Search

Sensitive caregiving behavior, which involves the ability to notice, interpret, and quickly respond to a child's signals of need and/or interest, is a central determinant of secure child-caregiver attachment. Yet, significant heterogeneity in effect sizes exists across the literature, and sources of heterogeneity have yet to be explained. For all child-caregiver dyads, there was a significant and positive pooled association between caregiver sensitivity and parent-child attachment ( r = .25, 95% CI [.22, .28], k = 174, 230 effect sizes, N = 22,914). We also found a positive association between maternal sensitivity and child attachment security ( r = .26, 95% CI [.22, .29], k = 159, 202 effect sizes, N = 21,483), which was equivalent in magnitude to paternal sensitivity and child attachment security ( r = .21, 95% CI [.14, 27], k = 22, 23 effect sizes, N = 1,626). Maternal sensitivity was also negatively associated with all three classifications of insecure attachment (avoidant: k = 43, r = -.24 [-.34, -.13]; resistant: k = 43, r = -.12 [-.19, -.06]; disorganized: k = 24, r = -.19 [-.27, -.11]). For maternal sensitivity, associations were larger in studies that used the Attachment Q-Sort (vs. the Strange Situation), used the Maternal Behavior Q-Sort (vs. Ainsworth or Emotional Availability Scales), had strong (vs. poor) interrater measurement reliability, had a longer observation of sensitivity, and had less time elapse between assessments. For paternal sensitivity, associations were larger in older (vs. younger) fathers and children. These findings confirm the importance of both maternal and paternal sensitivity for the development of child attachment security and add understanding of the methodological and substantive factors that allow this effect to be observed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

This meta-analysis synthesized the distribution of attachment classifications as coded with the Cassidy-Marvin Preschool Attachment Coding System and the Main-Cassidy Six-Year-Old System. These systems have extended scholars' capacity to measure differences in the developing child-parent attachment relationship, and its sequelae, beyond the infancy period; however, the global distribution of the attachment categories in these systems, and the potential factors influencing this distribution, remain unknown. The meta-analysis included 97 samples ( N = 8,186 children; 55% boys), mostly drawn from North American or European populations (89%; M = 76% White). Results indicated that the distribution of child-mother attachment was 53.5% secure, 14.0% avoidant, 11.0% ambivalent, and 21.5% disorganized/controlling. Moderator analyses showed that rates of security were lower, and rates of disorganization were higher, in samples of at-risk families, specifically when children were exposed to maltreatment. Variations in the procedure also moderated the distribution. The discussion calls for greater unity around methodological practices.

Clinical practitioners are frequently encouraged, through literature, training, and policy, to learn, understand, refer to and use their knowledge of attachment theory and research when working to meet the needs of children and families. However, there has been very little empirical study of how practitioners understand and perceive the relevance of attachment concepts and methods. Q-methodology was used to examine the perceptions of attachment knowledge and its applications for practice among 30 UK clinicians working with children and an international group of 31 attachment researchers. Factor analysis revealed three perspectives, described as: i) pragmatic, developmental, and uncertain, ii) academic, and iii) autodidactic and therapeutic. Participants agreed on core tenants of theory, their aspirations for clinical practice and the inaccessibility of current assessment measures for practitioners. Yet they diverged on their understandings of attachment insecurity, disorganisation, and the implications of both for various aspects of child development.

Attachment theory and research are drawn upon in many applied settings, including family courts, but misunderstandings are widespread and sometimes result in misapplications. The aim of this consensus statement is, therefore, to enhance understanding, counter misinformation, and steer family-court utilisation of attachment theory in a supportive, evidence-based direction, especially with regard to child protection and child custody decision-making. The article is divided into two parts. In the first, we address problems related to the use of attachment theory and research in family courts, and discuss reasons for these problems. To this end, we examine family court applications of attachment theory in the current context of the best-interest-of-the-child standard, discuss misunderstandings regarding attachment theory, and identify factors that have hindered accurate implementation. In the second part, we provide recommendations for the application of attachment theory and research. To this end, we set out three attachment principles: the child's need for familiar, non-abusive caregivers; the value of continuity of good-enough care; and the benefits of networks of attachment relationships. We also discuss the suitability of assessments of attachment quality and caregiving behaviour to inform family court decision-making. We conclude that assessments of caregiver behaviour should take center stage. Although there is dissensus among us regarding the use of assessments of attachment quality to inform child custody and child-protection decisions, such assessments are currently most suitable for targeting and directing supportive interventions. Finally, we provide directions to guide future interdisciplinary research collaboration.

Examining degrees of stability in attachment throughout early childhood is important for understanding developmental pathways and for informing intervention. Updating and building upon all prior meta-analyses, this study aimed to determine levels of stability in all forms of attachment classifications across early childhood. Attachment stability was assessed between three developmental epochs within early childhood: infancy, toddlerhood, and preschool/early school. To ensure data homogeneity, only studies that assessed attachment with methods based on the strange situation procedure were included. Results indicate moderate levels of stability at both the four-way (secure, avoidant, resistant, and disorganised; κ  = 0.23) and secure/insecure ( r = 0.28) levels of assessment. Meta-regression analysis indicated security to be the most stable attachment organisation. This study also found evidence for publication bias, highlighting a preference for the publication of significant findings.

Attachment concepts are used in diverging ways, which has caused confusion in communication among researchers, among practitioners, and between researchers and practitioners, and hinders their potential for collaboration. In this essay we explore how attachment concepts may vary in meaning across six different domains: popular discourses, developmental science, social psychological science, psychiatric diagnosis, psychotherapy, and child welfare practice. We attempt to typify these forms of attachment discourse by highlighting points of convergence, divergence, and relay between the different domains. Our general conclusions are that diversity in the use of attachment concepts across different domains of application has been largely unrecognised, and that recognition of these differences would reduce confusion, help identify sites where infrastructure needs to be developed to support coordination, and strengthen opportunities for collaboration to mutual benefit. We suggest that academic attachment discourse would benefit from clarification of core terminology, including: "attachment", "internal working model", "trauma", and "dysregulation".

This paper prospected the evidence synthesized in meta-analyses on child-parent attachment to discuss its implications for the future of attachment research. Based on the 75 identified meta-analyses, effect size benchmarks may need to be adjusted to small ( r  = .10), medium ( r  = .20), and large ( r  = .30). Topics of attachment meta-analyses predominantly (53%) reflected interest in testing theory. Bibliometric analysis of scientific publications ( k  = 7,595) that cited these meta-analyses reflect waxing uptake in work on interventions, mental health, and attachment anxiety/avoidance and waning uptake in work on attachment relationships and representations, except for the subtopics of sensitivity and fathers. Prospects for scientifically rigorous research are to be found in engagement with stakeholders working to address important societal challenges. Promoting nurturing care and reducing harm in child welfare contain "Goldilocks-problems" that are amenable to incremental progress while simultaneously advancing theory and methods.

In this paper, newly uncovered archival material from the Bowlby archives is presented on Bowlby's own dreams and dream interpretation. Although he was critical of orthodox psychoanalysis, Bowlby appears to have been seriously involved in Freudian dream interpretation in the 1930s and 1940s. Here, we present in annotated form his own interpretations of several of his dreams from that time and a series of lectures on dreams. In Attachment and Loss , classic dream interpretation is absent and Bowlby used the content of dreams as a reflection of the influence of real-life experiences on the representations of attachment relations, with a clear focus on grief, loss, and mourning. Bowlby's shift from psychoanalysis to a more behavioral approach and the introduction of the concept of "defensive exclusion" to supplant Freud's concept of "repression" may have led him to think about how grief and mourning may affect the content of our dreams.

This study examined how fathers' adult attachment representations, assessed before the birth of their first child, predict feeding practices with their 8-month-old infants. Fathers have been underrepresented in child feeding research, particularly in longitudinal and observational studies. Feeding is a key parenting task of infancy and a growing number of studies have begun to explore the connection between attachment and parental feeding practices and behavior, revealing a clear link between mothers' adult attachment and how they feed their children. This is the first longitudinal examination of attachment as a prenatal predictor of fathers' infant feeding behavior. Participants were 118 first-time fathers and their infants. Adult Attachment Interviews were conducted in the third trimester of pregnancy, and father-infant feeding interactions were observed at home when the infant was 8-months-old. Videotaped feedings were coded using Chatoor's Feeding Scale (1997). Compared to other fathers, (1) those with secure attachment representations were more attuned to their infants during feeding, (2) those with dismissing representations were less attuned, and (3) those with unresolved trauma displayed more controlling behaviors. Fathers were more controlling with their sons than their daughters across all attachment representations. Study results suggest that father's infant feeding behaviors may influence by their own attachment representations. The links to fathers' controlling feeding practices are noteworthy because of the negative implications controlling parental feeding practices can have on child outcomes. The prediction of paternal feeding behaviors from assessments conducted prenatally has important intervention implications., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Main and Solomon were the first to create a formal infant Strange Situation classification of attachment disorganization. Bowlby's reflections on the underlying psychological processes of such behaviors, however, began early in his career, including the term "disorganization." Most of these remained unpublished but are available through the John Bowlby Archive. Bowlby saw affective experiences as the source of the attachment behavioral system's organization and regulation, and he introduced the term "effector equipment" to describe the emergent organization of attention, expectation, affect, and behavior to orchestrate responses to the environment. In his thinking, disorganization results from threat conflict, safe haven ambiguity, and/or activation without assuagement, which interfere with coordination and integration across a behavioral system. Bowlby's unpublished writings also amplify his published work on segregated systems and defensive exclusion. Bowlby's insights are relevant today and can provide greater background and clarity to current work, as researchers and clinicians consider the origins, manifestations, and meaning of disorganization.

In this short-term longitudinal study, 30 preschool-aged children with autism were first observed in Ainsworth's Strange Situation Procedure and, separately, interacting with the primary caregiver in the home. One year later, each child completed both a developmental assessment and an observational assessment of empathic responding. Behaviors typical for children with autism were distinguished from behaviors suggestive of relationally based attachment disorganization. Forty-five percent of the children were classified as securely attached. The secure group demonstrated language skills superior to those of the insecurely attached group, concurrently and during the follow-up. Compared to parents of children who were insecurely attached, parents of securely attached children were rated as more sensitive. Compared to both organized insecure and disorganized children, secure children were rated as more responsive to an examiner's apparent distress during the follow-up relative to their ratings at intake, whereas empathy ratings of children with insecure classifications did not increase. Importantly, attachment security was associated with empathy above and beyond the contribution of children's language level. These results indicate that the sequelae of attachment security in autism may be similar to those documented for typically developing children.

Since its introduction by Main and Solomon in 1990, the infant disorganised attachment classification has functioned as a predictor of mental health in developmental psychology research. It has also been used by practitioners as an indicator of inadequate parenting and developmental risk, at times with greater confidence than research would support. Although attachment disorganisation takes many forms, it is generally understood to reflect a child's experience of being repeatedly alarmed by their parent's behaviour. In this paper we analyse how the infant disorganised attachment classification has been stabilised and interpreted, reporting results from archival study, ethnographic observations at four training institutes for coding disorganised attachment, interviews with researchers, certified coders and clinicians, and focus groups with child welfare practitioners. Our analysis points to the role of power/knowledge disjunctures in hindering communication between key groups: Main and Solomon and their readers; the oral culture of coders and the written culture of published papers; the research community and practitioners. We highlight how understandings of disorganised attachment have been magnetised by a simplified image of a child fearful of his or her own parent., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

In 1990, M. Main and J. Solomon introduced the procedures for coding a new "disorganized" infant attachment classification for the Ainsworth Strange Situation procedure (M.D.S. Ainsworth, M. Blehar, E. Waters, & S. Wall, 1978). This classification has received a high degree of interest, both from researchers and from child welfare and clinical practitioners. Disorganized attachment has primarily been understood through the lens of E. Hesse and M. Main's concept of "fright without solution," taken to mean that an infant experiences a conflict between a desire to approach and flee from a frightening parent when confronted by the Strange Situation. Yet, looking back, it can be observed that the way Hesse and Main's texts were formulated and read has generated confusion; there have been repeated calls in recent years for renewed theory and clarification about the relationship between disorganization and fear. Responding to these calls, this article revisits the texts that introduced the idea of fright without solution, clarifying their claims through articulating more precisely the different meanings of the term fear. This clarified account will then be applied to consideration of pathways to infant disorganized behaviors., (© 2018 The Authors. Infant Mental Health Journal published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Michigan Association for Infant Mental Health.)

Disorganized/Disoriented (D) attachment has seen widespread interest from policy makers, practitioners, and clinicians in recent years. However, some of this interest seems to have been based on some false assumptions that (1) attachment measures can be used as definitive assessments of the individual in forensic/child protection settings and that disorganized attachment (2) reliably indicates child maltreatment, (3) is a strong predictor of pathology, and (4) represents a fixed or static "trait" of the child, impervious to development or help. This paper summarizes the evidence showing that these four assumptions are false and misleading. The paper reviews what is known about disorganized infant attachment and clarifies the implications of the classification for clinical and welfare practice with children. In particular, the difference between disorganized attachment and attachment disorder is examined, and a strong case is made for the value of attachment theory for supportive work with families and for the development and evaluation of evidence-based caregiving interventions.

This article examines the construct of disorganized attachment originally proposed by Main and Solomon, developing some new conjectures based on inspiration from a largely unknown source: John Bowlby's unpublished texts, housed at the Wellcome Trust Library Archive in London (with permission from the Bowlby family). We explore Bowlby's discussions of disorganized attachment, which he understood from the perspective of ethological theories of conflict behavior. Bowlby's reflections regarding differences among the behaviors used to code disorganized attachment will be used to explore distinctions that may underlie the structure of the current coding system. The article closes with an emphasis on the importance Bowlby placed on Popper's distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification in developmental science.

Lack of clarity regarding the infant disorganized attachment classification has caused confusion in the clinical, forensic, and research contexts in which it is used. This article offers distinctions to clarify the concept with the goal of increasing understanding and identifying potential misapplications. In particular, attention is drawn to the fact that there are many indices used to code “disorganized attachment,” and that so far they have been validated as a set rather than individually; and it is noted that the construct validation of disorganization in naturalistic settings is partially finished. Clinicians and social workers should be cautious in their interpretations of such behavior.

Liotti proposed that interactions during infancy with a parent suffering unresolved loss could lead to vulnerabilities to altered states of consciousness. Hesse and van IJzendoorn provided initial support for Liotti's hypothesis, finding elevated scores on Tellegen's Absorption Scale - a normative form of dissociation - for undergraduates reporting that their parents had experienced the loss of family members within two years of their birth. Here, we replicated the above findings in a large undergraduate sample (N = 927). Additionally, we investigated mother's and father's losses separately. Perinatal losses, including miscarriage, were also considered. Participants reporting that the mother or both parents had experienced loss within two years of their birth scored significantly higher on absorption than those reporting only perinatal, only father, or no losses. While not applicable to the assessment of individuals, the brief loss questionnaire utilized here could provide a useful addition to selected large-scale studies.

This article examines the emergence of the concept of infant disorganized/disoriented attachment, drawing on published and archival texts and interviews. Since this new classification was put forward by Main and Solomon (1986), "disorganized/disoriented attachment" has become an important concept in clinical and social intervention contexts. Yet whereas Main and Solomon have often been misunderstood to have introduced disorganized/disoriented attachment in order to produce an exhaustive, categorical system of infant classifications, this article will suggest quite a different account. Attention will be paid to the emergence of disorganized attachment as a classification out of results and reflections in the late 1970s regarding the limits of an alarmed infant's capacities for maintaining behavioral and attentional avoidance. In contrasting this interpretation of Main and Solomon's work with current, widespread misunderstandings, the article will critically examine tendencies that have supported the reification and misapplication of the concept of disorganized/disoriented attachment., (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved.)