Search

In line with the studies which have stressed the importance of security of attachment models to caregiver and to partner in biological parenthood, the aim of this study has been to investigate these constructs in seeking to adopt couples. 39 childless and seeking to adopt couples and 39 control couples, aged between 35 and 45 years, have been assessed by the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) and by the Current Relationship Interview (CRI). The two groups do not differ with respect to attachment to the caregiver (AAI), while adoptive fathers show a prevalence of secure attachment classifications with respect to partner (CRI) compared to non-adoptive fathers. In general, seeking to adopt couples show great valuing of attachment relationships, feature which will be important for a successful adoption.

This paper describes research investigating couples who undertook the procedure of becoming adoptive parents, studying the partners’ representations of relationships in the context of their psychological sense of loss owing to infertility. The sample consisted of 100 subjects (50 couples) who took part in an assessment process related to adoption within the Social Services structures. The subjects had the following features in common: they were between 35 and 45 years of age; the duration of their marriages was between 7 and 10 years; none had biological or previously adopted children. The instruments used were a Psycho-Social Questionnaire, the Adult Attachment Interview (Main & Goldwin, 1998) and the Family Life Space (Gozzoli & Tamanza, 1998). The results showed a majority of couples classified by the AAI as ‘Secure’, and a lack of couples formed by partners both classified as ‘Insecure’. Moreover, we found a prevalence of couples who are classified by the FLS instrument as failing in ‘space government’ (Fragmentation and Overfilling = 68%). These results suggest that adoptive couples show a strong appreciation of affect and attachment needs, but are still deeply in crisis in the personal and family relationship sectors of their lives.

This study examined the psychometric properties of a newly translated Italian version of the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R) Scale. The sample comprised 1,363 adults (906 women, 456 men, 1 unreported sex; ages 18-64 yr., M = 33.4, SD = 8.9; 84.4% reported being engaged in a romantic relationship, 9.4% declared being single), all living in Italy and speaking Italian as their first language. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses showed the expected bi-factorial (anxiety/avoidance) structure and a close correspondence between factors and scales. Test-retest and internal consistency reliabilities were adequate. Correlations with the Relationship Questionnaire, a categorical measure of attachment, and with the Dyadic Adjustment Scale were consistent with the theoretical relations among the constructs. The findings confirm the transcultural validity of the ECR-R. © Psychological Reports 2014.

Background: The Adult Attachment Interview is a narrative instrument which, although mainly used in the field of the attachment research, is increasingly used within the clinical settings, thus contributing to the development of an area of peculiar interest such as the connection between the individual attachment and the romantic relationships. Objective: The present work aims to investigate the dimension of reciprocity underlying the matching between two partners, and the characteristics of the couple relationship regarding the representations of their childhood and the ones concerning the relationship with the partner. Methodology: In order to exemplify the use of the narrative techniques in the clinical practice, the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI, Main, Goldwyn e Hesse, 2002) and the Current Relationship Interview (CRI, Crowell e Owens, 1996) were administered to a couple at the beginning of a psychoanalytic psychotherapy. Discussion and conclusion: In the interpretation of this couple’s relationship, the discrepancy between the matching of the two AAI interviews (F2/F4 husband and DS1/DS2 wife) and the matching of the two CRI interviews (S1/D3 husband and P1/P2 wife) suggests the adult attachment construct should be conceived not only in terms of continuity (i.e., according a “prototype” perspective), but also in terms of discontinuity (i.e., according a “dyadic-relational perspective”). In this regard, when the matching is considered vertically – that is, when AAI is compared with CRI for each partner – a secure strategy emerges for the husband (although there is a tendency toward a dismissing attitude). In contrast, the strategy of the wife shifts from dismissing to preoccupied. With respect to the dichotomy of continuity vs. discontinuity (see also the findings of Judith Crowell on the concordance vs. discordance between generalized and specific relationships), a further difference seems to emerge between the two partners. For the husband, the concordance between the secure representations results in a perception of the relationship that is moderately positive and somewhat more realistic, with a relative confidence that the couple will be able to resolve the conflicts. In contrast, the wife is characterized by a concordance between the insecure representations (insecurity with respect to the generalized and specific representations), which is usually associated with a vulnerability of the partners to relationship difficulties. Particularly relevant in these individuals is the discrepancy between the high level of aggressive behaviour and the relative absence of anxiety in the feelings that are expressed towards their relationship. This discrepancy between behaviour and feelings may express a difficulty in understanding the meaning of the attachment experiences. Finally, the matching of the Internal Working Models of the partners doesn’t seem to be explained only through their infant relationships as Freud and Bowlby partly suggested.

The theory of attachment deeply influenced research and the classical view of developmental psychopathology and lead clinicians to pay greater attention to the interpersonal function than to the study of the individual mind. This gave rise to an extension of the area covered by these studies beyond the boundaries of childhood and the early relations with the parents. Attachment as a motivational element plays a vital role – from birth till death –and represents a development model that covers the whole life span. The theory of attachment also highlighted the value of the representational dimensions and the role of the internalization of affective contents and of the system of meaning built in the experiences with the caregivers, as compared to an initial focus on the behavioural attachment system. In the theory of attachment, in fact, there has been a relevant evolution in the early Seventies that stressed the issue of “feeling safe” rather than that of physical proximity, allowing a new conceptualization of the theory in terms of affective regulation and of representations of the self and of the other. This change contributed to freeing the theory of attachment from a perspective that made infancy the essential core of affective development, giving greater value to other stages of the life span and to the role of other figures – multiple caregivers – the father in the first place and the couple love relations. The most controversial and stimulating issue today derives from trying to verify if the theory of attachment can be applied to romantic relations, how much and how the relational models devised in the family of origin tend to be applied to adult relations. In this book the research group developed some basic issues in the field of romantic relations and presents the results of various studies where both narrative and self-reporting tools have been applied. The authors touch first the question of the structure of the concept of romantic attachment, starting from the relational and interpersonal function and from the intrapsychic function of this relation. In the first part of the book, the authors discuss a key issue that recently sparked a wide debate: the continuity/discontinuity of infant attachment and adult attachment. The question debated is if attachment can be considered a lasting trait of a person, influencing his functioning in intimate relations, or if it reflects and is modified by the individual experience in recent and adult relations. If we look at the first position, we could say that primary infantile relations, generalized in internal operating models, tend to influence the establishment of relations in later years, both in adolescence and adulthood. In the second position, instead, there would be a discontinuity between past and present, or at least, there would not be a linear transmission of the patterns built in childhood, and couple phenomena should be seen in the encounter of two psychic organizations and their mutual influence in the here and now. These themes fit well in the present debate on the comparison between the classical Freudian paradigm and the changes that the post-modern intersubjectivistic models caused in the psychoanalytical movement, to the point that we can wonder if the individual is an entity different from a couple, a family or a group and therefore if these two entities, the individual and the interpersonal, are completely different or interconnected. The authors describe the stages of development of adult romantic relations: pre-attachment – flirting; formation of attachment – falling in love; well delineated attachment, and show analogies in the behaviour of adult subjects and the primary mother-child relation both as concerns emotional features and motivational aspects, something already described by Freud and Bowlby. The attachment link, in fact, meets a few key requirements even in adults, such as a safe base and a safe haven that guarantee safety and stability that in turn allow and enhance exploratory behaviours, just like the awareness of an emotional presence provides comfort in case of stress. These aspects are discussed considering the behavioural systems typical of adulthood, such as caregiving and sexuality. In the first chapter the authors give a systematic outline of various theoretical questions, opting for what has been defined the dyadic nature of relations, a position referring to the idea of discontinuity of operational models. In other words, as many recent studies suggest (Feeney, 2004), in a significant relation, such as a couple relation, the attachment models of the partners affect the establishment and development of the relation, but it is the relation dynamics that most affects the attachment models of the partners in building a new reality at a different metalevel than the preceding individual patterns. This position is discussed with the help of clinical examples by presenting some of the most appreciated tools for assessing adult attachment in couples and families. In the second chapter the authors illustrate the representational level of research on attachment by means of the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI), a well known tool that is widely used in clinical research, but is less widespread in couple studies. One interesting novelty of this book is the presentation of the Current Relationship Interview (CRI), a semi-structured interview aiming at assessing the relation-specific attachment representation, prepared by Judith Crowell within the Stony Brook Adult Relationship Project (2003). The authors, after presenting the features of this tool, illustrate its areas of application: romantic background, current romantic relationship, safe base, safe haven, past (quality of the parental couple’s relation) and future, providing an overview of the studies and applications of this interview, commenting in particular those longitudinal studies that assessed the changes in the generalized individual attachment models as compared to the specific couple attachment models. This tool, new for the Italian public, is illustrated both as concerns the articulation of the questionnaire and the classification modes and attachment categories outlined. The authors also provide clinical examples where the interview was used that confirm their attention to the theoretical aspects of couple attachment and to the diffusion of tools for the assessment of the quality of significant relations in various areas of clinical intervention. The whole book, however, pays constant attention to the question of marital quality, also for the implications this issue has on the stability/instability of couple relations, on the wellbeing and illbeing of its members and any possible consequence on their children. In particular, in the sixth chapter, where the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) is presented, the authors discuss the theoretical and terminological confusions concerning the concept of marital quality, along with the wealth of studies where this concept is assimilated to that of satisfaction, successful couple relation, adaptation or complicity. In the literature we often find confusion between the perception of individual feelings and the perception of couple feelings, the first one related to a subjective and individual assessment of the couple members on their personal feeling of satisfaction, wellbeing, happiness, etc; the second related to the assessment of the style of communication and/or conflict existing in the couple relation. This problem is discussed again when presenting the category or dimension evaluation in the tools of self reporting on romantic attachment, where particular attention is paid to Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR-R) of Fraley, Waller and Brennan. The psychometric features and the viability in clinical situations of this tool are discussed also with the help of an example that assesses both individual attachment and couple matching. The proximity of the theory of attachment with the psychoanalytical paradigm is discussed in depth in the fourth chapter of the book, dedicated to the theoretical links between the concept of reflexive function and romantic attachment. In this chapter the authors develop some basic issues within the two paradigms, i.e. the association between the caregiver’s capacity for “seeing” the mental state of the child and the acquisition of the capacity for mentalization, or the ability to respond, also in adult life, to the interpersonal exchanges with flexibility and adaptation. The originality of the authors’ approach resides in the application of the Scale of Reflexive Function prepared by Fonagy and Target (1997) to the transcript of the Current Relationship Interview, introducing the concept of mentalized affectivity, a kind of affective regulation that treats the range of affects through the lenses of self reflectiveness and is considered by the authors as one of the requirements for a satisfying relational life. In the last chapter the authors illustrate the Couple Life Space (Tamanza and Gozzoli), a joint projective tool deriving from the adaptation to the couple of the more familiar Family Life Space of Mostwin (1980, 1982) which allows, through a graphic representation, to see the type and quality of couple relation also considering the significant figures and the social context. The authors comment the profile of this tool and stress its usefulness in the area of difficult interactions and its ability in seeing how a couple governs its common life space both in the here and now (of the couple) and in terms of any real or possible critical events. These last considerations make us foresee a new challenge that the paradigm of attachment will have to face: the passage – or confrontation – from an initially individual starting point to an explanation of the intersubjetive dimensions. In this sense, the area of couple dynamics appears as an area rich of epistemological stimuli and of tools aimed at well capturing the relationship between the intrapsychic and the relational.

La presente ricerca si pone l’obiettivo di verificare la relazione esistente tra il costrutto dell’ Attaccamento romantico, definito attraverso le dimensioni di “Ansia rispetto all’abbandono” ed “Evitamento della vicinanza” e l’Adattamento di coppia. In particolare si ipotizza che all’interno della relazione di coppia, i soggetti più adattati (sicuri) riportino bassi punteggi d’Ansia e di Evitamento, mentre quelli caratterizzati da alta Ansia ed alto Evitamento siano in assoluto i meno adattati (Preoccupati e Timorosi). Si ipotizza inoltre che esista una significativa correlazione tra le dimensioni di Ansia, Evitamento ed i punteggi di adattamento di coppia quali emergono nelle differenti tipologie di matching. Per la rilevazione dei dati sono stati utilizzati due strumenti self-report: a) la Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) (Spanier, 2001)b)che è una misura dell’adattamento di coppia e l’Experiences in Close Relationship Scale-R (ECR-R) di Brennan e collaboratori (1999), che valuta i sentimenti e i comportamenti correlati all’attaccamento. Partecipanti:l’indagine si è svolta su un campione di 400 soggetti, 200 coppie stabili di adulti, sposati o conviventi. Il campione é omogeneo rispetto alle seguenti variabili: età dei partners, compresa tra i 35-45 anni; anni di matrimonio o di convivenza, dai 7 ai 14; status socioeconomico medio. La verifica delle ipotesi di relazione e predizione circa i dati relativi ai questionari (ECR-R e DAS) è stata effettuata attraverso il calcolo degli indici di Regressione Multipla. I risultati emersi confermano, nel nostro campione, l’esistenza di una la relazione tra il costrutto dell’Attaccamento romantico e l’Adattamento di coppia. Contrariamente a quanto ipotizzato, però, il buon Adattamento di coppia risulta fondamentalmente correlato con una delle due dimensioni prese in esame, quella relativa all’Evitamento dell’intimità, mentre non si evidenziano relazioni significative con quella relativa all’Ansia per l’abbandono. In particolare, se si considerano le relazioni fra le diverse tipologie di attaccamento risultanti dall’incrocio delle due dimensioni e l’adattamento di coppia, emerge che i soggetti più adattati sono quelli caratterizzati da un attaccamento di tipo “Sicuro” e “Preoccupato”,ovvero da bassi punteggi di Evitamento, indipendentemente dai punteggi nella dimensione dell’Ansia.

Dans la première intervention, le psychanalyste a essayé de différencier les thèmes individuels, en cherchant en premier lieu à comprendre la qualité des affects dont Mme D et M. D sont porteurs (Zavattini, 2001). Autrement dit, la façon dont les deux ont découvert dans la relation de couple, non seulement le fait de ré-expérimenter des situations affectives frustrantes, mais aussi et surtout de jouer un rôle actif à travers le conjoint, en le poussant à devenir l'objet frustrant qu'ils voulaient éviter. Mme D évite inconsciemment le rôle de mère masochiste et soumise, qui tend d'un côté à renoncer à soi et de l'autre à s'identifier à un père dominant, ce qui implique aussi la peur de ne pas être capable d'affronter son désespoir: l'enfant-soi, dans le rêve, peut être vécu comme quelque chose de très onéreux et vexatoire, qui nécessite son aide immédiate - une part d'elle-même qui n'est pas métabolisée et qui lui provoque une grande anxiété. M. D semble avoir été incapable d’introjecter un père suffisamment fort et sûr, engagé sentimentalement avec une mère qui n’est pas digne de confiance. Il hésite entre l'identification avec l'enfant qui ne veut pas être contrôlé et le sentiment que l'absence des parents est dangereuse. Selon nous, cette perpétuelle oscillation pourrait expliquer la raison pour laquelle M. D se prête toujours à un rôle où la confiance et la fiabilité n'existent pas. Dans la deuxième intervention, nous avons essayé de révéler l’interpénétration de leur monde intérieur, jusqu'à ce que le psychanalyste réussisse à mettre en évidence que le "ni avec toi, ni sans toi" est l’expression d’un thème inconscient partagé. Toutefois, Mme D et M. D semblent être pris au piège dans un lien où ils craignent que l'autre s'empare du rapport, et fasse ainsi pencher la balance en sa faveur. Nous voulons surtout souligner qu'un niveau plus profond de leur lien inconscient remonte à la surface, et fait en sorte que leur collusion provoque le conflit. Déclencher une dispute ne signifie pas seulement exclure momentanément l'analyste de la conversation, mais surtout se servir de lui pour affronter les "faits". En d'autres termes, à travers la dispute le couple peut collaborer en s'alliant pour transformer l'analyste soit en parent endormi/inconscient, soit en médiateur. Ce n'est qu'à présent que le psychanalyste prend conscience qu'il risquait d'être mis au même niveau du scénario du rêve, étant donné qu'il n'arrivait pas à les calmer et à les faire "réfléchir". Enfin, nous voulons souligner que notre tâche n'est pas d'enseigner au couple à interrompre ou éliminer les projections, mais de comprendre d'où elles proviennent et où elles nous conduisent. Cela dit, il est important que chacun comprenne que les projections existent et qu'il est nécessaire d'éviter qu'elles deviennent rigides, en empêchent ainsi une introspection. Nous devons faire comprendre au couple que ce qu'ils se reprochent est exactement ce dont ils se plaignent; c’est-à-dire des aspects de soi projetés dans l'autre. Toutefois, il faut en parler avec grand soin parce que cela concerne le cœur de la collusion et de ce que l'on appelle le transfert de couple. Considérer la dialectique interne/externe, le Je/Tu et le Je/Nous, semble utile non seulement au niveau des problèmes d’incompréhension réciproque, mais aussi pour une plus grande capacité de reconnaître à l’intérieur de soi et de différencier les sentiments qui devraient constituer la base des efforts supplémentaires pour la compréhension.