .47(Direct * Direct) + Indirect = Total(.34 * .22) + .40 = .47
Parent InternalWorkingModel
SensitiveRespon-siveness
Attachment Security
r = .34 r = .22
.40
Messinger 58
Breaking the Link
Parental attachment is not formed by past experiences but by current orientation to past.
Supportive experiences with a partner, friend or therapist can allow for earned autonomy in the face of experiences that would otherwise be associated with insecurity.
Messinger 59
Interview
Interview a partner about one attachment figure focusing on questions 2 through 4
Each person analyzes their own responses– no comments form partner
Only share what you want to share
Messinger 61
How to Think About What You’ve Said Scales associated with autonomous category
– coherence, metacognitive monitoring
Scales associated with dismissing category– Idealization of attachment figures, insistence on lack of
memory for childhood, dismissal of attachment-related experience/relationships
Scales associated with preoccupied category– anger expressed toward attachment figure,
passivity/vagueness in discourse
Longitudinal predictors of adult attachment Ongoing environmental impacts
– continued parental sensitivity– social functioning– friendship
Messinger 62
“What struck me,” said Apted, “is how valuable the family is. At 56, for people who put energy
into families, there was a big payback.”Carter
Attachment has important implications for adult functioning
• But relies on adult self-reported attachment– Untested core assumption of adult attachment
• Follow up of NICHHD-Early Child Care and Youth Development @ age 18– Maternal sensitivity– Social competence– Quality of peer relationships – Fraley, et al., 2013
Carter
Early care impacts later attachment
Est. early sensitivity received
Est. change in qual. of care
Maternal SensitivityMaternal Depression
Father Absence
Social Competence (M)
Social Competence (T)
Friendship Quality
Carter
Fraley, et al., 2013
Temperamental & Genetic Factors
Temperament
No statistically significant
temperamental antecedents of
adult attachment styles
Gene & Gene X Environment
No main effects of genetic
variables previously studied
C allele of HTR2A
(serotonin receptor gene)
Homozygous = ↑ global
attachment related anxiety
Carter
Messinger 70
References
The Adult Attachment Interview:Historical and Current Perspectives
– (Hesse, 1999) Adult attachment representations, parental responsiveness, and infant
attachment: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the Adult Attachment Interview
– (van IJzendoorn, 1995)
Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Schuengel, C., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (1999). Disorganized attachment in early childhood: Meta-analysis of precursors, concomitants, and sequelae. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 225-249.
Instability of infant-parent attachment security. Belsky, Jay; Campbell, Susan B.; Cohn, Jeffrey F.; Moore, Ginger. Developmental Psychology. 1996 Sep Vol 32(5) 921-924