Predicting secure infant attachment

Daniel Messinger, Ph.D.

Messinger 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 8

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 9

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 10

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 11

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 12

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 13

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 14

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 15

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 16

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 17

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 18

Empirical resolution

Avoidant Secure Resistant

Temperament

Calm---------------------------Irritable

(A1 A2 or B1) B2 B3 (B4 or C1 C2)

Caregiving CaregivingBelsky; Sussman-Stillman; several replications

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

Messinger 24

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 25

More evidence for care-giving effects Experimental Observational

– Meta-analysis of quasi-experiments

Messinger 26

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 27

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 28

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 29

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 35

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 38

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 41

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

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

Messinger 42

Messinger 43

Messinger 44

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.

Autism challenges attachment theory

Subtle attachment differences:More distance security

Haltigan et al., 2010

58%

27%42%

73%

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 48

Messinger 49

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 50

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 51

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 52

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 53

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 54

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 55

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 56

Variability

Characterizes the association between security of attachment and quality of social play cross-culturally

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

Messinger 57

Messinger 58

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 60

The Paradox of Sensitivity

Strongly predictive of many outcomes But somewhat subjective in content

– A joystick resolution?

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

Messinger 63

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):