1 / 48

Predicting secure infant attachment

Predicting secure infant attachment. Daniel Messinger, Ph.D. Review. In the presence of a consistent caregiver almost all infants form an attachment We’ve reviewed the classification of infant security of attachment in the strange situation.

lotus
Download Presentation

Predicting secure infant attachment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Predicting secure infant attachment Daniel Messinger, Ph.D.

  2. Review • In the presence of a consistent caregiver almost all infants form an attachment • We’ve reviewed the classification of infant security of attachment in the strange situation. • But what predicts a secure versus an insecure attachment? Messinger

  3. Predicting attachment security • What different roles might infant temperament have in predicting security of attachment?  What is the experimental evidence that caregiver sensitivity factors predicts secure attachment? What is the meta-analytic evidence that caregiver sensitivity factors predicts secure attachment?  Messinger

  4. Big picture • What produces secure attachment? • Infant – Temperament • Caregiver – Sensitivity • Social situation – divorce, daycare, social support • May affect infant directly • Situation - infant • Or affect infant indirectly: • Situation – caregiver sensitivity - infant Messinger

  5. Infant Attachment and Maternal Depression • Mixed evidence • Some studies show effects, others do not • Chronicity of depression may be key • More consistent influence on day-to-day interaction • Sample study • Attachment insecurity significantly associated with maternal depression among infants and preschoolers. • Disorganized attachment especially common among mothers with more chronic depression. • Teti, Gelfand, Messinger, & Isabella (1995). Maternal depression and the quality of early attachment: An examination of infants, preschoolers, and their mothers. Developmental Psychology, 31(3), 364-376 Messinger

  6. Orthodox View • Caregiver (Mother) Driven System • Sensitive caregiving yields secure attachment • Caregiver can adapt to any child temperament • Who’s has responsibility according to this systerm? Messinger

  7. What is sensitivity? • Responsive • Understands and accepts the child’s individual proclivities • Orchestrates harmonious interactions • “especially involving the soothing of distress” • In a variety of situations • On a relatively consistent basis • Belsky, 1999, p. 249 Messinger

  8. Just the right amount • Unresponsive caregiving  Avoidant attachment • Attachment behaviors are suppressed (extinguished) • Sensitive caregiving  Secure attachment • Attachment behaviors responded to appropriately • Inconsistent/intrusive caregiving  Resistant attachment • Attachment behaviors only work when they are strong and insistent (intermittent reinforcement) • But little empirical evidence distinguishing parent behaviors distinguishing A & C Messinger

  9. Mother or child? • Meta-analysis of 34 clinical studies indicates that maternal problems such as mental illness lead to more deviating attachment classification distributions than child problems such as deafness. • In clinical samples, the mother appears to play a more important role than the child in shaping the quality of the infant-mother attachment relationship • Van IJzendoorn, Goldberg, Kroonenberg, & Frenkel (1992). Messinger

  10. Effects of child care on infant-mother attachment security • Significant effects of maternal sensitivity and responsiveness. • No significant effects of child-care experience (amount, age entry, or type of care) on attachment security or avoidance. • Interaction: more insecure when low maternal sensitivity/responsiveness combined with poor quality child care, more than minimal child care, or more than one care arrangement • 1,153 infants • NICHD study of early child care. Child Development. 1997. 68(5) 860-879 Messinger

  11. Same at 36 months • No child-care factors (quantity, quality, or type) predicted attachment security • Maternal sensitivity was strongest predictor of preschool attachment classification. • Interaction: Low maternal sensitivity & more hours per week in care somewhat increased the risk of insecure (C). • Significant but modest stability of attachment classifications from 15 to 36 months • especially for children with A and C classifications. Messinger

  12. Where does security lie? • In the infant or in the caregiver-infant dyad? • A meta-analysis of infant-father attachment shows weak but significant association between security of attachment to mother and father. • Does this suggest a role for temperament? Messinger

  13. Temperament & Care giving • Child characteristics and care giving • Continuously and reciprocally impact each other in day-to-day interaction and development. • Little information on the process through which this occurs Seifer et al. • But lots of information on strength of respective caregiver and child influences Messinger

  14. Two Temperamental Pathways • Indirect effect • Temperament  Caregiver-Infant interaction  Attachment security • Direct effect (Not empirically supported) • Temperament  Strange Situation Behavior  “Attachment Security” • Less prone to distress  “Avoidant” • More prone to distress  “Resistant” Messinger

  15. Empirical resolution Avoidant Secure Resistant Temperament Calm---------------------------Irritable (A1 A2 or B1) B2 B3 (B4 or C1 C2) Caregiving Caregiving Belsky; Sussman-Stillman; several replications Messinger

  16. Messinger

  17. Genetic and Caregiving-Based Contributions to Infant Attachment • Two contrasting explanations of differences in attachment: • Quality of infant-caregiver relationship • Reflection of infants’ temperament • Emphasis on emotional reactivity vs. emotion regulation • Proposed reconciliation: distress reactivity during SSP shaped by predispositions for negative emotionality Gangi

  18. Genetic and Caregiving-Based Contributions to Infant Attachment • 155 infants and mothers • Measures of: • Maternal responsiveness at 6 months • Attachment at 12 and 18 months • Emotional distress in SSP • 5-HTTLPR variation • Raby et al., 2012 Gangi

  19. Genetic and Caregiving-Based Contributions to Infant Attachment • Maternal responsiveness predicted attachment • 5-HTTLPR predicted distress during SSP • No prediction to attachment security, but subtypes • Genetic variation and caregiving context make unique contributions to differences in attachment behavior • Caregiving  secure vs. insecure • 5-HTTLPR  how this is manifested Gangi

  20. Disorganized attachment predicted by parent behavior • Strongly related to parental maltreatment, & moderately related to sensitivity • Unrelated to difficult infant temperament • 2 studies have linked frightening parental behavior to disorganized attachment • Though not significantly related to depression • van IJzendoorn, M. H., Schuengel, C., & Bakermans Kranenburg, M. J. (1999). Disorganized attachment in early childhood: Meta-analysis of precursors, concomitants, and sequelae. Development and Psychopathology, 11(2), 225-249. Messinger

  21. More evidence for care-giving effects • Experimental • Observational • Meta-analysis of quasi-experiments Messinger

  22. Experiment 1: Sensitivity training • 100 irritable, low-SES Dutch infants • 50 mothers in experimental group • receive 3 home visits to foster “contingent, consistent, and appropriate responses to + and - infant signals” • 50 control mothers are observed only Messinger

  23. Results • Experimental infants 36/50 (72%) secure • Control infants: 16/50 (32%) secure • Sensitivity training for mother decreases rates of insecurity among irritable infants • Meta-analysis of intervention studies showed a moderately large effect size, d = .48 • Van den Boom Messinger

  24. Experiment 2: Replicate the Snuggly Effect! • 49 low-socioeconomic status (SES) mothers of newborn infants • Given soft baby carriers (more physical contact) or infant seats (less contact). • More experimental (83%) than control infants (38%) were securely attached at 13 mo. • 3.5 mo, mothers in the experimental group were more contingently responsive than control mothers to their infants' vocalizations. • Low cost experimentally-validated intervention? • Anisfeld, Casper, Nozyce, & Cunningham (1990). Does infant carrying promote attachment? An experimental study of the effects of increased physical contact on the development of attachment. Child Development, 61(5), 1617-1627. Messinger

  25. Conclusions • Sensitivity is important • Temperament may also be a factor • Does sensitive interaction make a difference in naturalistic settings • Many studies have been done • using many measures of interaction • Meta-analysis can help sort them out Messinger

  26. Overall (No Grouping) • All caregiving comparisons • 7,223 infants in 123 comparisons • 17% greater likelihood of security • r = .17 • Random sample with no overlapping comparisons • 4,176 infants in 66 comparisons/studies • 19% greater likelihood of security (r = .19) Messinger

  27. Sensitivity Studies Only • Perceive signals accurately and respond promptly and appropriately • 22% (r = .22), 7,223 infants in 123 comparisons • Original Ainsworth subscale • 24% (r = .24), 837 infants in subset of 16 studies • Socioeconomic class is a moderator • Middle (r = .27); lower (r = .15) Messinger

  28. Conclusions • Sensitivity and quality of interaction are important and consistent (but not exclusive) predictors of attachment security. • Sensitivity important but not only factor • Orthodox hypothesis supported weakly Messinger

  29. However, interactions with genes reported by Barry et al. 2008 Messinger

  30. Messinger

  31. Autism challenges attachment theory • 55 toddlers with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), mental retardation, language delay, and typical development. • diagnosed at 4 years. Two years before, attachment, sensitivity assessed • Parents of children with ASD =y sensitive as other parents • But children show more disorganization, less involvement. • More sensitive parents had more secure children, • but only in group without ASD. • Less severe autistic symptoms in the social domain predicted more attachment security.. • van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Rutgers, A. H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van Daalen, E., Dietz, C., Buitelaar, J. K., et al. (2007). Parental sensitivity and attachment in children with autism spectrum disorder: Comparison with children with mental retardation, with language delays, and with typical development. Child Development, 78, 597-608. Messinger

  32. Autism challenges attachment theory

  33. Subtle attachment differences:More distance security 27% 42% 73% 58% Haltigan et al., 2010

  34. FFSF Mid-range models based on Beebe et al. • Predictive modeling will examine the competing ability of linear and nonlinear midrange models of infant-mother vocal coordination to predict attachment security (see Beebe et al., 2010 & Jaffe et al., 2001). In pilot analyses based on continuous ratings of affect, for example, mid-range levels of mother responsiveness (infant-to-mother interactive influence) were associated with 15-month attachment security, the highest levels were associated with resistance, and the lowest levels with avoidance and disorganized attachment classifications, F(3,23) = 3.55, p = .03, estimated ω2 = .24. Messinger

  35. Sensitivity • Sensitive caregiving promotes attachment. • But effects are not universally found • Seifer et al., 1996 • Sensitive caregiving is underspecified • What does sensitivity look like cross-culturally and in different subcultures? Messinger

  36. Attachment & social play • What does sensitivity look like in different caregiving domains such as playmate and attachment figure? • Attachment theory is not clear as to whether the concepts are distinguishable and what type of association is to be expected. Messinger

  37. Variability within the family • Caregivers occupy many roles vis-à-vis the child: playmate, discipliner, as well as attachment figures • What does sensitive caregiving look like in different domains as parents occupy these different roles? • Meta-analysis of link between sensitive fathering and attachment showed weak but significant association (d = .13). Messinger

  38. Cross-cultural evidence • Among dyads living in subsistence societies secure attachment exists in relationships in which social play between caregiver and child was not observed and was seen as frivolous. • Gusii, Ganda, etc. • Secure attachment without play • The anthropological veto Messinger

  39. Middle-class American dyads • Marginal prediction from early quality of social play to later security of attachment (Ainsworth et al., Kiser) • Moderate associations between concurrent social play and attachment • Roggman’s secure dyads showed more: infant-initiated toy exchanges & maternal positive vocalizations • co-orientation of attention to toys (males only) • Rosenberg’s secure dyads spend more time reciprocally interacting Messinger

  40. Low SES American mother-infant dyads • Egeland shows weak antecedent association • Multivariate but only 3 of 12 univariate • E.g., only satisfaction in play • Gaensbauer shows no significant association in • infant social use of objects • mother response to infant bids • infant positive affect • (n = 107) • MLS Study Messinger

  41. Meta-analytic results • De Wolff and van Ijzendoorn also found that Ainsworth-based measures of sensitivity were stronger predictors of attachment security in middle-class r = .27) than lower-class dyads (r = .15). Messinger

  42. Variability • Characterizes the association between security of attachment and quality of social play cross-culturally Messinger

  43. ‘Limited relations between attachment security and quality of social interaction.’ Messinger

  44. Attachment as organizer • Attachment is pre-eminent "affective bond" that organizes interaction between infant and caregiver (organizational construct perspective) • If attachment is secure, • Positive play should be possible or • play should be positive Messinger

  45. The Paradox of Sensitivity • Strongly predictive of many outcomes • But somewhat subjective in content • A joystick resolution? Messinger

  46. In a teaching situation, student non-experts rate teaching even if you ask them to rate supportiveness • Sensitive structuring (“the degree to which the parent is involved in providing appropriate structure and teaching for the child”), • ICC = .75, and concordance with expert ratings, r = .71 • But emotional supportiveness (“the degree to which the parent is warm, positive, responsive and supportive to her child, while also respecting the child’s independence”). • ICC = .47, r = .36, ns. • In fact, non-expert emotional supportiveness ratings exhibited high associations with the structuring ratings of experts, • r =.78, p < .001, and non-experts, r =.70, p < .01. Messinger

  47. Sensitivity in the SS • Lower levels of maternal sensitivity (Behrens, Parker, & Haltigan, 2011; Leerkes, Parade, & Gudmundson, 2011; Smith & Pederson, 1988) and more frequent maternal displays of atypical behaviors (e.g., lower responsivity, inappropriate responses to child affect, disrupted communication; Goldberg, Benoit, Blokland, & Madigan, 2003; Goldberg, MacKay-Soroka, & Rochester, 1994; Lyons-Ruth, Bronfman, & Parsons, 1999) have been documented most often amongst insecurely attached children and children with disorganized attachment when maternal behavior and child attachment were assessed concurrently in the SSP Messinger

  48. References • Interactional and contextual determinants of attachment security (Belsky, 1999) • The Nature of the Child’s Ties (Cassidy, 1999) • Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment (De Wolff & van IJzendoorn, 1997) • Van IJzendoorn, Goldberg, Kroonenberg, & Frenkel (1992). The relative effects of maternal and child problems on the quality of attachment - a meta-analysis of attachment in clinical-samples. Child Development, 63, 840-858. • Van IJzendoorn, & Kroonenberg (1988). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: A meta-analysis of the strange situation. Child Development, 59, 147-156.1) van den Boom DC. Do first-year intervention effects endure? Follow-up during toddlerhood of a sample of Dutch irritable infants. Child Development 1995;66(6):1798-1816. • 2) van den Boom DC. The influence of temperament and mothering on attachment and exploration: an experimental manipulation of sensitive responsiveness among lower-class mothers with irritable infants Child Development 1994;65(5):1457-77. 65(6): Messinger

More Related