myth-busting around attachment theory - acamh · attachment theory •evolutionarily-rooted theory...
TRANSCRIPT
Myth-Busting Around
Attachment TheoryOr rather, some empirical challenges to commonly held
interpretations of attachment theory….
Pasco Fearon
Attachment Theory
• Evolutionarily-rooted theory of the nature of a child’s ties to caregivers
• An eclectic, hybrid, theory drawing on biology, cybernetics, ethology, psychoanalysis, developmental psychology, cognitive science
• Remarkably influential, having impacts well beyond its own core phenomena (field of developmental psychopathology, early child development research, intervention science, child care policy and practice)
Testing the Theory
Some of attachment theory’s strong claims:
• Attachment security-insecurity is caused entirely by the
environment
• Attachment patterns, laid down in early life, are stable over time
and transmitted across generations
• Attachment security is crucial for children’s mental health
Environmental Causes
• Comparisons of MZ and DZ twins allows us to disentangle genetic influences from environmental ones
• Contemporary attachment theory makes the bold claim that ALL variation in attachment security is due to the environment
• How do twins behave in the Strange Situation?
52%48%
SSP Security
Commonenvironment
Non-sharedenvironment
77%
19%4%
TAS-45 Security
Commonenvironment
Non-sharedenvironment
Genetics
Bokhorst et al (2003), see also O’Connor & Croft, 2001 Roisman & Fraley (2008)
Estimates of Genetic and Environmental Effects in Twin Studies
0%
62%
38%
Child Attachment Interview Coherence
Commonenvironment
Non-sharedenvironment
Genetics
Genes and Environment in Adolescent Attachment
Fearon, Schmueli-Goetz, Viding, Fonagy & Plomin, 2014 551 Twin Pairs, Aged 15
Conclusions
Attachment in infancy is not heritable, but in adolescence there is evidence it is
In infancy and adolescence, the non-shared environment is highly significant and poorly understood
What might explain the increased role of genetics in adolescent attachment?
Developmental unfolding of genetic effects (rGE?)?
Different underlying systems mediating attachment behaviour and representational coherence?
Developmental change or construct shift?
Attachment Continuity
SSP (15 months) AAI (18 Years)
AQS (24 months) AAI (18 Years)
Modified SSP (36
months)AAI (18 Years)
Proportion of times
secureAAI (18 Years)
r = .04
r = .14**
r = .02
r = .11/.13**
Intergenerational transmission
• Caregiver
Legacy of caregiver’s upbringing
• Relationship
Quality of Care
• Infant
Infant’s Attachment
• Adult
Legacy of upbringing as adult
Meta-analytic evidence
Adult Attachment
RepresentationsStrange Situation
Paradigm
Maternal Sensitivity
≈ 25%
?? ≈ 75%
New Meta-Analysis (2016)
• Verhage, Schuengel, C., Madigan, S., Fearon, R., Oosterman, M., Cassibba,
R., . . . van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2015). Narrowing the Transmission Gap: A
Synthesis of Three Decades of Research on Intergenerational Transmission
of Attachment. Psychological Bulletin, 142(4):337-366.
Growth in Research on Transmission
19
95
1995 2015
(N = 4819)
(N =854)
Results: Autonomous AAI to Secure SSP
.47
.31
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
1995 2015
‘Forced classifications’
k = 83, N = 4102
Concordance = 78%
Moderators
See Verhage et al., 2018 in Child Development
Conclusion
Good evidence that infant attachment is predictable from measurements of the parents’ narrative regarding their own early attachment experiences
Association is substantial weaker than previously thought
Some factors are associated with weaker intergenerational transmission, especially risk status
Limited research to evaluate whether the association is a causal one
Attachment and Later Outcomes
• Three recent meta-analyses aimed to summarize the overall
evidence
• Meta-analysis 1: Children’s Externalizing Problems
• Meta-analysis 2: Children’s Internalizing Problems
• Meta-analysis 3: Children’s Social Competence
Attachment and
Externalizing Problems
•Fearon, R., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J.,
van IJzendoorn, M. H., Lapsley, A.-M., &
Roisman, G. I. (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.
Effect Sizes by Attachment Group
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Disorganized
Resistant
Avoidance
Insecure
N=5947, K=69
Moderators
Age Measure Clinical Population Gender
Stronger associations
in older children
Non-SSP measures
(AQS, Cassidy &
Marvin) stronger
Clinical groups
stronger
Association stronger
in males
Developmental
Effects
Measurement
Issues
Level of Risk
Attachment and
Internalizing Problems
• Groh, A. M., Roisman, G. I., van
IJzendoorn, M. H., Bakermans-
Kranenburg, M. J., & Fearon, R. (2012).
The significance of insecure and
disorganized attachment for children's
internalizing symptoms: A meta-analytic
study. Child Development, 83(2), 591-610.
Internalizing vs. Externalizing
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Disorganized
Resistant
Avoidant
Insecure
Externalizing
Internalizing
Attachment and
Social Competence
• Groh, A. M., Fearon, R. P., Bakermans-
Kranenburg, M. J., Van IJzendoorn, M.
H., Steele, R. D., & Roisman, G. I.
(2014). The significance of attachment
security for children’s social competence
with peers: a meta-analytic study.
Attachment & human development, 16(2),
103-136.
Group Effect Sizes
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Disorganized
Resistant
Avoidant
Insecure
Social Competence Externalizing Internalizing
Conclusions
Effects of attachment vary by domain
Stronger effects of externalizing problems and social competence than internalizing problems
Broader effects (across more insecure sub-groups) for social competence
Several moderators indicated (especially gender, age, measurement) needing more investigation
Effects are not large – insecure and disorganized attachments are NOT determinative of poor outcomes
So….