Meaning of The Child Interview CCPPattachment.services/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/... · Parent...
20
The Meaning of The Child Interview (MotC) – A new method of assessing and understanding parent-child relationships of ‘at risk’ families Pre-publication version Full published version: Grey B, and Farnfield S, (2017), The Meaning of the Child Interview: A new procedure for assessing and understanding parent-child relationships of 'at-risk families, Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol 22, Issue 2, pp. 204 - 218, DOI: 10.1177/1359104516633495 Ben Grey, PhD, Cambridge Centre for Attachment, and Steve Farnfield, PhD, University of Roehampton Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract Reder and Duncan’s well known 1990’s studies of fatal child abuse drew attention to how parental scripts regarding their children could dangerously distort relationships in ways that were sometimes fatal to children (Reder, Duncan, & Gray, 1993; Reder & Duncan 1999). This paper reports on a new system for assessing the ‘meaning of the child to the parent’, called the Meaning of the Child Interview (MotC). Parents are interviewed using the established Parent Development Interview (Aber, Slade, Berger, Bresgi, & Kaplan, 1985), or equivalent, and the transcript of the interview is then analysed according to parental sensitivity and likely risk to the child. The MotC constructs were developed from those used in observed parent-child interaction (specifically, the CARE-Index: Crittenden 2010, Crittenden and Bonvillian 1984) and the form of discourse analysis used in the Dynamic Maturational Model – Adult Attachment Interview (Crittenden and Landini 2011), allowing a more systemic and intersubjective understanding of parenting representations than often put forward. The paper discusses the theoretical background to the MotC, gives a brief review of similar measures, and then introduces the coding system and patterns of caregiving. The validity of the MotC is addressed elsewhere (Grey 2014a&b; Grey and Farnfield submitted). Introduction In their classic studies of child death enquiries, Reder and his colleagues drew attention to the ways in which the meaning parents gave to a particular child could become so distorted that, in extreme cases, it led to fatal abuse (Reder, Duncan, & Gray, 1993; Reder & Duncan, 1999). Whilst all children hold a psychological meaning to their parents, in these situations, the children’s own identity had become submerged in their parent’s blueprint for the relationship; they became ‘actors in someone else’s play’ (Reder & Duncan 1999, p.71). While the meaning children have to their parents can be seen as a core dimension of all parenting (Farnfield 2008), it is of particular relevance to situations of child abuse and
Transcript of Meaning of The Child Interview CCPPattachment.services/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/... · Parent...
TheMeaningofTheChildInterview(MotC)–Anewmethodofassessingandunderstandingparent-childrelationshipsof‘atrisk’families
Pre-publicationversion
Fullpublishedversion:
GreyB,andFarnfieldS,(2017),TheMeaningoftheChildInterview:Anewprocedureforassessingandunderstandingparent-childrelationshipsof'at-riskfamilies,ClinicalChildPsychologyandPsychiatry,Vol22,Issue2,pp.204-218,DOI:10.1177/1359104516633495
BenGrey,PhD,CambridgeCentreforAttachment,andSteveFarnfield,PhD,UniversityofRoehamptonCorrespondence:[email protected]
RederandDuncan’swellknown1990’sstudiesoffatalchildabusedrewattentiontohowparentalscriptsregardingtheirchildrencoulddangerouslydistortrelationshipsinwaysthatweresometimesfataltochildren(Reder,Duncan,&Gray,1993;Reder&Duncan1999).Thispaperreportsonanewsystemforassessingthe‘meaningofthechildtotheparent’,calledtheMeaningoftheChildInterview(MotC).ParentsareinterviewedusingtheestablishedParentDevelopmentInterview(Aber,Slade,Berger,Bresgi,&Kaplan,1985),orequivalent,andthetranscriptoftheinterviewisthenanalysedaccordingtoparentalsensitivityandlikelyrisktothechild.TheMotCconstructsweredevelopedfromthoseusedinobservedparent-childinteraction(specifically,theCARE-Index:Crittenden2010,CrittendenandBonvillian1984)andtheformofdiscourseanalysisusedintheDynamicMaturationalModel–AdultAttachmentInterview(CrittendenandLandini2011),allowingamoresystemicandintersubjectiveunderstandingofparentingrepresentationsthanoftenputforward.ThepaperdiscussesthetheoreticalbackgroundtotheMotC,givesabriefreviewofsimilarmeasures,andthenintroducesthecodingsystemandpatternsofcaregiving.ThevalidityoftheMotCisaddressedelsewhere(Grey2014a&b;GreyandFarnfieldsubmitted).
Introduction
Intheirclassicstudiesofchilddeathenquiries,Rederandhiscolleaguesdrewattentiontothewaysinwhichthemeaningparentsgavetoaparticularchildcouldbecomesodistortedthat,inextremecases,itledtofatalabuse(Reder,Duncan,&Gray,1993;Reder&Duncan,1999).Whilstallchildrenholdapsychologicalmeaningtotheirparents,inthesesituations,thechildren’sownidentityhadbecomesubmergedintheirparent’sblueprintfortherelationship;theybecame‘actorsinsomeoneelse’splay’(Reder&Duncan1999,p.71).Whilethemeaningchildrenhavetotheirparentscanbeseenasacoredimensionofallparenting(Farnfield2008),itisofparticularrelevancetosituationsofchildabuseand
TheMeaningofTheChildInterview(MotC)–Anewmethodofassessingandunderstandingparent-childrelationshipsof‘atrisk’families––CCPPPre-publicationversion
2
neglect.Thispaperdescribesanewsystemforanalysingthemeaningofthechildtotheparent,whichcanbeusedbychildprotectionandotherhealthandsocialcareprofessionals.
WhatistheMeaningoftheChild?
Themeaninganadultinvestsintheirchild,andthewayinwhichitshapestheparent-childrelationship,hasalonghistorygoingbackatleasttopsychoanalyticmodelsofthedevelopmentofidentityininfantdevelopment,(Winnicott,1967).InMiller’sparaphrasingofWinnicott:
Themothergazesatthebabyinherarms,andthebabygazesathismother'sfaceandfindshimselftherein...providedthatthemotherisreallylookingattheunique,small,helplessbeingandnotprojectingherownexpectations,fears,andplansforthechild.Inthatcase,thechildwouldfindnothimselfinhismother'sface,butratherthemother'sownprojections.Thischildwouldremainwithoutamirror,andfortherestofhislifewouldbeseekingthismirrorinvain.(Miller,1979pp.61-62)
Inaliteraturebasedtheoreticalmodeloftheassessmentofparenting,themeaningofthechildisseenasacoredimensionofparenting(Farnfield2008).Thetaskforassessmentiswhethertheparentalscript,ordominantstoryaboutachild,canbemadevisibleinawaythatsupportsinformedinterventioninthatrelationship.TheMeaningoftheChildInterview(MotC)offersameansofdoingthis.
The‘MeaningoftheChild’inAttachmentTheory:TheSelf-ProtectiveTransformationofMeaning
Putrathercrudely,theassessmentofparentingcanbereducedtoobservingwhatparentsdowiththeirchildren,andaskingthemquestionsabouttheirchildandparentingtoelicithowtheythinkaboutwhattheydo.Intheoreticalterms,theseareparentalsensitivityandtheparent’srepresentationsofaparticularchild,orthemeaningthechildholdsfortheparent(Farnfield2014).Riskincreaseswhenparentsactinselfprotectiveratherthanchildprotectiveways(Crittenden2008)leadingtochronicwithdrawal(neglect)orhostilecontrol(physicalabuse).
Intheattachmentfield,pioneeringworkonadultrepresentationofattachmentwasbegunbytheMainandGoldwynsystemofdiscourseanalysis(patternsofspeech),(Main&Goldwyn,1994),foranalysingtheAdultAttachmentInterview(AAI:George,Kaplan,&Main,1985).ThebasicpremiseoftheAAIisthatcoherenceofspeechaboutearlyexperienceisadirectwindowontocoherenceofmindregardingthesametopics,acoherencethathasfoundtoberelatedtosecurityinwiderrelationshipsandinparenting(Hesse,2008).Forexample,aground-breakingstudyfoundthatsecurityofadultsontheAAIbeforetheirbabywasbornactuallypredictedattachmentsecurityoftheinfantat11-months-old(Fonagy,Steele&Steele1991).
TheMeaningofTheChildInterview(MotC)–Anewmethodofassessingandunderstandingparent-childrelationshipsof‘atrisk’families––CCPPPre-publicationversion
3
ThemechanismsbywhichattachmentsecurityispassedonfromparenttochildisimperfectlyunderstoodleadingVanIJzendoorn(1995)topointouta‘transmissiongap’.Inparticular,parentalsensitivity(whatparentsdo)isonlyweaklylinkedtoattachmentsecurityintheirchild(Madiganetal.2006),suggestingastrongmediatingfactorishowparentsthinkaboutthechildandhowtheyprocessinformationconcerningcomfortanddanger(Slade,2005;Grienenberger,Kelly,&Slade,2005;Crittenden,2008).Otherconfoundinginfluencesmaybegeneexpression(Fearon,Shmueli-Goetz,Viding,Fonagy,&Plomin)andtheimpactofthewiderfamilysystem(Crittenden,Dallos,Landini,&Kozlowska,2014).
Tounderstandthisfurther,interviewsweredevelopedthatspecificallyelicitedparentalrepresentationoftheirchild,ratherthanoftheirchildhoodrelationships(thefocusoftheAAI).AnearlyattemptsimplytoapplyAAIdiscourseanalysistoaparentinginterviewfound,perhapsnotunsurprisingly,thatAAIpatternsofattachmentcouldbeidentifiedinaparentinginterview,butnotasclearlyasintheAAIitself(Crittenden,Partridge,&Claussen,1991),suggestingthatfurtherthoughtneededtobedoneinrelationtotheunderstandingthedifferencesbetweenthementalrepresentationsparentsholdoftheirchildrencomparedwiththoseoftheirownchildhood.
Aber,Slade,andcolleaguesdevelopedtheParentDevelopmentInterview(PDI:Aber,Slade,Berger,Bresgi,&Kaplan,1985)forsuchapurpose.TheirbreakthroughcamewhenSladeandhercolleaguesadaptedtheReflectiveFunctioning(RF)Scale,originallydevelopedfortheAAIbyFonagyandhiscolleages,tocodethePDI(Fonagy,Target,Steele,&Steele,1998;Slade,Bernbach,Grienenberger,Levy,&Locker,2005).Shiftingthefocusawayfromattachmentpatterns,tolookingatthecapacityofamothertorepresentherchildashavingthoughtsandfeelingsandintentions,andabilitytomakeuseofthisinunderstandingherownrelationshipwithherchild(alsocalledmentalising)openedarichveinofresearch(e.g.Slade,Grienenberger,Bernbach,Levy,&Locker,2005a;Suchman,DeCoste,Leigh,&Borelli,2010).Otherapproachesassessedessentiallythesameconceptinadifferentway,forexample,Meinsandhercolleagues(Meinsetal.,2003)examinedthe‘mindmindedness’ofparents,throughanalysingtheirmentalisingspeechinfreeplayinteractionswiththeirchild.OppenheimandKohen-Karie,usedaninterviewtoexamineamother’s‘insight’intothementalstatesofbothherselfandherchild,uponwatchingavideooffree-playinteractionbetweenthem(InsightfulnessInterview:Oppenheim&Koren-Karie,2009).
Theweaknessofthesemeasuresistheydonotadequatelyidentifythedifferencesthatexistbetweenparticularparent-childrelationships,especiallythosethoughttobe‘atrisk’.Bymeasuringthecapacityoftheparenttomentalise,theRFscaleinthePDIhasbeenusefulinidentifyingwhereparentsmaystruggletoparentthroughlackofmentalising,butislessusefulinidentifyingandunderstandingdifferencesbetweenparentswithalowmentalisingcapacity,orthedifferenceinrelationshipswithdifferentchildrenthataparentwhostrugglestomentalisemighthave.Forexample,whilstlowRFintheparentwasfoundtobe
TheMeaningofTheChildInterview(MotC)–Anewmethodofassessingandunderstandingparent-childrelationshipsof‘atrisk’families––CCPPPre-publicationversion
4
predictiveofinsecureattachmentinthechildgenerally,childdisorganisedattachment(themost‘atrisk’pattern)andavoidantattachment(wherechildreninhibitattachmentresponses)wasfoundhardtoidentify(Sladeetal.,2005a).
Otherresearchers,perhapsmindfulofthis,tookadifferenttackintryingtopreservealinkintheirunderstandingofparentingrepresentationswiththeattachmentclassificationsandpatterns.SolomonandGeorge,forexample,adaptedthePDIintotheirCaregivingInterview,andwithitdevelopedfourpatternsofcaregivingtheoretically(andintheirresearch,empirically)linkedtothefourbasicattachmentpatternsidentifiedinMainandGoldwyn’ssystemofclassifyingtheAAI(George&Solomon,2008;Solomon&George,2011).However,byvirtueoffocussingonoverallpatternsofcaregivinglinkedtooridentifiedwithadultpatternsofattachment,theircodingsystemisequallyunableabletoshedlightondifferencesintherelationshipsaparentmighthavewithdifferentchildren.Inaddition,byhavingonlyone‘atrisk’category(‘helpless’parents,whoabdicateparentalresponsibility,linkedtoattachmentdisorganisation),GeorgeandSolomon’sconstructssimilarlycannotbeusedtosystematicallydistinguishdifferentkindsof‘atrisk’relationships.
Thesedifficultiesraisethewiderquestionofwhetherconstructsusedtounderstandparentingrepresentationsthatarelinkedeithertoadultattachmentdirectly,ortoacapacityoftheparent(suchastheirreflectivecapacity),cansufficientlycapturethedynamicanddevelopingwayaparentandchildinteract.Theparentissimultaneouslyrespondingtooutsidedanger,andherownmaturingchild,andthechildisrespondingtoherparentwithcontinuallynewpossibilitiesopenedupbyherowndevelopment.Forexample,pregnancyandmaternityitselfhasbeenseentohavethepotentialtoleadtoreorganisationandchange(Slade,Cohen,Sadler,&Miller,2009).Inotherwords,theparent’scurrentrelationshipwiththechildandthemeaningshe(orhe)derivesfromitstandsatthefulcrumofatwo-wayprocess.Notonlydoesaparent’spastexperienceinfluenceinteractionwiththechild,butthatsameinteractioniscapableofchangingtheparent’srepresentationofthepast:“Thepastisfixed,butitsmeaningisre-writteneverytimeitisrecalled”(Crittenden,2003p.357).
Thepointisnowwellknownandacknowledgedbytheresearchersdiscussedabove,butdoesnotyetappeartobefullyintegratedintoasystemofclassifyingparentinginterviews.EventheWorkingModeloftheChildInterview(WMCI:Zeanah,Benoit,Hirshberg,&Barton,1986;Benoit,Zeanah,Parker,Nicholson,&Coolbear,1997)whichmakesexplicituseoftheideainitsbasicunderstandingofparent-childrelationships,doesnotquitecapturethisdynamicanddyadicqualityinitscodingsystem,andalsoencounterssomeoftheproblemsalreadyoutlinedinbothdeliniatingriskyrelationshipsanddifferentiatingbetweenthem.SomeofthemostfruitfulworkwiththeWMCIhasbeeninclinicalstudies(Zeanah,2007)thatdonotmakeexplicituseofthecodingsystem,perhapssuggestingthatthereismoretothe‘captured’fromthisinterviewthantheexisitingcodingsystemidentifies.
TheMeaningofTheChildInterview(MotC)–Anewmethodofassessingandunderstandingparent-childrelationshipsof‘atrisk’families––CCPPPre-publicationversion
5
TheMotCSystemofClassifyingParentingInterviews
TheMeaningoftheChildisanattempttotakethissamedyadicfocusandmakeitcentraltoitsunderstandingoftheparent-childrelationship.Itcombinesconstructsdrawnfromanassessmentofface-to-faceparent-childinteraction(theCARE-Index:Crittenden2010;CrittendenandBonvillian1984),withthemethodofdiscourseanalysisusedtoclassifytheAdultAttachmentInterview(CrittendenandLandini2011).Tounderstandhowparentalrepresentationsoftheirchildandtheirownparentingactuallytranslateintobehaviourandrelationshipwiththechild,asystemisneededthatisdyadicandrelationalinfocus,concentratingonaspectsthatconnectwithwhatisspecifictoaparticularparentandchild,ratherthanwhatissharedbyallchildreninthesamefamily.ThepatternsofCrittenden’sCARE-Index(classifiedfromshortvideosoffree-playinteraction)arederivedfromhowtheparentisassumedtoexperiencetheparticularchild(andvice-versa);howtheoneconnectstotheother.Byusingthesamepatterns,theMotCisabletounderstandaparent’srepresentationsoftheirchildinawaythatdirectlyreflectsthisconnection(seealsobelow).
Atthesametime,theintegrationofdiscourseanalysisderivedfromtheAAIpreservesthelinkbetweencoherenceofspeechandcoherenceofmindthatwasthepremiseuponwhichtheAAI’ssuccessinpredictinginfantsecuritywasbuilt.Inparticular,theMotCcodingsystemmakesuseofCrittenden’sapproachtotheAdultAttachmentInterviewofferedbyherDynamicMaturationalModelofAttachment(DMM:Crittenden2008,CrittendenandLandini2011).Crittenden’sDMMexpandsAinsworth’soriginalpatternsofAttachment(Ainsworthetal.1978)toincludemodificationsofthebasicpatternsofavoidance(TypeA)andambivalence(TypeC)underconditionsofextremethreat.Indoingso,theDMMavoidsrelianceuponthecannotclassifyorDisorganisedcategory(TypeD)usedbythemorecommonlyused,andmoreextensivelyresearched,MainandGoldwynsystemofclassifyingtheAAI.ThereisnonethelessadevelopingbodyofresearchsurroundingtheDMM-AAI,aswellasahistoryofclinicaluse(Farnfield,Hautamäki,Nørbech,&Sahhar,2010;Sahhar,2014).
WhilsttheMotCmakesuseoftheDMM-AAIinitsmethodology,itdoesnotseektoreplicateCrittenden’s(oranyother)patternsofadultattachment(seealsothediscussionofFigure1below).ItisCrittenden’sunderstandingofconsciousandunconsciousdefensiveinformationprocessingunderconditionsofthreat,andherintegrationofthiswithMemorySystemstheory(SchacterandTulving1994),thattheMotCmakesparticularuseof.Thedifferentiationofdifferent‘MemorySystems’orpathwaysbywhichthebrain‘re-presents’(reinterprets)experience,andtheelucidationofhowtheseprocessesmaybetransformedinconditionsofdangerdescribedbyCrittenden’stheory,haveopeneduppotentialtounderstandparent-childdiscourseinwaysthathadnotpreviouslyreceivedattention.Inmanyways,theworkindevelopingtheMotCcodingsystemechoedSolomonandGeorge’suseofBowlby’sunderstandingofdefensiveinformationprocessingintheirworkoncaregiving(George&Solomon,2008;Solomon&George,2011),butwithanexpliciteffort
TheMeaningofTheChildInterview(MotC)–Anewmethodofassessingandunderstandingparent-childrelationshipsof‘atrisk’families––CCPPPre-publicationversion
6
toachieveamoredyadicfocus,aswellasmakeuseofthedevelopmentsofferedbyCrittenden’sthinkingontheAAI.
Morerecentworkonreflectivefunctioning(e.g.LuytenandFonagy2014)hasextendedtheconcepttoinclude‘dimensionsofmentalising’namely:‘automatic/controlled’mentalising(looselytranslatedasconscious/unconsciousreflection),‘selfvs.other’(thesubjectofmentalising),‘internalvs.external’(derivedfrominternalknowledgeofownmentalstates,orinferredfromexternalbehaviour),and‘cognitive/affective’(understoodorfelt).ThesedimensionsarenothowevermadeuseofintheparentalReflectiveFunctioningScaleitself,butaspectsofthem,ifnotall,areintegraltoCrittenden’smethodofanalysingdiscoursebymemorysystems.Inparticular,themethodenablesconsciousandunconsciousprocessestobedifferentiated,andexamineshowaffectandcognitionaretransformedinthewayparentsspeak.Makinguseofthesetheoreticaldevelopmentshasofferedapracticalmethodologyfordevelopingasystemofclassifyingthemeaningaparentgivestotheirchildandtheparentingrelationship.Atthesametime,thesehavebeenrelatedtoconstructsderivedfromaprocedureusedtounderstandobservedparent-childinteractioninordertomoreeasily‘capture’theinterrelatednatureoftheparent-childrelationship.
Whilstithasbeencalled‘theMeaningoftheChildInterview’,soastomakeclearthemeansusedtoassessparent-childrelationships,theMotCisasystemofanalysingparentinginterviewsratherthantheinterviewprocedureitself.Forthemostpart,theMotChasemployedamodifiedversionofthePDI,butthesystemofanalysishasbeenusedclinicallywithotherinterviews,asithasnotheoreticalorpracticalrelianceonanyparticularinterviewprotocol.Similarly,whilstthefocusoftheMotC’svalidationstudy(Grey2014a&b;GreyandFarnfieldsubmitted)wasparents(mothersandfathers)ofchildrenaged0-3years,becauseofthemethod’soriginallinkwiththeCARE-Index,theinterviewhasbeenusedwithparentsofchildrenofallages,includinggrandparentsinrelationtoboththeiradultchildrenandtheirgrandchildren.Whilstfurtherworkaroundvalidityoftheseotherusesisneeded,inindividualclinicalcaseswherethereissupportfromestablishedprocedures,theuseoftheinterviewhasprovedfruitful.
TheMotCPatternsofCaregivingTheheartoftheMotChasbeentoseethedevelopmentofchildattachmentinamoredynamicway,onethatrecognisesthatthechildisanactiveparticipantintherelationship(eveniftheparenthassignificantlymorepower),andtomakethisinsightcentraltoasystemofclassifyingparent-childinterviews.Themeaningsthatboththechildandtheparenthaveinrelationtoeachother,arebothderivedfromthenatureoftheinteractionsbetweenthem,whichatthesametimeshapethatinteraction.Whilstalltheparentandchild‘see’ofeachotheristheother’sbehaviour,thisbehaviouristheoutworkingofaninternalprocess,wherebothparentandchildareconstantlygivingmeaningtoeachother’sactions.Hence,the‘meeting’ofparentandchildcanbeseenasacollaborative(ornon-collaborative)dialogue,aseriesofconversationsbetweenparentandchild(Lyons-Ruth,
TheMeaningofTheChildInterview(MotC)–Anewmethodofassessingandunderstandingparent-childrelationshipsof‘atrisk’families––CCPPPre-publicationversion
7
1999)inwhichthemeaningthateachhasoftheotherisconstructed;whatBeebeandhercolleagues(Beebe,Lachmann,Markese,Buck,etal.,2012;Beebe,Lachmann,Markese,&Bahrick,2012)callthe‘inter-subjective’space.
Ofcourse,thispicturedoesnotacknowledgethedevelopmentaldifferencesbetweenparentandchild.Theparentgivesmeaningtothechildpriortobirth(andfromawidersocialcontextthatthechildisnotimmediatelyawareof).Asthechildgetsolders/hebecomesamoreactive,intentionalparticipantinthedialogue.Attachmenttherefore,isbetterseenas‘co-constructed’ratherthan‘transmitted’fromparenttochild(Beebe,etal.,2012;Beebe,etal.2012).
Withthisinmind,theMotCpatternsarebaseduponacontinuumbetweendistanced,psychologicallyunavailablecaregivingononeside(calledUnresponsive),andintrusive,overlyclose,psychologicallyenmeshedcaregivingontheother(calledControlling),withSensitivecaregivingbeingacooperative,mutualdialoguethatoccupiesthebalancebetweenthesetwoextremes.ThesepatternshavebeenderivedfromCrittenden’sCARE-Index,buthavebeengivenameaningherethatlinksmorecloselytohowparentsthinkabouttheirchild(seealsoFigure1).
SensitiveCaregivingThe‘Sensitive’parentenablesthedevelopment,protectionandnurtureofthechildthroughfacilitatingacollaborative‘inter-subjectivity’betweenthem.Suchparentswaitforthechild’sresponses,andinvestpositiveandappropriatemeaningstothechild’sinitiatives.Asinanycollaborativeconversation,eachpartyofferssomethingofthemselves,whilstlisteningandeagerlyattendingtoboththeresponsesandinitiativesoftheother.Such‘dialogues’areapleasuretolistento,asthereisebbandflow,morethanoneperspective,andafullrangeofmoderate(non-coercive)emotionalexpression.Thisistrueofallcollaborativerelationships,notjustparent-childones,buttheparentfacilitatesthiswiththeirchild,byactinginthechild’sZoneofProximalDevelopment(ZPD:Vygotsky,1967).Thiscanonlybedoneiftheparenttrulyknowstheirchild;generalisedknowledgeofchilddevelopmentisnotenough,asitmayobscureormisleadtheintentionsandunderstandingofthespecificchild.However,thechild’sinvolvementintheconversationisnotfearedbytheparent,sotheparentfeelsfreetoletthechildcontributetotheinter-subjectivedialogue,whilstalsobeingpresentherself.
Sensitiveparentsareabletousetheparentinginterviewtoexploreopenlyandhonestlytheirrelationshipwiththeirchild.Theoveralltoneofsuchinterviewsislikelytobeaffectionateandpositive,buttheparentisalsoopentodiscussingandthinkingaboutfrustrationsandproblems.Theseinterviewsarepersonalandlively–theycontainincidents,andimagesthatarepersonaltotherelationship,andcouldn’tbeborrowedfromTV,socialclichésorprofessionalprescriptionsofhowthings‘ought’tobe.Theparentisabletoconveytheirknowledgeofthechild.Theiraccountofthechildandtheirownparentingis
TheMeaningofTheChildInterview(MotC)–Anewmethodofassessingandunderstandingparent-childrelationshipsof‘atrisk’families––CCPPPre-publicationversion
8
credible,andtheexpressionofaffectisappropriatetowhatisbeingdiscussed.Inthisway,Sensitiveinterviewstellastorythatisbuilttogetherbyparentandchildcooperatively,ratherthanimposedbyoneontheother,andwithoutbeingsomethingofafantasytoavoidlookingatwhatisreallygoingon.
ControllingCaregiving
Forparentingclassifiedas‘Controlling’,theinter-subjectivespaceinthe‘dialogue’betweenparentandchild,canbere-envisagedasparentaldominanceofthemeaningmakingprocessThechildisrequiredtotakeonameaningtothedialoguethatechoestheparent’sown.Theintrusiveparentperceivesthechild’sautonomy,andabilitytomakemeaningoftherelationshipasathreat,andso‘movesinto’thespacethatisotherwisejointlyconstructedinhealthyrelationships.Thecontrollingparentrespondstothethreattheyperceivefromthechildbyattemptingtomaketherelationshipwhattheywantorneedittobe,ratherthanfeelingsecureenoughtoallowtherelationshiptodevelopinawaythatrespectsthechild’ssubjectivityandpersonality.Theparentneedstocontrolthedialogue(havethe‘firstandthelastword’)becausetoletthechildshapeitistoothreatening,asthechildwillineffectbeshapingthemalso.Theparentconstructsthemeaningofthechildinsuchawayastonecessitatedirectingthechildontoadifferentpathfromthatwhichheorshemightchooseonhisorherown.
Thecontrollingparent(mis)perceivesthechild’sZPDsuchastonecessitatetheparent’sconstantintervention.Inthemindoftheparent,problemsintherelationshiparetheresultofthechild’sattemptstocontributesomethingdifferentandpotentiallydamagingtothedialogue(whichiswhycontrollingparentscommonlyperceivetheirchildrenascontrolling).Theparent’sfearofthechildcontrollingthem,leadsthemtotryandcontrolthechild.
Someoftheseinterviewsshowapatternofcovertoroverthostility(seeFigure1below,andforallpatternshighlighted):thechildpresentsaproblem,ordifficultyfortheparent,andthechildistoblameforthenegativeexperiencesoftheparent(andthemselves).Sometimessomepositivesemantic(generalised)conclusionsaboutthechildortheparent’srelationshipwiththechildaregiven.However,theseareunderminedormadevacuousbynegativeimagesofthechild(orthechild’sfeelings)andbyrelatingepisodesthatemphasisethedifficultiesinvolvedinparentingthischild,.Thelanguageusedaboutthechildandtheirrelationshipoftenevokesnegativefeelingsaboutthechildinthelistener,andsoengenderingsympathytowardstheparent.Oftenthereisasubtleundercurrentofhostility,expressedinhumourthattrivialisesthechildorhisorherneeds,belittlesthem,orexaggeratestheirangerandaggression.Inextremecasesthehostilitymaybeovertinactivelyderogatorystatementsandlanguage,althoughthisisrare.Whatismorecommonly
TheMeaningofTheChildInterview(MotC)–Anewmethodofassessingandunderstandingparent-childrelationshipsof‘atrisk’families––CCPPPre-publicationversion
9
seen,aredescriptionsofthechild’smentalising(thinking,feeling,believingetc.)thatmakethechildouttobemorehostileorrejectingthaniseitherlikelyordevelopmentallycredible.Theinterviewjustifiesaggressivethinking,feelingandsometimesevenactionstowardsthechild(andexoneratestheparent’snegativebehaviourtowardsthechild).
Enmeshedinterviewsmistakethechild’sperspectivefortheparent’s.Theyaremorepositiveintonethanthemorehostileinterviews,buttheparent’sneedsanddesiresarereadintothechild.Theyareoftenmistakenlyperceivedassensitive,becausetheyaregenerallypositive,andhighlyimaged.However,unlikesensitiveinterviews,theseinterviewshaveahighlyarousedtonethroughout,tothepointofdesperation.Ultimatelytheparentisdescribingtheirownneeds,andthechildremainsunseen(andunvalued)asapersoninher(orhis)ownright.Thetranscriptsarethereforecharacterisedbyaconfusionoftheparent’sperspectivewiththatofthechild.Atthesametimethereremainsanunacknowledgedundercurrentofhostilityintheseinterviews,reflectingtheparent’sangerat(orfearof)thechildmakingameaningfulcontributiontotherelationship,andthefactthatultimatelythechildcannotliveuptotheburdenofexpectationplaceduponhimorher.Inlessseriouscases(suchasthosecharacterisedasFrustratedorNeedy),controllingthinkingservestohighlightanddrawattentiontoproblemsintherelationship,andtoelicitsupportfortheparentinresolvingthem.Ultimately,theparentstillrecognisestheirparentalroleandissearchingforasolution.Also,keepingtheproblemalivemayfunctiontokeepothersinvolvedinsupportingtheparent,andenabletheparenttofeelbetterabouttheirroledespitethedifficulties.
UnresponsiveCaregiving
Thedefenceofparentsclassifiedas‘Unresponsive’totheperceivedthreatofthechild’sabilitytoshapethemistowithdrawfromthedialogue.Theunresponsiveparentconstructsameaningofthechildthatjustifiestheirownlackofgenuineparticipationintheconversation.Usuallythechildisidealised,theparentunderstandingthechild’sZPDinsuchawaythatunderestimatestheinvolvementthechildneeds,andfacilitatesparentalabsence.Inthecaseofdepressedparents,theirowninvolvementispathologisedandseenasineffectiveorunhelpful;soexoneratingpsychologicalandoftenphysicalwithdrawal.However,assumingthattheunresponsivenessstopsshortofactualphysicalabandonment,thechildisstillphysicallythere,andsothereis,bynecessity,somekindofdialogue.Thechildmustfillthevacuumforhisorherownsurvival,andbecomethedrivingforceinthe‘conversation’.Thefearoftheunresponsiveandwithdrawingparentappearstobenotsomuchwhatthechildwilldoifgivenautonomyintherelationship,butwhattheparentwillfeeliffully‘present’.Whatisparticularlystrikingintheseinterviews,istheemotionalabsenceoftheparents,asmuchastheirlackofknowledgeofthechild.
TheMeaningofTheChildInterview(MotC)–Anewmethodofassessingandunderstandingparent-childrelationshipsof‘atrisk’families––CCPPPre-publicationversion
10
TheidealisationofinterviewsclassifiedasUnresponsiveisseenintheparent’sinabilitytodescribegenuineexperiencethatmightgivetheirstatementspersonalrelevance.Thereisanabsenceofimages,descriptionsofmentalising,and‘fresh’livelydiscourse.SuchAbsentparentsstruggletogivemeaningtothechild’ssignalsandbehaviour,sotheyareunabletorepresentitinaninterviewinameaningfulway.ThisalsocharacteriseswhatareheretermedDepressedparents,notasaproxydiagnosis,butrathertoidentifyparentswhohaveinsomewaygivenupontherelationshipandperceiveitasinsomeway‘lost’orhopeless.
Somepsychologicallydistancingparentsappeartobedoingmore,butwhattheydoislargelyunrelatedtothechildinfrontofthem.Theseparentsaremorelikelytodescribeafantasychildandafantasisedrelationship.Oftenthechildisidolised–placedonapedestaltobeadmired,ratherthanparented.Suchchildrenarepresentedas‘morethan’children,whichbyextensionmeansthattheyrequiresomething‘lessthan’parentingfromtheircaregiver.Theparentspeaksasiftheyaresomethingofaspectator(asiftheywereinaweofthechild)ratherthanactivelyinvolvedinrelatingtothem.Lackingagenuineconnectiontothechild,inextremecasesthisisimagined;analmostmagicalcommunicationisdescribed,orthechildisattributedwithmentalisingthatheorsheisdevelopmentallyincapableof.
Inlessthreatenedrelationships,theparentmayoverlookthechild’slesscriticalneeds,throughamildlyidealisedaccountoftheirexperiences(whichminimisethechild’sneedforcomfortandreassurancewhennotseriouslythreatened).Similarly,somewhatbusiness-likeparentstendtofocusonthetasksinvolvedinparenting,attheexpenseoffullybeing‘present’totheirchildasaperson;theirefficiencyandundoubteddedicationmakingupforalackofjoyintherelationship.
UnresponsiveandControllingCaregiving
Someparentsbothintrudeonthechildanddistancethemselvesatdifferenttimesandinrelationtodifferentdangers,orlevelofthreat.Thisiseasiesttounderstandinrelationtothedifferentformsittakes.ItismostclassicallyseeninRole-Reversedrelationships:these,unlikepurelyUnresponsiveorpurelyControllingpatternsarereciprocal(insomewaymutual),butunlikeSensitiverelationships,functiontoprotectandevennurturetheparent,ratherthanthechild.ThedepictionthereforemirrorsthatoftheSensitiveparent,butthenatureofthecooperationinvolveddoesnotsupportthechild’sdevelopment.
TheUnresponsivenesscomesfromthewayinwhichRolereversingtranscriptsidealisethechild,inordertofacilitatewithdrawalfromtheparentalrole.Suchadistortiontherefore,functionstosupporttheparent’sleaninguponthechild,whose‘childlikeness’isignoredorminimisedtoemphasisethechildasasourceofsupporttothem.However,mostRoleReversingrelationshipsalsohaveastrongcontrollingelementtothem.Thisislikelythe
TheMeaningofTheChildInterview(MotC)–Anewmethodofassessingandunderstandingparent-childrelationshipsof‘atrisk’families––CCPPPre-publicationversion
11
resultoftheburdenofexpectationuponthechildtobecomewhattheparentneedsthemtobe.Therole-reversedparentcannotaffordtotruly‘see’thechild’sneedinessandvulnerability,whichisoftendismissed,feared,orpathologised.Thereisonlyroomfortheparenttobetheneedyoneintherelationship.Bothrejectionandidealisationarepresentinthetranscripttherefore,butnotintegratedorreflectedupon.
Some,moretrulyunresponsiveparents(inthesenseofwantingdistancefromthechild)findthatthechild’snegativeaffectthreatenstheirequilibrium,andthefantasisedoridealised,‘safe’worldtheyseektoinhabitpsychologically.Thechild’snegativeaffectintheserelationshipsthreatensthefantasy,andsotheparentmustsuppressitordismissitintrusively.ThesetranscriptsareseenasUnresponsive-Rejecting,astheparent’sphysicallyintrusivebehaviourandoccasionalelementsofrejectingthought,ultimatelyservestomaintainthedistanceintherelationshipratherthankeepthechildclose.Oftenthesetranscriptscombineastronglyidealisedviewoftheparent-childrelationshipandthechildherorhimself,withanundercurrentoffearofthechild’snegativeaffect(andtheparent’sownabilitytomanageit).Anger,fearorsadnesscantakeonthequalityof‘theelephantintheroom’.
Ontheotherhand,insomeseeminglyControllingrelationships,hostilitytowardsthechildfunctionstoexoneratetheparentwithdrawingfromthechild,abdicatingtheparentingrole(becausethechildisperceivedasimpossibletohelporcareforinsomeway).ThiscategoryislabelledControlling-Withdrawal,asinthesecasestheparentisattemptingtointrudeandchangethechild,buttheirdisappointmentandfrustrationattheirinabilitytodosoissogreatthattheyhavetosomedegree‘givenup’onthechild.Theirbehaviourmaybeneglectingratherovertlypunitivetowardsthechild,butanintensestrugglewiththechildisstillgoingintheparent’smind.
TheMeaningofTheChildInterview(MotC)–Anewmethodofassessingandunderstandingparent-childrelationshipsof‘atrisk’families––CCPPPre-publicationversion
12
Figure1:TheMeaningoftheChild–DyadicPatternsofCaregiving
Thesedifferentpatternscanbevisualisedasacircle,withthehorizontalaxisdepictingthereciprocityandmutualityoftherelationship:theabsentparentontheleft(Unresponsive),andthedominatingparentontheright(Controlling).Inthemiddle,arethemutuallynegotiatedrelationships(Sensitive,andRole-reversed):thesearedifferentiatedvertically,accordingtothedegreeinwhichtheparentisabletoactastheprotectiveandnurturingoneintherelationship(the‘Psychologicalparent’).TheconceptualisationoftheMeaningoftheChildpatternsintheformofacircleowesmuchtoCrittenden’spresentationofherDMMpatternsofattachmentinadulthood(CrittendenandLandini2011),buttheMotCpatternsdonotcorrespondwithCrittenden’s,whicharearrangedinrespecttoinformationprocessingaxesofcognition/affect,andfalsityofinformation,ratherthanthedyadiconesofintrusion/absence,andparent/childroledepictedhere.ThisreflectstheMeaningoftheChild’sconceptualisationasinter-subjectiveandultimatelymoresystemicwayoflookingatattachmentrelationships(inthesensethatthepatternsareorganisedbythe‘position’and‘role’thattheparticipantsinarelationshiptaketoeachother).
LeanneandJohn:CaseStudies
Sensi&ve(
Frustrated(/(Needy(
Hos&le(/(Enmeshed(
Controlling(Withdrawal(
Role=Reversal(
Unresponsive(Rejec&ng(
Absent((Depressed)(/(Fantasised(
Business=like(/(Idealising(
Unresponsive(PaKerns(–((Psychological(Withdrawal(
Controlling(PaKerns(–(Psychological(Intrusion(
Sensi&ve(PaKerns((Co=constructed(rela&onship(with(Adult(as(Psychological(Parent(
Unresponsive(and(Controlling(PaKerns(Co=constructed(Rela&onship(with(Child(as(Psychological(Parent(
Meaning'of'the'Child'(Dyadic(PaKerns(of(Paren&ng(
TheMeaningofTheChildInterview(MotC)–Anewmethodofassessingandunderstandingparent-childrelationshipsof‘atrisk’families––CCPPPre-publicationversion
13
ThediscourseofLeanne(motherofLizzie,whoisaged22months),amotherwhoseMeaningoftheChildwasclassifiedsensitive,isfullofwarmandaffectionateimages,andrichdiscourseaboutherchild’sexperiencethatshowthepositiveimpactshehasuponhermother.Lizziewasverymuch‘there’intheinteractiondescribed;herpersonalityandlikesanddislikeswerevividlydescribed.Leannewasbeingassessedaspartofcourtproceedingsfollowingtheremovalofherdaughteroverayearpreviously.Leannecamefromasociallyandmateriallywell-offfamily,andmarriedamanwithawell-respectedjob,whowaswellregardedbyherfamily.Somemonthsaftertheyweremarriedandtheir(only)childwasborn,Leannehadagreedtoreturntoworkafterhermaternityleave,butonanearlyvisittoherworkplace,Lizziewasthrownbyherfatherwhowaslookingafterher,andseriouslyinjured.Leanneinitiallysupportedherhusbandandcoveredforhim,whichresultedinherseparationfromLizzie.However,bythetimeoftheassessment,LeannehadseparatedfromLizzie’sfatherandwasdoingallshecouldtohaveherdaughterreturnedtohercare.
Leanne’sseparationfromLizzieisintenselyfelt,butthisisnotexaggeratedorcoerciveoftheinterviewer;itishergenuineexperience:
WhatdoyoulikemostaboutLizzie?
Um...that’squiteadifficultquestiontoanswer(softlaugh).
Itisadifficultquestion,haveago,haveashot.
(7-8secondssilence-thinking)
Wellit’sdifficulttoputmyfingerononething,there’sacoupleofthingsthatIreallyloveaboutLizzie...um(pause)oneofthemisum(pause)Ireallylovehersmile,she’sgot,shesmilesateverybodybutshe’sgotaparticularsmilethatsheturnsaroundandgrinsforyou,forsomebodyspecialinherlifeumm(pause)she’sgotaveryinfectiouslaugh,shelovestolaughumm(pause),reallylikethataboutherumm(pause)Sorryit’sverystrange,thewayshesmellscosshe’smychildandit’safunnyparentthingIknow,maybeonlyI’vegotbutthere’sthesmellofLizzieandIcanstillgointoherroomandeventhoughshe’snotbeenthereforavery,verylongtime,itsmellslikeLizzieinthatroom(pause)it’saverystrangething.
It’snotastrangething.
Andeventhoughshe’sbeenwithherfostermother,shestillsmellslikeLizzie(pause)umsothat’squiteimportanttomeum(pause)andum(pause)butwhenshecallsmummyevenifshe’supsetorshe’s(pause)
TheMeaningofTheChildInterview(MotC)–Anewmethodofassessingandunderstandingparent-childrelationshipsof‘atrisk’families––CCPPPre-publicationversion
14
umhappyoryouknowwhenshecallsformethatreallymeltsmyheartevenifit’s,evenifshe’sannoyedwithme(laughs)....
Thisisapowerfullyemotivepassage,butitissobecauseofthesadnessofthesituation,notbecausethelisteneriscoercedthroughdistortedinformationorone-sidedpresentation.ItisLeanne’sintimateandpersonalknowledgeofandconnectionwithherdaughterthatmakesthepassagesoaffecting.Smellisamongthemostintimateofsenses,anditsappearanceininterviewstendstoevidenceeitherthemostpositiveorthemostnegative(oftentraumatised)affectiveresponses.ItisclearthatLizzieasapersonhashadaspowerfuleffectuponLeanne,ashermotherhasuponher,buttheinfluenceismutuallypleasurableandaffirming(evenifitalsoentailsloss,giventherealityoftheirsituation).
InSensitiveinterviews,the‘co-constructed’inter-subjectivityisshownintheinterviewitselfaswellastheparent’srelationshipwiththeirchild.Withoutlosingawarenessofherownfeelingsandpointofview,Leannealsotooktheinterviewer’sperspective,andwasopenandcooperativeinherdiscussionofherdaughter.Attimesshemoderatedtheintensityofherfeelingsbydistancinglanguage,butfarfromdistancingherselffromthechild,orbeingoverlyintense,shewasinfactregulatingherself(andprotectingtheinterviewer)inthefaceofherverystrongemotions.TheinterviewerhasaccesstoLeanne’sfeelingsaboutherchildandherloss,buttheyarenotpusheduponher.
Thisabilitytoallowthelistenertoformherownconclusions,tomaketheinterviewajointprocesswherebothparticipantsareactiveinderivingmeaningfromit,wasabsentintheinterviewsofmoreendangeredparents.Theseeitherretreatedfromtheinterviewprocess,contributingjustenoughto‘getthrough’,orsoughttocontroltheinterview,desperatetoensurethattheoneandonlymeaningacceptabletotheparentisallowedtodominate.ForJohn,afathertryingtoreformhimselfafteraperiodinprison,his15-month-oldsonTommywaspresentedasthesolemotivationandsourceofJohn’sreformationfromhisviolentpast,andhisreasonforliving:
If[Tommyisnotreturnedtomycare],IdreadtothinkwhatI’mgoingtodo,honestly,Ithink,IthinkI’mgonnaget–‘bout15year’sjailorsomethingstupidhonestlyifIdon’tgetmyboy,Idreadtothinkcos–likeIsaidtoyou,that’smylife–inthatlittleboy’shands.Heholdsthekeytomyheart.
TheproblemiswhatJohnseesinTommy,andhimselfasaparent,islargelywhatheneedstosee.Tommywascastintotheroleof‘saviour’,whichbothplacedanunfairburdenona1-year-oldchild,andnecessarilydistortedJohn’sdiscussionoftheirrelationship.JohncouldnotaffordtotrustTommytocontributefreelyinhisownrighttotheinter-subjectivespacebetweenthem,becausethiswouldhaveriskedhimgivingadifferentmeaningtotherelationshipthantheonethatJohnsodesperatelyneedstobelievein.
TheMeaningofTheChildInterview(MotC)–Anewmethodofassessingandunderstandingparent-childrelationshipsof‘atrisk’families––CCPPPre-publicationversion
15
Therefore,John’sdescriptionsoftheirrelationshipwereextremelyexaggeratedandintense.Manyofhisimagesweresimplynotcredible.Johnregularlyconfusedhimselfwithhischild,andtheirperspectivewasenmeshedandnotdistinguished.ItwasclearthatwhetherTommy’sbehaviourisaffectionateordistancing,Johngivesameaningtoitthatfitshispredeterminedscript:
Thelove,theuniquenessofmysonandourrelationship,cosit’soneofakind,youwon’tgetonelikemeandmysonhasgot,Idon’tcarewhoyougot,whatevertheythink.….
...canyoutellmeaboutjustaparticularmoment,describeatimewithhimwhere,where,thathasshowedthelovethereisbetweenyou..
EverytimeIopenthatdoortowalkin,toseehim,everytime,youcanjustfeeltheloveintheroom.Its,Idon’tknowifthatsoundsstrangebut,youjustcan,Iwalkinandassoonashisarmscomeup,andhejustwrapshimselfandsqueezessotightthat,thatjustshowsmehelovesmeandthatIdothesameback,IshowhimIlovehim,butwhenIputhiminthecar,hewon’tkissme,hewon’twavegoodbye–nothing,ithurts,butIthinkIknowwhy,coshe’shavingtogoback,whichhedoesn’twanttodo,youcanseeit,hedoesn’twannadoit,butthat’smyopinion,otherpeoplemighthavetheirownoutlookonthatwhentheyseeit,andseehowheis,butthat’smypersonalopinionashisfather.
ThereappearsnothingthatTommycandotoinfluencethemeaningthatJohnconstructsaroundtheirrelationship,andJohn’sneedtoinsistonthisinthefaceofwhatheperceivesashostileattemptsbyotherssoseethingsdifferently,isbothpalpableanddesperate.
Conclusion:TheParticularContributionoftheMeaningoftheChild
Itisthemoresystemic,inter-subjectiveapproachtoclassifyingparentingrepresentationsthatrepresentsthemostsignificantcontributionoftheMeaningoftheChildInterview.ThisapproachallowstheMeaningoftheChildtobealivetothewayinwhichoutsiderelationships,suchascouple,familyandwidersocialrelationshipshelpshapethemeaningoftherelationshipforbothparentandchild,inadditiontotheinfluenceoftheparent’schildhoodattachmentexperiences.ItalsoenablestheMotCtoexplaindifferencesinchildrenwhosharethesamecarer,givingattentiontothewayinwhichmeaningis‘co-constructed’inaspecificrelationship.Finally,theMeaningoftheChildInterviewavoidslumpingall‘atrisk’relationshipswithina‘catch-all’category(usuallyrelatinginsomewayto‘disorganised’attachment),orsimplyscoringthelevelofrisk,andsocanmakemeaningfuldistinctionsbetweendifferentlyfunctioningstrugglingrelationships.Thisextendsitsclinicalandforensicpotential,throughitsabilitytoidentifydyadsandfamilieswhoserelationshipsworkverydifferentlyfromeachother,resultingdiffering
TheMeaningofTheChildInterview(MotC)–Anewmethodofassessingandunderstandingparent-childrelationshipsof‘atrisk’families––CCPPPre-publicationversion
16
developmentalpathwaysforthechild.Wehopethatbydifferentiatingdifferentpatternsofthinkingassociatedwithproblematicandattimesdangerouscaregiving,theMotCcanmakeafruitfulcontributiontobothpracticeandfutureresearch.
References
Aber,J.,Slade,A.,Berger,B.,Bresgi,I.,&Kaplan,M.(1985).TheParentDevelopment
Interview:Interviewprotocol.Unpublishedmanuscript:BarnardCollege,Columbia
University,NewYork.
Ainsworth,M.D.S.,Blehar,M.C.,Waters,E.,&Wall,S.(1978)Patternsofattachment.A
psychologicalstudyoftheStrangeSituation,Hillsdale:LawrenceErlbaum.
Beebe,B.,Lachmann,F.,Markese,S.,&Bahrick,L.(2012).Ontheoriginsofdisorganized
attachmentandinternalworkingmodels:PaperI.Adyadicsystemsapproach.
PsychoanalyticDialogues,22(2),253–272.
Beebe,B.,Lachmann,F.M.,Markese,S.,Buck,K.A.,Bahrick,L.E.,Chen,H.,…Jaffe,J.
(2012).Ontheoriginsofdisorganizedattachmentandinternalworkingmodels:
PaperII.Anempiricalmicroanalysisof4-monthmother–infantinteraction.
PsychoanalyticDialogues,22(3),352–374.
Benoit,D.,Zeanah,C.H.,Parker,K.C.,Nicholson,E.,&Coolbear,J.(1997).“Workingmodel
ofthechildinterview”:Infantclinicalstatusrelatedtomaternalperceptions.Infant
MentalHealthJournal,18(1),107–121.
Crittenden,P.M.(2003).ADynamicMaturationalApproachtoContinuityandChangein
PatternsofAttachment(Chapter18).InP.M.Crittenden&A.Claussen(Eds.),The
OrganisationofAttachmentRelationships:Maturation,Culture,andContext(Vol.
Paperback,pp.343–357).NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Crittenden,P.M.(2008).Raisingparents.Devon,UK:WillanPublishing.
Crittenden,P.M.(2010)CARE-Index.Infants.CodingManual,unpublishedmanuscript,
Miami,FL,USA.
Crittenden,P.M.&Bonvillian,J.D.(1984)`Theeffectofmaternalriskstatusonmaternal
sensitivitytoinfantcues´,AmericanJournalofOrthopsychiatry,54:250-262.
TheMeaningofTheChildInterview(MotC)–Anewmethodofassessingandunderstandingparent-childrelationshipsof‘atrisk’families––CCPPPre-publicationversion
17
Crittenden,P.M.,Partridge,M.F.,&Claussen,A.H.(1991).Familypatternsofrelationship
innormativeanddysfunctionalfamilies.DevelopmentandPsychopathology,3(4),
491–512.
Crittenden,P.M.,&Landini,A.(2011).AssessingAdultAttachment:ADynamic-
MaturationalApproachtoDiscourseAnalysis.NewYorkandLondon:WWNorton&
Company.
Crittenden,P.M.,Dallos,R.,Landini,A.,&Kozlowska,K.(2014).AttachmentandSystemic
FamilyTherapy.McGraw-HillEducation(UK).
Farnfield,S.(2008).ATheoreticalModelfortheComprehensiveAssessmentofParenting.
BritishJournalofSocialWork,38(6),1076–1099.
Farnfield,S(2014)Theassessmentofattachmentandparenting.InS.Farnfield&P.Holmes
(Eds)TheRoutledgeHandbookofAttachment:AssessmentLondon&NewYork:
Routledge,17-36.
Farnfield,S.,A.Hautamäki,P.Nørbech&N.Sahhar,(2010)'DMMAssessmentsof
AttachmentandAdaptation:Procedures,ValidityandUtility',ClinicalChild
PsychologyandPsychiatry,15(3)pp.313-328
Fearon,P.,Shmueli-Goetz,Y.,Viding,E.,Fonagy,P.,&Plomin,R.(2014).Geneticand
environmentalinfluencesonadolescentattachment.JournalofChildPsychologyand
Psychiatry,55(9),pp1033–1041
Fonagy,P.,Steele,H.,&Steele,M.(1991).Maternalrepresentationsofattachmentduring
pregnancypredicttheorganizationofinfant-motherattachmentatoneyearofage.
ChildDevelopment,62(5),891–905.
Fonagy,P.,Target,M.,Steele,H.,&Steele,M.(1998).Reflective-functioningmanual,version
5.0,forapplicationtoAdultAttachmentInterviews.Unpublishedmanual.
UniversityCollegeLondon,London
George,C.,Kaplan,N.,&Main,M.(1985).TheBerkeleyAdultAttachmentInterview.
Interviewprotocol.DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley
George,C.,&Solomon,J.(2008).TheCaregivingSystem:Abehavioralsystemsapproachto
parenting.InJ.Cassidy&P.Shaver(Eds.),Handbookofattachment:Theory,research,
andclinicalapplications(Vol.2nd,pp.833–856).NewYork:GuilfordPress.
TheMeaningofTheChildInterview(MotC)–Anewmethodofassessingandunderstandingparent-childrelationshipsof‘atrisk’families––CCPPPre-publicationversion
18
GreyB.(2014a)‘TheMeaningoftheChildtotheParent:TheDevelopmentandValidationof
anewmethodofclassifyingparentinginterviewsforthenatureoftheparent-child
relationship’,PhDthesis,London:UniversityofRoehampton
Grey,B(2014b),‘TheMeaningoftheChildtotheParent–AnInter-subjectiveApproachto
AssessingRepresentationsofCaregiving’,PosterpresentedattheWAIMH
Conference,Edinburgh,June2014,Abstract:InfantMentalHealthJournal,Vol:35
(3)Supplement,P.227
GreyandFarnfieldsubmitted
Grienenberger,J.,Kelly,K.,&Slade,A.(2005).Maternalreflectivefunctioning,mother–
infantaffectivecommunication,andinfantattachment:Exploringthelinkbetween
mentalstatesandobservedcaregivingbehaviorintheintergenerational
transmissionofattachment.Attachment&HumanDevelopment,7(3),299–311.
Hesse,E.(2008).TheAdultAttachmentInterview:Protocol,methodofanalysis,and
empiricalstudies.InJ.Cassidy&P.Shaver(Eds.),Handbookofattachment:Theory,
research,andclinicalapplications(Vol.2nd,pp.552–598).NewYork:GuilfordPress.
Luyten,P.andFonagy,P.(2014)‘Assessingmentalizinginattachmentcontexts’,in(Eds)S.
FarnfieldandP.Holmes,TheRoutledgeHandbookofAttachment:Assessment,(pp.
210–216)London:Routlege.
Lyons-Ruth,K.(1999).Thetwo-personunconscious:Intersubjectivedialogue,enactive
relationalrepresentation,andtheemergenceofnewformsofrelational
organization.PsychoanalyticInquiry,19(4),576–617.
Madigan,S.,Bakermans-Kranenburg,M.,VanIJzendoorn,M.,Moran,G.,Pederson,D.and
Benoit,D.(2006)‘Unresolvedstatesofmind,anomalousparentalbehaviour,and
disorganisedattachment:Areviewandmeta-analysisofatransmissiongap’,
AttachmentandHumanDevelopment,8(2),pp.89-111.
Main,M.&R.Goldwyn,(1994)AdultAttachmentInterviewScoringandClassification
Manual,Unpublishedmanuscript:UniversityofCaliforniaatBerkeley
Meins,E.,Fernyhough,C.,Wainwright,R.,Clark-Carter,D.,DasGupta,M.,Fradley,E.,&
Tuckey,M.(2003).Pathwaystounderstandingmind:constructvalidityand
TheMeaningofTheChildInterview(MotC)–Anewmethodofassessingandunderstandingparent-childrelationshipsof‘atrisk’families––CCPPPre-publicationversion
19
predictivevalidityofmaternalmind-mindedness.ChildDevelopment,74(4),1194–
1211.
Miller,A.(1979).Depressionandgrandiosityasrelatedformsofnarcissisticdisturbances.
InternationalReviewofPsycho-Analysis,6,61–76.
Oppenheim,D.,&Koren-Karie,N.(2009).Parents’insightfulnessregardingtheirchildren’s
internalworlds:Assessment,research,andclinicalimplications.InC.H.Zeanah(Ed.),
Handbookofinfantmentalhealth(Vol.3,pp.266–280).NewYork:GuilfordPress.
Reder,P.,&Duncan,S.(1999).Lostinnocents:afollow-upstudyoffatalchildabuse.
London:Routledge.
Reder,P.,Duncan,S.,&Gray,M.(1993).Beyondblame:Childabusetragediesrevisited.
London:Routledge.
Sahhar,N.(2014).AnexpandedapproachtotheAdultAttachmentInterview.The
RoutledgeHandbookofAttachment:Assessment,156.
Schacter,D.L.,&Tulving,E.(1994).Whatarethememorysystemsof1994?InD.L.Schacter
&E.Tulving(Ed.),Memorysystems(pp.1-38).Cambridge,MA:Bradford.
Slade,A.(2005).Parentalreflectivefunctioning:Anintroduction.Attachment&Human
Development,7(3),269–281
Slade,A.,Grienenberger,J.,Bernbach,E.,Levy,D.,&Locker,A.(2005).Maternalreflective
functioning,attachment,andthetransmissiongap:Apreliminarystudy.Attachment
&HumanDevlopment,7(3),283–298.
Slade,A.,E.Bernbach,J.Grienenberger,D.Levy&A.Locker,(2005a)Addendumto
ReflectiveFunctioningScoringManual,Unpublishedmanuscript:ThePsychological
Center,TheCityCollegeofNewYork,NewYork.
Slade,A.,Cohen,L.J.,Sadler,L.S.,&Miller,M.(2009).Thepsychologyandpsychopathology
ofpregnancy.HandbookofInfantMentalHealth,22–39.
Solomon,J.,&George,C.(2011).TheDisorganizedAttachment-CaregivingSystem.InJ.
Solomon&C.George(Eds.),Disorganizedattachmentandcaregiving(Vols.1–Book,
1–Section,pp.3–24).NewYork:GuilfordPress.
Suchman,N.E.,DeCoste,C.,Leigh,D.,&Borelli,J.(2010).Reflectivefunctioninginmothers
withdrugusedisorders:Implicationsfordyadicinteractionswithinfantsand
toddlers.Attachment&HumanDevelopment,12(6),567–585.
TheMeaningofTheChildInterview(MotC)–Anewmethodofassessingandunderstandingparent-childrelationshipsof‘atrisk’families––CCPPPre-publicationversion
20
VanIJzendoorn,M.(1995).Adultattachmentrepresentations,parentalresponsiveness,and
infantattachment:ameta-analysisonthepredictivevalidityoftheAdultAttachment
Interview.PsychologicalBulletin,117(3),387–403.
Vygotsky,L.S.(1967).Playanditsroleinthementaldevelopmentofthechild.Journalof
RussianandEastEuropeanPsychology,5(3),6–18.
Winnicott,D.(1967).TheMirror-roleofthemotherandfamilyinchilddevelopment.InP.
Logan(Ed.),ThePredicamentoftheFamily:APsycho-AnalyticalSymposium(Vols.1–
Book,1–Section,pp.26–33).London:HogarthPress.
Zeanah,C.(2007).Constructingarelationshipformulationformotherandchild:Clinical
applicationoftheworkingmodelofthechildinterview.InD.Oppenheim,S.Dolev,N.
Koren-Karie,&E.Sher-Censor(Eds.),AttachmentTheoryinClinicalWorkwith
Children:BridgingtheGapbetweenResearchandPractice(Vol.Paperback,pp.3–30).
Zeanah,C.,Benoit,D.,Hirshberg,L.,&Barton,M.(1986).Workingmodelofthechild
interview:Ratingscalesandclassifications.Unpublishedmanual, NewOrleans,
LouisianaStateUniversitySchoolofMedicine.
