Attachment Theory and Research. Группа авторовЧитать онлайн книгу.

RAD from autism spectrum disorder and DSED from ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), and discuss attachment disorders in relation to internalizing and externalizing problems. They also discuss the effects of deprivation on neurobiology, linking deprivation to structural and functional deviations in brain development. Finally, they discuss research on interventions, which have largely focused on adoption, and discuss different responsiveness between RAD and DSED.

In the eleventh paper, Matt Woolgar and Emma Baldock (2015) present the results of a study examining if there is a tendency to overdiagnose “attachment disorders” and “attachment problems” among adopted and looked‐after children. Using one hundred consecutive referrals to a specialist unit in the UK, they examine whether attachment disorders and problems are identified in a higher extent in community‐based referral letters than by specialists, and whether overdiagnosing of attachment disorders and attachment problems is at the expense of diagnosing more common problems such as ADHD and ODD (Oppositional Defiant Disorder). They elaborate on the potential allure of attachment disorders and attachment problems, and argue that the more common diagnoses should be considered as “first line diagnoses.” One reason for this, they argue, is that whereas there is good access to evidence‐based interventions for these more common problems, specific interventions for attachment disorders and problems are still at an early stage. Their findings not only suggest that there is a problem of overdiagnosing attachment disorders and problems, but also that these phenomena are ill understood. Based on their own findings and those of others, they then argue that the current diagnostic system for attachment problems is inadequate to meet the needs of clinicians, that there is confusion about an appropriate diagnostic framework and a lack of agreed upon standards for assessing attachment disorders.

In the twelfth paper, Ashley Groh and colleagues (2017) summarize and present the results of a recent series of meta‐analyses on the association between child–mother attachment quality and (1) social competence, (2) internalizing problems, (3) externalizing problems and (4) temperament. They also examine whether effects endure or diminish over time, and if effects vary systematically depending on factors such as type of sample, child sex and socio‐economic factors. They discuss results concerning differences between children classified as secure and insecure as well as regarding the four attachment categories, including some unexpected results regarding avoidant and resistant attachment. While the meta‐analyses present robust support for the role of attachment quality in child development, they also elaborate on a number of empirical issues in need of inquiry. For instance, they note that the effects of attachment quality are small to moderate by Cohen’s criteria. They also highlight that there is a scarcity of research on mediating mechanisms. They close by discussing potential problems with examining attachment in the strange situation in the form of four mutually exclusive categories.

In the thirteenth paper, Mary Dozier and Kristin Bernard (2017) describe their attachment‐based intervention; the “Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch‐up.” They review theory and research on the importance of caregiver sensitivity for infants’ development of biological and behavioral regulation, and emphasize the caregiver as a crucial co‐regulator. They then describe their own ten‐session home‐visit programme the ABC, which was developed with a focus on caregivers at risk for inadequate and problematic care (e.g. abuse and neglect). They discuss how the ABC is designed to help caregivers (1) enhance nurturing behavior, (2) follow their children’s leads and (3) reduce frightening behavior, and describe the importance of frequent and positive “in the moment” comments by the parent coach. They then review research showing positive effects of the ABC on caregiving sensitivity as well as on infants’ attachment quality and self‐regulatory ability, and describe an adaptation of the ABC for caregivers with toddlers. Finally, they discuss the need for further examination of the effectiveness of the ABC when implemented in the community.

In the fourteenth paper, Fabien Bacro and colleagues present theory and research on children’s multiple attachment relationships and representations. They note that there is still a lack of consensus regarding the nature, structure and relative importance of each attachment relationship in children’s development, and emphasize that parental roles have become more egalitarian in many countries. They then compare three theoretical models regarding how attachment relationships may become organized and influence child development: the hierarchical model based on Bowlby’s notion of monotropy; the integrative model, in which different attachment relationships are thought to become integrated; and the independent model, in which different relationship models are seen as exerting independent effects on child development. In doing so, they review research examining whether children show preferences for certain caregivers, to what extent there is concordance in children’s attachment quality with their mothers and fathers, and the respective influence of attachment to mothers and fathers for child development. Based on the increased number of children exposed to parental divorce they also review research regarding how different family contexts may influence children’s attachment representations, and highlight the importance of the parental relationship post separation. Finally, they discuss research regarding placement trajectories and attachment quality in children placed in foster care, focusing on the risk for unstable placements and the need to repeatedly create new attachment relationships. They emphasize recent research by Bacro and colleagues who linked multiple placements to an increased risk for externalizing problems with disorganized attachment acting as a mediating mechanism. This chapter, which was written for the current anthology, includes research that has to date only been published in French.

In the fifteenth paper, Mary True presents theory and research on disorganized attachment and its origins, focusing on cultural differences in caregiving practices and the transferability of the strange situation procedure between cultures. She focuses particularly on her and her colleagues’ research with Dogon mothers and infants in Mali, and presents new analyses motivated by advances in theory development. She describes Main and Hesse’s theory of frightening/frightened caregiver behavior, and Lyons‐Ruth’s theory of dysfluent communication, and how her and her colleagues’ initial findings were in line with both these “relational” theories of disorganization. However, she also notes that maternal sensitivity predicted attachment security in a “well baby exam” but not in the strange situation procedure, and that she and her colleagues did not observe any avoidant infants in the strange situation. She then contrasts the “proximal” caregiving practices of the Dogon with the “distal” caregiving practices in Western countries, and raises the question of whether the Dogon infants may have experienced overstress in the strange situation due to the rarity of experiencing such separations. She then presents and discusses her new analyses regarding the relational hypothesis and the overstress hypothesis, together with a meta‐analysis examining whether the frequency of avoidant classifications is lower in Africa. The chapter was written for the current anthology.

Suggested Further Reading