Transcript Factors associated with 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.
 But what predicts a secure versus an
insecure attachment?

Messinger
2
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
3
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
4
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
8
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
9
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
10
Just the right amount

Unresponsive caregiving  Avoidant attachment
–

Sensitive caregiving  Secure attachment
–

Attachment behaviors responded to appropriately
Inconsistent/intrusive caregiving  Resistant
attachment
–

Attachment behaviors are suppressed (extinguished)
Attachment behaviors only work when they are strong
and insistent (intermittent reinforcement)
But little empirical evidence distinguishing
parent behaviors distinguishing A & C
Messinger
11
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
12
Effects of child care on infantmother 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
13
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
14
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
15
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
16
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
17
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
18
Messinger
19
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
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
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
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
24
More evidence for care-giving
effects
Experimental
 Observational

–
Meta-analysis of quasi-experiments
Messinger
25
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
26
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
27
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
28
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
29
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
35
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
38
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
41
However, interactions with genes
reported by Barry et al. 2008
Messinger
42
Messinger
43
Autism challenges attachment theory

55 toddlers with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), mental
retardation, language delay, and typical development.
–



Parents of children with ASD =y sensitive as other parents
But children show more disorganization, less involvement.
More sensitive parents had more secure children,
–

diagnosed at 4 years. Two years before, attachment, sensitivity assessed
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
44
Autism challenges attachment theory
Subtle attachment differences:
More distance security
27%
73%
42%
58%
Haltigan et al., 2010
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, midrange 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
48
Sensitivity

Sensitive caregiving promotes attachment.
–
But effects are not universally found
 Seifer
et al., 1996
Sensitive caregiving is underspecified
 What does sensitivity look like crossculturally and in different subcultures?

Messinger
49
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
50
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
51
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
52
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
53
Low SES American motherinfant 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
54
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
55
Variability

Characterizes the association between
security of attachment and quality of social
play cross-culturally
Messinger
56
‘Limited relations between attachment
security and quality of social
interaction.’
Messinger
57
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
58
The Paradox of Sensitivity
Strongly predictive of many outcomes
 But somewhat subjective in content

–
A joystick resolution?
Messinger
60
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
61
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
62
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
63