transmission of attachment across three generations

This article was downloaded by: [University of Guelph]On: 11 November 2014, At: 21:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

European Journal ofDevelopmental PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pedp20

Transmission of attachmentacross three generationsAiri Hautamäki a , Laura Hautamäki a , LeenaNeuvonen a & Sinikka Maliniemi-Piispanen ba University of Helsinki , Helsinki, Finlandb Private practitioner , Helsinki, FinlandPublished online: 22 Oct 2009.

To cite this article: Airi Hautamäki , Laura Hautamäki , Leena Neuvonen & SinikkaMaliniemi-Piispanen (2010) Transmission of attachment across three generations,European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7:5, 618-634

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405620902983519

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pedp20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405620902983519

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 21:

05 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Transmission of attachment across three generations

Airi Hautamaki, Laura Hautamaki and Leena NeuvonenUniversity of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

Sinikka Maliniemi-PiispanenPrivate practitioner, Helsinki, Finland

A low-risk Finnish sample (Ntotal¼ 135) of parents expecting their first childand maternal grandmothers was followed from pregnancy until the child was 3years old. The Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) was used to assessattachment in mothers during the last trimester of pregnancy, and maternalgrandmothers. The Strange Situation Procedure (SSP) was used to assessattachment in infants at 12 months, and the Preschool Assessment ofAttachment (PAA) at 3 years. Mothers’ AAI classifications (3-category)during pregnancy predicted infants’ SSP classifications (3-category) in 76% ofcases, and the 3-year-old children’s PAA classifications (3-category) in 58% ofcases. Grandmothers’ AAI classifications predicted infants’ SSP classificationsin 48% of cases, but the 3-year-old children’s PAA classifications in 72% ofcases. Using log-linear analysis, it was shown that a simple model accountedfor transmission of attachment across three generations when the childrenwere 3 years. Even though the results indicated continuity across generations,the correspondences were slightly weaker than those obtained by Benoit andParker in their 3-generational study. The results are discussed in terms of theprototype view, the rapid contextual changes seen across 3 generations inFinland, the size of the sample, and the comparability of the DMM to otherassessment methods of attachment.

Keywords: Adult Attachment Interview; Attachment; Preschool Assessment ofAttachment; Strange Situation Procedure; Three generations; Transmission.

Correspondence should be addressed to Airi Hautamaki, Swedish School of Social Science,

University of Helsinki, PO Box 16 (Topeliusgatan 16), FIN-00014 University of Helsinki,

Finland. E-mail: [email protected]

This research was supported by the Academy of Finland, University of Joensuu, and

University of Helsinki.

We would also like to thank the participants in the study.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY2010, 7 (5), 618–634

� 2009 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

http://www.psypress.com/edp DOI: 10.1080/17405620902983519

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 21:

05 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

INTRODUCTION

Bowlby’s (1973/1978) view on the role of early experience in shaping theexpectations a baby constructs concerning the responsiveness and protectiveavailability of the caregiver was based on Freud’s (1940/1964) thesis that achild’s early relationship to his mother serves as a prototype for subsequentrelationships. Fraley (2002, p. 126) concluded on the basis of his meta-analysis that attachment security is moderately stable from ages 1–19 years.Patterns of stability were best accounted for by the prototype model.1

Representations of early attachment experiences form a prototype andcontinue to influence an individual’s attachment behaviour andinterpersonal dynamics across the lifespan. In terms of Schore (1994), theearly attachment transactions are imprinted into the baby’s implicit-procedural memory as relatively enduring internal working models. Theseworking models act at levels beneath conscious awareness, and encodecoping strategies of affect regulation, when stress rises in the face ofenvironmental challenges. The revisionist perspective in turn contends thatall, both early and concurrent, attachment representations are continuallyrevised in the light of new events (Fraley, 2002). In contrast, the prototypeapproach claims that even after the child has developed verbal or declarativemodes of representation that are consciously accessible, and operateaccording to the revisionist principles, early procedural models may bereactivated in the context of new interactions (Fraley, 2002).

Does the prototype model imply a high degree of stability in attachmentfrom infancy to adulthood? According to Fraley (2002), prototype-likeprocesses may give rise to high or low continuity as a function of how muchpeople can exert an influence on their social environments. If people areallowed to shape the kinds of interactions they experience on the basis oftheir working models of attachment, stability is facilitated. Stability ispositively related to socioeconomic status, and negatively related to riskfactors. The influencing possibility is diminished under conditions that arecharacterized by family instability, relational discord and abuse. Samplescharacterized by risk factors and environmental change exhibit less stabilityin attachment than other samples (Belsky, Campbell, Cohn, & Moore, 1996;Grossmann, Grossmann, & Kindler, 2005; Thompson, Lamb, & Estes,1982; Weinfield, Sroufe, & Egeland, 2000). Fraley (2002) concluded thateven though environmental changes and risks appeared to reduce the degreeto which people exerted an influence on their environments destabilizingtheir working models of attachment, the underlying dynamics of continuityand change was the same.

1A system (which I call a prototype) of non-linguistic representations, procedural ‘‘rules’’ of

information processing, and behavioural strategies is constructed that serves as an adaptation to

the individual’s early caregiving environment.

TRANSMISSION OF ATTACHMENT 619

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 21:

05 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Themodel of intergenerational transmission has assumed an environmentaleffect (Hesse, 1999; Van IJzendoorn, 1995a). Behavioural genetic modellingindicates that the heritability of secure attachment behaviour is negligible(Bokhorst et al., 2003; Van IJzendoorn, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & Sagi-Schwartz, 2006).Attachment in infants and young children ismainly influencedby shared environmental effects (Fearon et al., 2006), particularly maternalsensitivity (Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton, 1974; DeWolff, & Van IJzendoorn,1997; Van IJzendoorn, Juffer, & Duyvesteyn, 1995).

The intergenerational transmission of attachment representationsmay alsobe analysed with the help of the prototype and revisionist approach. Studiesthat use both the Infant Strange Situation Procedure (SSP;Ainsworth, Blehar,Waters, & Wall, 1978) and the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; Main &Goldwyn, in press; Hesse, 1999), document 66–78%, with an average of 75%,correspondence between themother’s responses to theAAI and the patterningof infant behaviour towards the mother in the SSP (Van IJzendoorn, 1995b).The results are the same, if data are examined retrospectively (Main, Kaplan,& Cassidy, 1985), concurrently (Van IJzendoorn, Kranenburg, Zwart-Woudstra, van Bussbach, & Lambermon, 1991), prospectively (Fonagy,Steele, & Steele, 1991; Ward & Carlson, 1995), or with the help of meta-analytic studies (Van IJzendoorn, 1995b). Internal working models ofattachment tend to be perpetuated across generations, particularly in low-risk samples. Benoit and Parker (1994) studied transmission of attachmentacross 3 generations in a longitudinal study of 96 infants, mothers andgrandmothers, with a stable middle-class background across generations, andwith distributions of attachment skewed towards secure or autonomousattachment. They found an intergenerational match between thegrandmother’s and mother’s AAI-classification, and the 1-year-old infant’sattachment to hismother in the SSP. Sixty-five percent of the 77 grandmother–mother–infant triads had the corresponding attachment classifications.

The purpose of this work was to replicate Benoit and Parker’s study in anormative sample in a country in which the socioeconomic changes acrossgenerations have been rapid (see Ingold, 1997). In accordance with theprototype view, it was assumed that there would be a cross-generationalstability in attachment in 3 generations, but due to the rapid changes in theliving conditions across generations it would be less than in Benoit andParker’s (1994) study.

METHODS

Subjects and procedures

Two low-risk samples were followed from the pregnancy of the focal childuntil the child was 3 years old. Criteria for inclusion were that the married or

620 HAUTAMAKI ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 21:

05 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

cohabiting couple was expecting their first child, the expectant mother wasat least 18 years old, and the maternal grandmother agreed to participate inthe study. The volunteer samples were enrolled through local, publicmaternity counselling offices. The offices are part of the maternity welfaresystem in Finland and provide service to all expectant mothers in their localareas. The health-care nurses gave all the visiting expectant mothers awritten description of the prospective study, inviting them to participate.Fifteen couples with maternal grandmothers were recruited from a middle-sized town in eastern Finland during one year. The participation rate was15/600, i.e., 2.5%, as 600 children were born that year in the town of 70,000inhabitants. An additional 19 couples and maternal grandmothers wererecruited from four maternity counselling offices of the capital of Finlandthe population and participation rate being about the same. The totalsample consisted of 34 mothers, their spouses (N¼ 34), maternal grand-mothers (N¼ 33), and firstborn children (N¼ 34). None of the grand-mothers lived with their children. Nearly half of the couples were married atthe time of enrolment.

When the focal child was 3 years of age, 73.5%of the couples weremarried,two cohabiting couples had split up, and the restwere still cohabiting. The agesof the mothers approximated the mean age at which women in Finland givebirth to their first child (M¼ 27.6;SD¼ 4.3). The infants (41%male)were full-term, healthy newborns, whose gestational age ranged from 37–42 weeks(M¼ 40.1 weeks; birth weight range 2.4–4.4 kg,M¼ 3.5 kg). The educationallevel of the mothers was higher than that of the grandmothers (74.3%compared to 27.3% had university degrees; w2¼ 15.8, df¼ 2, p5 .001).Couples from relatively more stable middle-class backgrounds responded andexpressed an interest in the study and its results. The only loss was onegrandmother who died before the AAI was completed.

The Adult Attachment Interview (Crittenden, 2006; Hesse, 1999) wasused to assess the attachment status in mothers, fathers and grandmothers.After obtaining informed consent, the interviews were completed in thesubjects’ homes during the expectant mother’s third trimester of pregnancy.The Strange Situation Procedure (Ainsworth et al., 1978) was used to assessthe attachment status in infants at 12 months, and the Preschool Assessmentof Attachment (Crittenden, 2004b) was conducted at 3 years.

Assessments

The Strange Situation Procedure (SSP; Ainsworth et al., 1978) is a structuredlaboratory separation–reunion procedure consisting of eight 3-minuteepisodes designed to be increasingly stressful for 12- to 20-month-oldinfants. The aim is to assess the three main strategies that the infant usesto maintain the protective availability of the attachment figure


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 21:

05 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

(Ainsworth et al., 1978). At 12 months the attachment classification (A,Avoidant; B, Secure; C, Ambivalent-resistant) was coded using theAinsworth criteria (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Additionally, criteria foridentifying Type A/C (Avoidant/Ambivalent) attachment according toCrittenden (1994, 2003; Radke-Yarrow, 1998) were applied, but no childwas assigned the A/C classification. Thus, the coding systems of Ainsworthand Crittenden overlapped. The SSP was coded by A. Hautamaki, who wastrained and qualified by P. M. Crittenden. Twelve of the 34 mother–childdyads were double coded by P. M. Crittenden, who was blind to the data.The inter-rater reliability on the SSP major category (A/B/C) was 100%.

The Preschool Assessment of Attachment (PAA) is a validated method ofcoding strange situations with preschool children (Crittenden, Claussen, &Kozlowska, 2007). The PAA is a modification of the Ainsworth infantclassificatory procedure adapted to fit the more complex psychological andinterpersonal functioning of preoperational children. On the basis of growingcognitive, language, and perspective taking abilities, the child developsexpectations of goal-corrected partnership. The ambivalent-resistant, Type Cpattern emerges, organized as a coercive strategy (Crittenden, 1994). Thesechanges in the classificatory system have led to fewer secure children,totalling around one-third of normative samples, coupled with a substantialincrease in Type C children, particularly among children 21–24 months ofage (Fagot, & Pears, 1996; Rauh, Ziegenhain, Muller, &Wijnroks, 2000; Teti& Gelfand, 1997; Vondra, Shaw, Swearingen, Cohen, & Owens, 2001).

The PAA focuses on the enacted, non-verbal communication. Based onthe Ainsworth 3-category system, the PAA identifies one secure, Type B,major strategy: children who are open about their feelings and intentions,and negotiate directly with their mother about separation, in the firm beliefof the protective availability of and goal-corrected partnership with theattachment figure (Crittenden, 2004b). The defended (Type A) classification,with subtypes of inhibited, compulsively caregiving, and compulsivelycompliant strategies, enables the child to maintain physical proximity to themother, but without psychological intimacy. The child learns to inhibitnegative affect and even display false positive affect, and takes an earlyresponsibility for regulating his affect (Crittenden, 1994). The coercive TypeC represents an effort to regulate the attention and behaviour ofunpredictably available parents through either angry and threatening ordisarming and feigned fearful behaviour.

The Main and Solomon (1990) criteria for Disorganized (D) werereplaced by the A/C-classification (Radke-Yarrow, Cummings, Kuczynski,& Chapman, 1985) and by the more extreme, compulsive (Type A3–4) orobsessive (Type C3–4) strategies found among endangered children(Crittenden & DiLalla, 1988; Crittenden et al., 2007). A/C was not identifiedamong the 3-year-old children in the PAA. Two children received a C3–4


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 21:

05 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

classification (aggressive-threatening or feigned helpless). As the 3-categoryA-B-C was used in the analyses, they were collapsed into the C category.The PAA was coded according to Crittenden (2004b) by S. Maliniemi-Piispanen, who was blind to data and trained by P. M. Crittenden. Theinter-rater reliability on the PAA major category with A. Hautamaki,trained by P. M. Crittenden, was 95%.

The Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) was used to assess the mothers’,fathers’ and grandmothers’ state of mind in regard to attachment (Hesse,1999). The semi-structured interview consists of questions concerning therespondents’ experiences with childhood attachment figures. The subjectswere asked to describe their relationships to their mothers and their fatherswith five words, additionally to provide evidence in the form of specificepisodes to support the words, and to try to remember normative events orpotentially dangerous episodes in which they felt unsafe as children. In theclosing integrative questions they were asked to assess the impact of theirearly experiences on their current functioning in close relationships. Theinterviews were transcribed verbatim. The classification of the transcriptprimarily depends on the form in which the story is told, especially thedegree of coherence of discourse and mind, according to Grice’s (1975)conversational maxims in regard to attachment-related issues (Hesse, 1999).There is evidence for the validity of the Main and Goldwyn system (Hesse,1999; van IJzendoorn, 1995b). However, those transcripts that do not fit thenormative A-B-C patterns represent the category of ‘‘Cannot Classify’’ (CC)in the Main and Goldwyn system. According to Hesse (1996), CC is rare inmiddle-class samples. In high-risk samples CC may rise up to 20%.

The DMM extended system is particularly suited to differentiate amongendangered individuals who have developed more extreme self-protectivestrategies of attachment (Crittenden, 1999, 2006, 2008). In the DMMextended model the dismissive (Ds) classification has been further developedinto inhibited (A1–2), with 6 compulsive Type Aþ subpatterns. Allcompulsive subtypes are characterized by the falsification of affect, i.e.,a false positive affect. The preoccupied (E) classification has been elaboratedinto threatening/disarming (C1–2) and 6 obsessive Type Cþ subpatterns(Black, Jaeger, McCartney, & Crittenden, 2000; Gullestad, 2003; Haapasalo,Puupponen, &Crittenden, 1999; Hughes, Hardy, &Kendrick, 2000; Ringer &Crittenden, 2007). The Main and Goldwyn (Hesse, 1999) and the DMMsystems overlap considerably with regard to the normative A-B-C range: Ds1and Ds3 in the Main and Goldwyn system overlap with A1 and A2 in theDMM; E2 and E1with C1 and C2, and F1,-5 with B1,-5. In a small normativesample, the DMM expansions offered the possibility of classifying everytranscript, even transcripts indicating distortions in the processing ofattachment-relevant information beyond those described by Main andGoldwyn.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 21:

05 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Each participant’s AAI transcript was coded and assigned to aclassification on the basis of its overall fit to the attachment categorieselaborated by the DMM modification (Crittenden, 2004a) of the Main andGoldwyn (in press) AAI-coding method. The AAI transcripts were coded byA. Hautamaki, who was trained by P. M. Crittenden. Five of the AAIs werecoded by P. M. Crittenden. The inter-rater agreement on the AAI majorcategory was 100%. S. Maliniemi-Piispanen was the inter-rater reliabilityjudge of all the AAI transcripts. The agreement between the two coders was92% (for grandmothers) and 83% (for mothers) on the AAI major category.The coders resolved the differences in coding by discussion, and theconsensus classification was used for the data analysis.

RESULTS

Because of the small sample size and the comparison of the results to thoseof Benoit and Parker, the 3-category system was used in the statisticalprocessing of data. It seemed warranted to include the Aþ andCþ classifications into their normative counterparts, as the psychologicalfunction of the processing of attachment-relevant information was similar,i.e., de-activation vs. hyper-activation of the attachment system. Eventhough the samples were drawn from a normative population, thedistributions of the attachment patterns of the sample were tilted towardType A1–2 attachment, which was particularly pronounced for children atthe age of 3 (51.5%), and to some extent for the grandmothers (42.4%).There was a lower than expected frequency of Type B attachments fordistributions of samples drawn from normative populations. The percentageof Type B was for grandmothers¼ 24.2%, mothers¼ 32.4%, children at 1year¼ 29.4%, and children at 3 years¼ 27.3%.

Transmission of attachment across two generations was analysed with thechi-square test, coupled with Bergman and El-Khouri’s (2002) program forthe analysis of a contingency table for two categorical variables. WithEXACON, correct probabilities can be obtained for small expected cellfrequencies (Bergman & El-Khouri, 1987). The concordance between thegrandmothers’ AAI classifications and mothers’ AAI classifications duringpregnancy was 61% (w2¼ 17.28, df¼ 4, p5 .002, k¼ .41, p5 .001).

The concordance between the mother’s AAI classification duringpregnancy and her 1-year-old infant’s SSP classification 76% (w2¼ 35.28,df¼ 4, p5 .001, k¼ .65, p5 .001). The concordance between the mother’sAAI classification during pregnancy and her 3-year-old infant’s SSPclassification was 58% (w2¼ 26.87, df¼ 4, p5 .001, k¼ .36, p5 .002).

The concordance between the grandmother’s AAI classification and hergrandchild’s SSP classification at the age of 1 year was 48% (w2¼ 11.36,df¼ 4, p5 .02, k¼ .22, p¼ .08). When the child was 3 years old, the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 21:

05 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

concordance between the grandmother’s attachment classification and thatof her grandchild was 72% (w2¼ 23.87, df¼ 4, p5 .001, k¼ .56, p5 .001).

There was moderate stability of the children’s attachment classificationsfrom the SSP classification at 1 year to the PAA classification at 3 years, in61% (w2¼ 22.31, df¼ 4, p5 .001, k¼ .39, p5 .001). The highest stabilitywas linked to Type B and Type A classifications.

Log-linear analysis: Attachment classifications at the child agesof 1 year and 3 years

Forty-two percent of the 33 grandmother–mother–infant triads had thecorresponding attachment classifications when the child was 1 year old.The distribution of the attachment classifications of the triad consisting of thegrandmother, mother, and grandchild was predicted with a model assumingthat the mother’s attachment classification during pregnancy significantlyinfluences the child’s attachment classification. The same applies fromgrandmother to mother. It was assumed that attachments correspondencesfound between grandmothers and grandchildren are indirect effects, mediatedby the mother. In the first logistic regression model (with STATVIEW) theattachment classification of the mother was tested in relation to that of the 1-year-old infant. The model fitted well (log likelihood¼716.7, R2¼ .55,logistic likelihood ratio for mother w2¼ 40.3, df¼ 4, p5 .0001).

The second model also included the grandmother. The model had a goodfit (log likelihood ratio¼715.3, R2¼ .57, logistic likelihood ratio forgrandmother was w2¼ 2.4, df¼ 4, p5 .67 (ns), for mother w2¼ 29.7, df¼ 4,p5 .0001).

The model including both mother and grandmother was slightly better,but the overall classification fit was somewhat lower (75.8 vs. 76.5). Therewas a change in the predicted child outcomes; Type B was predicted in thefinal (and also only with mother) model up to 100%. Adding thegrandmother did not increase the R2 at the child age of 1. Type A as anoutcome was, however, better predicted (85% fit) in the combined model,whereas the Type C outcome was difficult to predict (40% fit).

Forty-seven percent of the 32 grandmother–mother–infant triads had thecorresponding attachment classifications when the child was 3. At the childage of 3, in the first model the mother’s attachment classification was testedin relation to that of the child. The fit of the model was good (loglikelihood¼716.9, R2¼ .50, logistic likelihood ratio for mother, w2¼ 43.9,df¼ 4, p5 .0001).

The second model also included the grandmother. The fit of this modelwas good (log likelihood ratio¼79.9, R2¼ .69, logistic likelihood ratio forgrandmother was w2¼ 11.0, df¼ 4, p¼ .026, for mother w2¼ 18.8, df¼ 4,p5 .0001). The model including the grandmother and mother was better


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 21:

05 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

than the model including the mother only, and the overall classification fitwas better (84.4 vs. 78.8). There was a change in the predicted childoutcomes. Type B was predicted in both models up to 100%, Type A as achild outcome was relatively accurately predicted (95% fit) in the secondmodel. In both models Type C was difficult to predict (33% fit).

Table 1 illustrates the continuity of attachment classifications across threegenerations when the infant was 1 year old, with the actual or observedrates, base rates and the ratio of actual/base rates. The first three rows showthat if the grandmother was avoidant, and the mother was avoidant, thenthe observed rate of Type A infants was 71%, which, compared to the baserate of 41%, is an increase of 1.7 times. No infants were Type B, and the

TABLE 1Infants’ 3-category attachment classifications using the SSP at 12 months: Actual rates,

base rate, and the ratio of actual/base rates (N¼33)

Grandmother Mother Infant N %a %b Ratio

A A A 5 71 41 1.7

B 0 0 29 Less

C 2 29 29 1

B A 0 0 41 Less

B 1 100 29 3.4

C 0 0 29 Less

C A 2 33 41 0.8

B 0 0 29 Less

C 4 66 29 2.3

B A A 1 100 41 2.4

B 0 0 29 Less

C 0 0 29 Less

B A 0 0 41 Less

B 6 86 29 3.0

C 1 14 29 0.5

C A 0 0 41 Less

B 0 0 29 Less

C 0 0 29 Less

C A A 2 100 41 2.4

B 0 0 29 Less

C 0 0 29 Less

B A 0 0 41 Less

B 3 100 29 3.4

C 0 0 29 Less

C A 3 50 41 1.2

B 0 0 29 Less

C 3 50 29 1.7

Notes: N¼number; %a¼ observed distribution, or actual concordance rate; %b¼base rate of

infants, 1 year old (N¼ 34); Ratio: actual/base.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 21:

05 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

observed rate of Type C infants was equivalent to the expected one (both29%). Thus, at 1 year, compared to the expected rate of Type A childoutcomes (41%), infants of Type A mothers and grandmothers were 1.7times more likely to be classified as avoidant at age 12 months. Compared tothe expected rate of Type B child outcomes (29%), infants of Type Bmothers and grandmothers were 3 times (86%; ratio¼ 3) more likely to beclassified as secure. The Type C matrilineal line resulted in either the Type Achild outcome (3 infants, expected rate¼ 41%, observed rate¼ 50%), orType C (3 infants, expected rate¼ 29%, observed rate¼ 50%).

Table 2 shows the transmission of attachment across three generations, atthe child age of 3 years, with the actual or observed rates, base rates and the

TABLE 2Children’s 3-category attachment classifications using the PAA at 3 years: Actual rates,

base rate, and ratio of actual/base rates (N¼32)

Grandmother Mother Infant N %a %b Ratio

A A A 6 86 51 1.7

B 0 0 27 Less

C 1 14 21 0.6

B A 0 0 51 Less

B 0 0 27 Less

C 1 100 21 4.8

C A 6 100 51 2.0

B 0 0 27 Less

C 0 0 21 Less

B A A 1 100 51 2.0

B 0 0 27 Less

C 0 0 21 Less

B A 0 0 51 Less

B 7 100 27 3.7

C 0 0 21 Less

C A 0 0 51 Less

B 0 0 27 Less

C 0 0 21 Less

C A A 1 50 51 1.0

B 0 0 27 Less

C 1 50 21 2.4

B A 0 0 51 Less

B 2 66 27 2.4

C 1 33 21 1.6

C A 3 60 51 1.2

B 0 0 27 Less

C 2 40 21 1.9

Notes: N¼number; %a¼observed distribution, or actual concordance rate; %b¼base rate of

children, 3 year old (N¼ 33); Ratio: actual/base.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 21:

05 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

ratio actual/base rates. The first three rows indicate that if the grandmotherwas avoidant, and mother was avoidant, then the actual rate of Type A was86%, which, compared to the base rate of 51%, is an increase of 1.7 times.There were no Type B child outcomes, but one Type C child with a ratio of0.6. Compared to the expected rate of Type A child outcomes (51%), infantsof Type A mothers and grandmothers were 1.7 times (86%) more likely tobe classified as avoidant at 3 years of age. Compared to the expected rate ofType B child outcomes (27%), children of Type B mothers and grand-mothers were 3.7 times (100%) more likely to be classified as secure. TheType C matrilineal line resulted either in the Type A child outcome (3children, expected rate¼ 51%, observed rate¼ 60%, ratio¼ 1.2), or alter-natively, Type C children (2 children, expected rate¼ 21%, observedrate¼ 40%, ratio¼ 1.9).

The prediction of the child’s observed attachment classification improvedmarkedly when the mother’s and the grandmother’s attachment classifica-tions were known. The highest level of continuity was linked to Type B andto Type A both when the child was 1 and 3 years old.

DISCUSSION

The study provided evidence for Bowlby’s (1973/1978) prototype view(Fraley, 2002) on attachment stability; internal working models ofattachment tended to be perpetuated across generations. Forty-twopercent of the 33 grandmother–mother–infant triads had the correspond-ing attachment classifications when the child was 1 year old, and 47%,respectively, when the child was 3 years old. Benoit and Parker (1994)reported a 65% match at the child age of 1. In accordance with Benoitand Parker (1994), the Type B child outcome was most accuratelypredicted in a 3-generational perspective. In addition, the Type A childoutcome was accurately predicted with a log-linear model including bothmother and grandmother. In spite of the rapid social changes acrossgenerations, the Type B and Type A1–2 attachment classifications weremoderately stable across three generations. The Type A1–2 classificationwas also the predominant one. The cross-generational correspondenceseven increased from the child age 1 to 3, a period during which theattachment pattern may consolidate (Grossman et al., 2005; Weinfieldet al., 2000).

Additionally, there was a moderate stability of the children’s attachmentclassifications, from the SSP to the PAA, in 61%. The highest stability waslinked to the Type B and Type A classifications. Belsky et al. (1996) reporteda 75% match on average, from 12/18 to 24 months for middle-class infantsamples. Fraley (2002) estimated the overall correlations between security at


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 21:

05 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

age 1 year and subsequent ages at .48 for low-risk samples. In this study, thecorresponding correlation was .78.

Second, there was a 76% correspondence between the mother’s AAIclassification and her infant’s SSP classification. Less so, but stillsignificantly, 58% of the mother classifications corresponded with thetoddler’s PAA classification. The concordance with the 1-year infantclassification was higher than the 66% match reported by Fonagy et al.(1991), but lower than the 82% match reported by Benoit and Parker (1994).In agreement with Benoit and Parker the secure classifications were the moststable across generations. Even though only 32% mothers were classified assecure in the present study, in contrast to Fonagy et al.’s (1991) 61%, theconcordance between the attachment classifications of mother and child wassomewhat greater for the 12-month-old infants.

A third finding was that the concordance between the attachmentclassification of the grandmother and her grandchild increased from thechild age of 1 to 3 years, from 48% to 72%. The prediction from themother’s AAI declined and the prediction from the grandmother’s AAIincreased. One interpretation is that grandmothers have more influence ontheir grandchild as the child develops, and the attachment pattern isconsolidated (Fagot & Pears, 1996). A growing generational similaritybetween grandmother and grandchild may have gradually evolved through athird factor—culture, presuming that the avoidant attachment strategy isstill given the greatest self-protective value in Finland (Crittenden, 2000;Moilanen, Kunelius, Tirkkonen, & Crittenden, 2000).

From a lifespan developmental perspective, this study offered only onesnapshot. Some grandmothers in the present study seemed to havedeveloped into earned secures at a later age (Roisman, Padron, Sroufe, &Egeland, 2002). The correspondences between grandmothers’ and mothers’attachment classification depended on when the grandmother’s earnedsecure state of mind evolved. The 3-generational correspondences suggest,however, that there may be moderate long-term stability in the offspring’sattachment.

One finding was the predominance of Type A1–2 attachment, particularlyfor children at the age of 3, and for grandmothers, which agreed with earlierFinnish studies of low-risk samples using the PAA (Moilanen et al., 2000),and among males, as assessed by the AAI (Hautamaki, Hautamaki,Maliniemi-Piispanen, & Neuvonen, 2008).

Limitations

As the sample was small, the study is more exploratory than confirmatory.Longitudinal studies use time-consuming in-depth attachment assessmentsthat require extensive training. Cross-cultural attachment research rarely


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 21:

05 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

produces representative demographic data. The most important contribu-tion of cross-cultural attachment research is to test the core propositions ofattachment theory (Van IJzendoorn & Sagi, 1999, p. 731). ‘‘The cross-cultural studies have not (yet) refuted the bold conjectures of attachmenttheory about the universality and normativity of attachment, and about itsantecedents and sequelae.’’

In order to avoid confounding culture and methods a crucial question iswhether the DMM methods are comparable to other assessment methods ofattachment. The Main and Goldwyn and the DMM systems overlap mostwith regard to the normative A-B-C range. Comparisons between studiesusing low-risk samples seem warranted. According to Black et al. (2000), upto 20% of a normative sample may have AAI transcripts that need theadditional subpattern classifications from the DMM. The DMM extensionsof the AAI made it possible to classify every AAI transcript.

Because the classificatory system of the PAA covers a wider range of non-verbal enacted behaviours, indicative of coping with an insecure attachmentrelationship, more children are classified as insecurely attached in the PAAthan in the Ainsworth et al. (1978) or the Main and Solomon (1990) systems.Rauh et al. (2000) compared Ainsworth’s, Main and Solomon’s and thePAA attachment assessments of 18- to 21-month-old low-risk children. Eventhough there were differences in infant classifications, the systems alsooverlapped in their low-risk sample.

According to Grossman, Grossmann, Spangler, Suess, and Unzer’s(1985) Bielefeld study about a half of the infants from a middle-class samplewas classified as Type A. Avoidant classifications did not necessarily predictpsychopathology. Although avoidant classifications have been a predictor ofproblems in high-risk samples, they do not appear to be so in low-risksamples (Fagot & Kavanagh, 1990; Fagot & Pears, 1996; Greenberg, Speltz,& DeKlyen, 1993; Hautamaki et al., 2008). The high proportion ofavoidance in infancy in a middle-class sample made the Bielefeld study an‘‘outlier’’ in cross-cultural comparison. Grossman et al. (2005) concludedthat the finding represented the impact of German patterns of child care,e.g., early independence training. Ainsworth et al. (1978) connected Type Ato maternal rejection of infant signals. Crittenden (2006) made a distinctionbetween a low-subscript Type A (A1–2) and a high-subscript, compulsiveType A (A3–A8), and contended that most children classified as Type A1–2do not show problems. Parents of Type A1–2 children offer sufficientprotection, i.e., respond to the child’s negative affect (anger, fear, pleas forcomfort) when it signals real danger, but consistently reject what seems to be‘‘unnecessary’’ affect, i.e., cries for comfort, fear or anger when the parentsthink that the child actually is safe. Early independence of children has beenvalued in Finland and still is. Children’s independence is also enhanced bythe mother–infant separation due to maternal full-time employment


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 21:

05 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

(Moilanen et al., 2000). The results from the Grossman study and thepresent study stress the importance of finding further evidence on thecultural contexts in which the child develops his working models ofattachment (Harwood, Miller, & Lucca Irizarry, 1995) into a culturallyadaptive self-protective strategy (Crittenden, 2006).

Manuscript received 4 July 2008

Revised manuscript accepted 17 April 2009

First published online 22 October 2009

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M., & Stayton, D. D. (1974). Infant–mother attachment and social

development: ‘‘Socialization’’ as a product of reciprocal responsiveness to signals. In M. P.

M. Richards (Ed.), Integration of the child into a social world (pp. 99–135). Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A

psychological study of the strange situation.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Inc.

Belsky, J., Campbell, S. B., Cohn, J. F., & Moore, G. (1996). Instability of infant–parent

attachment security. Developmental Psychology, 32, 921–924.

Benoit, D., & Parker, K. (1994). Stability and transmission of attachment across three

generations. Child Development, 65, 1444–1456.

Bergman, L. R., & El-Khouri, B. (1987). EXACON – A Fortran 77 program for the exact

analysis of single cells in a contingency table. Educational and Psychological Measurement,

47, 155–161.

Bergman, L. R., & El-Khouri, B. (2002). SLEIPNER—a statistical package for pattern-oriented

analyses. Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, loaded 2.1. 2002.

Black, K. A., Jaeger, E., McCartney, K., & Crittenden, P. M. (2000). Attachment models, peer

interaction behavior, and feelings about the self: Indications of maladjustment in

Dismissing/Preoccupied (Ds/E) adolescents. In P. M. Crittenden & A. H. Claussen (Eds.),

The organization of attachment relationships: Maturation, context, and culture (pp. 300–324).

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bokhorst, C. L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Fearon, R. M. P., Van IJzendoorn, M. H.,

Fonagy, P., & Schuengel, C. (2003). The importance of shared environment in mother–

infant attachment security: A behavioral genetic study. Child Development, 74, 1769–1782.

Bowlby, J. (1978). Attachment and loss. Vol. 2: Separation, Anxiety and anger. Harmondsworth,

UK: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1973).

Crittenden, P. M. (1994). Peering into the black box: An exploratory treatise on the

development of self in young children. In D. Cicchetti & S. L. Toth (Eds.), Disorders

and dysfunctions of the self: Rochester Symposium of Developmental Psychopathology (Vol. 5,

pp. 79–148). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Crittenden, P. M. (1999). Danger and development: The organization of self-protective

strategies. In J. I. Vondra & D. Barnett (Eds.), Atypical attachment in infancy and early

childhood among children at developmental risk (Monographs of the Society for Research in

Child Development, 64 [3, Serial No. 258], pp. 145–171).

Crittenden, P. M. (2000). A dynamic-maturational exploration of the meaning of security and

adaptation. Empirical, cultural and theoretical considerations. In P. M. Crittenden & A. H.

Claussen (Eds.), The organization of attachment relationships: Maturation, culture and

context (pp. 358–416). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 21:

05 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Crittenden, P. M. (2003, October). Trainers course for the strange situation procedure. Paper

presented to the Department of Psychology, St Petersburg University, Russia.

Crittenden, P. M. (2004a). Patterns of attachment in adulthood: A dynamic-maturation

approach to analyzing the Adult Attachment Interview. Unpublished manuscript: Draft,

March 2004.

Crittenden, P. M. (2004b). The Preschool Assessment of Attachment: Coding manual. Family

Relations Institute, Miami, Florida: December, 2004.

Crittenden, P. M. (2006). A dynamic-maturational model of attachment. Australia and New

Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 27, 105–115.

Crittenden, P. M. (2008). Raising parents: Attachment, parenting and child safety. Cullompton,

UK: Willan.

Crittenden, P. M., Claussen, A., & Kozlowska, K. (2007). Choosing a valid assessment of

attachment for clinical use: A comparative study. Australia and New Zealand Journal of

Family Therapy, 28, 78–87.

Crittenden, P. M., & DiLalla, D. L. (1988). Compulsive compliance: The development of an

inhibitory coping strategy in infancy. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 16, 585–599.

DeWolff, M. S., & Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-analysis

on parental antecedents of infant attachment. Child Development, 68, 571–591.

Fagot, B. I., & Kavanagh, K. (1990). The prediction of antisocial behavior from avoidant

attachment classifications. Child Development, 61, 864–873.

Fagot, B. I., & Pears, K. (1996). Changes in attachment during the third year: Consequences

and predictions. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 325–344.

Fearon, R. M. P., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Fonagy, P., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J.,

Schuengel, C., & Bokhorst, C. (2006). In search of shared and non-shared environmental

factors in security of attachment: A behavior-genetic study of the association between

sensitivity and attachment security. Developmental Psychology, 42, 1026–1040.

Fonagy, P., Steele, H., & Steele, M. (1991). Maternal representations of attachment during

pregnancy predict the organization of infant–mother attachment at one year of age. Child

Development, 62, 891–905.

Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and

dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review,

6(2), 123–151.

Freud, S. (1964). An outline of psychoanalysis. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The standard

edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 23, pp. 139–207).

London: Hogarth. (Original work published 1940).

Greenberg, M. T., Speltz, M. L., & DeKlyen, M. (1993). The role of attachment in the early

development of disruptive behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 191–

213.

Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Moran (Eds.), Syntax and

semantics. Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.

Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., & Kindler, H. (2005). Early care and the roots of

attachment and partnership representations. The Bielefield and Regensburg longitudinal

studies. In K. E. Grossman, K. Grossman, & E. Waters (Eds.), Attachment from infancy to

adulthood: The major longitudinal studies (pp. 98–136). New York: Guilford Press.

Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., Spangler, G., Suess, G., & Unzner, L. (1985). Maternal

sensitivity and the newborns orientation responses as related to quality of attachment in

northern Germany. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory

and research (Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50 [1–2, Serial

No. 209], pp. 233–256).

Gullestad, S. E. (2003). Adult Attachment Interview and psychoanalytic outcome studies.

International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 84, 651–668.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 21:

05 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Haapasalo, J., Puupponen, M., & Crittenden, P. M. (1999). Victim to victimizer: The

psychology of isomorphism in a case of a recidivist pedophile. Journal of Child Sexual

Abuse, 7, 97–115.

Harwood, R. L., Miller, J. G., & Lucca Irizarry, N. (1995). Culture and attachment: Perceptions

of the child in context. New York: Guilford Press.

Hautamaki, A., Hautamaki, L., Maliniemi-Piispanen, S., & Neuvonen, L. (2008). Kiintymys-

suhteen valittyminen kolmessa sukupolvessa—aidinaitien paluu? [The transmission

of attachment across three generations—the return of grannies?] Psykologia, 6/2008,

421–442.

Hesse, E. (1996). Discourse, memory, and the Adult Attachment Interview: A note with

emphasis on the emerging cannot classify category. Infant Mental Health, 17, 4–11.

Hesse, E. (1999). The Adult Attachment Interview: Historical and current perspectives. In J.

Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical

applications (pp. 395–433). New York: Guilford Press.

Hughes, J., Hardy, G., & Kendrick, D. (2000). Assessing adult attachment status with clinically

orientated interviews: A brief report. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 73, 279–283.

Ingold, T. (1997). Finland in the New Europe: People, community, and society. London:

Newsletter of the Finnish Institute in London, no.4.

Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (in press). Adult attachment scoring and classification systems.

University of California at Berkeley: Unpublished manuscript.

Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and adulthood: A

move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of

attachment: Theory and research (Monographs of the Society for Research in Child

Development, 50 [1–2, Serial No. 209], pp. 66–104).

Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented

during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M.

Cummings (Eds.), Attachment during the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention

(pp. 121–160). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Moilanen, I., Kunelius, A., Tirkkonen, T., & Crittenden, P. M. (2000). Attachment in Finnish

twins. In P. M. Crittenden & A. H. Claussen (Eds.), The organization of attachment

relationships: Maturation, culture and context (pp. 125–140). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Radke-Yarrow, M. (1998). Children of depressed mothers: From early childhood to maturity.


Radke-Yarrow, M., Cummings, E. M., Kuczynski, L., & Chapman, M. (1985). Patterns of

attachment in two- and three-year-olds in normal families and families with parental

depression. Child Development, 56, 884–893.

Rauh, H., Ziegenhain, U., Muller, B., & Wijnroks, L. (2000). Stability and change in infant–

mother attachment in the second year of life: Relations to parenting quality and varying

degrees of day-care experience. In P. M. Crittenden & A. H. Claussen (Eds.), The

organization of attachment relationships: Maturation, culture and context (pp. 251–276).


Ringer, F., & Crittenden, P. M. (2007). Eating disorders and attachment: The effect of hidden

family processes on eating disorders. European Eating Disorders Review, 15, 119–130.

Roisman, G. I., Padron, E., Sroufe, A., & Egeland, B. (2002). Earned secure attachment status

in retrospect and prospect. Child Development, 73(4), 1204–1219.

Schore, A. N. (1994). Affect regulation and the origin of the self: The neurobiology of emotional

development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Teti, D. M., & Gelfand, D. M. (1997). The Preschool Assessment of attachment: Construct

validity in a sample of depressed and non-depressed families. Development and

Psychopathology, 9, 517–536.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 21:

05 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Thompson, R. A., Lamb, M., & Estes, D. (1982). Stability of infant–mother attachment and its

relationship to changing life circumstances in an unselected middle-class sample. Child


Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1995a). Of the way we were: On temperament, attachment, and the

transmission gap: A rejoinder to Fox. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 411–415.

Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1995b). Adult attachment representations, parental responsiveness,

and infant attachment: A meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the Adult Attachment

Interview. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 387–403.

Van IJzendoorn,M.H., Bakermans-Kranenburg,M. J., & Sagi-Schwartz, A. (2006). Attachment

across diverse sociocultural contexts: The limits of universality. InK.H.Rubin&O. B. Chung

(Eds.), Parenting beliefs, behaviors, and parent–child relationships: A cross-cultural perspective

(pp. 107–142). New York: Psychology Press.

Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Juffer, F., & Duyvesteyn, M. (1995). Breaking the intergenerational

cycle of insecure attachment: A review of the effects of attachment-based interventions on

maternal sensitivity and infant security. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 225–

248.

Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Kranenburg, M., Zwart-Woudstra, H., van Bussbach, A., &

Lambermon, M. W. E. (1991). Parental attachment and children’s social-emotional

development: Some findings on the validity of the Adult Attachment Interview in the

Netherlands. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 14, 375–394.

Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Sagi, A. (1999). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment. Universal and

contextual dimensions. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment:

Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications (pp. 713–734). New York: Guilford Press.

Vondra, J. I., Shaw, D. S., Swearingen, L., Cohen, M., & Owens, E. B. (2001). Attachment

stability and emotional and behavioral regulation from infancy to preschool age.

Development and Psychopathology, 13, 13–33.

Ward, M. J., & Carlson, E. A. (1995). Associations among adult attachment representations,

maternal sensitivity, and infant–mother attachment in a sample of adolescent mothers. Child


Weinfield, N., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2000). Attachment from infancy to young

adulthood in a high risk sample: Continuity, discontinuity, and their correlates. Child



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 21:

05 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

transmission of attachment across three generations

Documents