What security of attachment predicts

1. What security of attachment predicts Messinger

2. Review • Most infants are attached but only 2/3 of infants are typically securely attached. • There is strong but limited experimental evidence and extensive evidence from meta-analyses that caregiver sensitivity predicts secure attachment • What does secure attachment predict?  Messinger

3. What does secure attachment predict? • Describe the stability (or instability) of attachment security as in infancy? • What evidence supports the idea that attachment security predicts the timing of puberty in girls? • What does insecure and disorganized attachment predict in childhood? • Describe and explain correspondences between parental and infant security of attachment. • EC. Describe the effects of double insecurity. 10 points. The figure was correct. Messinger

4. The Big Question • How do early experiences of attachment relationships impact later relationships? • Through behavioral and then internal representations of what can be expected from relationships Messinger

5. Internal Working Models • Mental representations of the availability of the attachment figure and what to do when the attachment system is activated • Mental rules for organizing, accessing, and limiting access to information relevant to attachment. • Impact individual differences in strange situation behavior and, hence, infant attachment classification. Messinger

6. The Big Question • How do early experiences of attachment relationships impact later relationships? • Early infancy to later infancy • Infancy to childhood • Infancy to adulthood • Infancy to parenthood Messinger

7. Impact of early experiencesStability • Attachment classification should be stable • If you’re secure, you should remain secure Or • Transition should be linked to life-events • Negative events: Secure -> Insecure • Positive events: Insecure -> Secure Messinger

8. Strange Situation classification shows only moderate stability • Similar to Seifer et al., MLS findings • And similar to Belsky, Campbell, Cohn, & Moore, 1996 findings NICHD, 2001, Dev. Psy

9. Stability of infant classification? • 75% stability in ABC from 12 to 18 months • five studies of "nonrisk" samples, N = 205 (1980s) • 46-55% (non-significant) ABC ‘stability’ from 12 to 18 months • 1 study with 3 independent samples (n = 125, n = 90, and, with fathers (n = 120) (1990s) • Bigger single sample • Coding Disorganization may influence coding • Belsky et al. 1996 Messinger

10. Large scale study stability • Modest stability for A, B, C, and D classifications from 15 to 36 months • Low maternal sensitivity from 24 to 36 months predicted shift from secure to insecure • Higher maternal sensitivity from 24 to 36 months predicted change from insecure to secure • NICHD Early Child Care Research Network • Marginal stability for A, B, C, and D classifications from 18 to 36 months • Kappa = .06; p < .05 • Maternal Lifestyle Study Messinger

11. Disorganized stability • Disorganized infants show reasonably stable categorization in the Strange Situation • two studies; r=.34 over a mean of 25 months • Also have higher stress reactions (salivary cortisol) than other infants • Meta-analysis: Van Ijzendoorn, Schuengel, & Bakermans-Kranenburg (1999) Messinger

12. The Big Question • How do early experiences of attachment relationships impact later relationships? • Early infancy to later infancy • Infancy to childhood • Infancy to adulthood • Infancy to parenthood Messinger

13. Is security a ‘vaccination’? • Most competent 3-yr-olds have both secure attachment (at 15 mo) & (relatively) high-sensitive mothering (at 24 mo) • NICHD Study of Early Child Care • Insecurely attached children who subsequently experienced high-sensitive mothering significantly outperformed secure children who subsequently experienced low-sensitive mothering. • Belsky, J. and R. M. P. Fearon (2002). "Early attachment security, subsequent maternal sensitivity, and later child development: Does continuity in development depend upon continuity of caregiving?" Attachment & Human Development 4(3): 361-387. Messinger

14. Sensitivitybeyond attachment through age 15 Fraley, R. C., Roisman, G. I., & Haltigan, J. D. (2013). The legacy of early experiences in development: Formalizing alternative models of how early experiences are carried forward over time. Dev Psychol, 49(1), 109-126. Messinger

15. Enduring Effects of Maternal Sensitivity • The Enduring Predictive Significance of Early Maternal Sensitivity: Social and Academic Competence Through Age 32 Years • Raby, Roisman, Fraley, & Simpson, 2014

16. Results: Transactional + Covariates Maternal Sensitivity Social Competence: ΔΧ2 = 0.82, p =.37 Social and Academic Competence at Different Times Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Time 6 Enduring effects of: Gender** Maternal Education** Socioeconomic Status Ethnicity Covariates

17. Results: Transactional + Covariates Maternal Sensitivity Academic Competence: ΔΧ2 = 3.96, p <.05 Social and Academic Competence at Different Times Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Time 6 Enduring effects of: Gender* Maternal Education* Socioeconomic Status Ethnicity Covariates

18. Early care  later attachment avoidance/anxiety Fraley, et al., 2013 Est. early sensitivity received Est. change in qual. of care Carter Social Competence (M) Father Absence Friendship Quality Social Competence (T) Maternal Sensitivity Maternal Depression

19. Bichay

20. Purpose Of Study • Investigate attachment continuity and parental sensitive support from infancy to adolescence in 125 adopted adolescents • Expected that continuity or discontinuity of attachment security would be explained by parental sensitive support Bichay

21. Methods

22. Results • Attachment of Adolescents • 39% showed secure, 61% showed insecure • Sensitive Support • Mothers of secure adolescents showed more sensitive support at 14 years • Continuity of Attachment was not significant Bichay

23. Results cont’d • Secure-secure vs. secure-insecure • Continuously secure participants had more sensitive mothers at 12 months and 14 years old • Insecure-insecure vs. insecure-secure • Insecure-secure group had less supportive mothers at 12 months but more supportive mothers at 14 years old • Stressful life events and temperament did not predict attachment continuity Bichay

24. Discussion • Overall, in adoptive families, continuity of attachment is dependent on continuity of child rearing context • Effect of attachment based intervention? • Different effects if considered disorganized attachment style? Bichay

25. Attachment & emotional development • In 2nd and 3rd yrs, secure children  less angry. • Higher attachment  less fear and anger at 33 mo • Insecure children's negative emotions increased: • Avoidant children  fearful • Resistant children were most fearful / least joyful, • distress even in episodes designed to elicit joy. • Disorganized/ unclassifiable children more angry. • Kochanska, G. Child Development. 2001, 72 474-490 Messinger

26. Maura

27. Background • Ongoing debate • Individual differences in early attachment security are expected to have enduring implications for children's socioemotional development but are not expected to be shaped by child temperament • Individual differences in early attachment are the result of temperamental variation rather than characteristics of the specific parent-child relationship Maura

28. Background: Attachment (Resistant) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRejV6f-Y3c Maura

29. Background: Temperament • Defined as, “individual differences in emotion, motor, and attentional reactivity and regulation that are constitutionally based but also shaped by experience” Maura

30. The Current Study • What is the link between attachment and temperament? • Conducted a meta-analytic review aimed at addressing the empirical overlap of infant attachment and temperament • 129 studies identified yielding 131 independent samples (13,018 children) Maura

31. Results: Attachment security and temperament c Maura

32. Results: Avoidance and temperament Maura

33. Results: Resistance and temperament Maura

34. Results: Comparing attachment classifications • Contrasts between resistant and secure attachment, and resistant versus avoidant attachment were significant • Resistant attachment showed stronger associations with temperament than secure or avoidant temperament • Children classified as A1-B2 (low separation distress) versus B3-C2 (high separation distress) in SSP did not differ in negative temperament Maura

35. Results: Attachment and theoretical vs. dimensional measures of temperament • Theoretical classification • Association between attachment and negative temperament does not differ depending on temperament theoretical orientation • Dimensional classification Maura

36. Results: Father-child assessment • Negative temperament was not related to father-child attachment security (d = .15), avoidance (d = .08), or resistance (d = .27) Maura

37. Results: Socioemotional adaptation Maura

38. Conclusions • Association between temperament and attachment security is weak • Temperament is moderately associated with resistant attachment • Associations between temperament and both avoidant and disorganized attachment are weak and not significant • Association between attachment security and temperament is comparable to the weak association between attachment security and internalizing symptomatology • Significantly weaker than those between attachment security and social competence/externalizing behaviors • Overall: attachment and temperament are only weakly associated developmental constructs Maura

39. Insecure & disorganized  risk of externalizing problems • Disorganized at elevated risk, weaker effects for avoidance & resistance • Meta-analysis, 69 samples (5,947). • overall d = 0.31 (95% CI: 0.23, 0.40) • Larger effects for boys, clinical samples, observation-based outcome assessments, attachment assessments other than the Strange Situation. • Fearon, R. P., M. J. Bakermans-Kranenburg, et al. (2010). "The significance of insecure attachment and disorganization in the development of children s externalizing behavior: A meta-analytic study." Child Development 81(2): 435-456. Messinger

40. Disorganized/Nonsecure  Internalizing/Externalizing Disorganized externalizing (Groh, Roisman, van Ijzendoorn, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & Fearon, 2012) Messinger Based on 42 independent samples (N = 4,614),

41. Double insecurity  Behavior problems(insecurity with dad key variable..) Messinger

42. Prediction from father… • Disorganized attachment with dad at 15 months predicts children’s higher externalizing behavior problems • Child’s resistance with mother and father predicted higher teacher-rated externalizing behavior problems. • Even when children showed high resistance with their father, if the child demonstrated low resistance with mom it served as a protective factor • Low resistance with dad also predicted lower teacher reported behavior problems despite level of resistance with mom

43. But insecure attachment may have positive functions • The function of attachment is safety • Avoidance minimizes unfruitful attempts to elicit caregiving • Resistance maximizes attention to separation & minimizes separation • Even disorganization balances exposure to a threatening but needed caregiver • Security may not be the only way to ‘get it right.’ • Crittenden (Dahra Jackson) Messinger

44. Attachment and Maturation • Evolutionary framework • Does infant attachment change maturation? • Does attachment signal challenges an infant faces? • Difficult environment => Earlier menarche Belsky, Houts, & Fearon 2010 Mattson

45. Attachment-Maturation Model • Early menarche: insecure over-represented • Is insecurity a better fit to certain environments? Belsky, Houts, & Fearon 2010 Mattson

46. Attachment and Children's Peer Relations • “Small-to-moderate” association between attachment security to mother and quality of children’s peer relations • meta-analysis of 63 studies indicates • Effects “higher for studies that focused on children's close friendships rather than on relations with other peers.” • Effects larger after early childhood • “Gender & cultural differences … minimal” • A Quantitative Review (Schneider et al ’2001) Messinger

47. The Big Question • How do early experiences of attachment relationships impact later relationships? • Early infancy to later infancy • Infancy to childhood • Infancy to adulthood • Infancy to parenthood Messinger

48. Stability: Infant to adult • 2 studies report significant levels of stability between infant attachment security and adult security • 2 studies do not • But 1 did not use a traditional strange situation • In all studies, negative life events associated with transitions from infant security to adult insecurity • But negative life events (e.g. divorce, parental depression) are not the same in all studies Messinger

49. The Big Question • How do early experiences of attachment relationships impact later relationships? • Early infancy to later infancy • Infancy to adulthood • Infancy to childhood • Infancy to parenthood Messinger

50. Overview • Introduction to the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) • Correspondence between parents’ security of attachment (from AAI) and their children’s security of attachment • Practice the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) Messinger