Developmental Psychopathology. Группа авторовЧитать онлайн книгу.

affects parenting behaviors which, in turn, affect the child’s attachment style (van IJzendoorn, 1995).

Parental relationship

At a basic level, the presence of both parents in the home appears to be associated with attachment security (Booth‐LaForce et al., 2014); however, lower marital satisfaction (Howes & Markman, 1989), decreased marital harmony (Teti et al., 1995), and greater marital conflict (Owen & Cox, 1997) have been linked to greater attachment insecurity. Still, many studies have failed to replicate these results, suggesting a complex relation between parental marital functioning and a child’s attachment.

Contextual Protective Factors

Maternal sensitivity

Many studies (see Belsky & Fearon, 2008) have documented a relation between a mother’s sensitivity to the needs of her infant and the infant’s attachment style. Specifically, a mother’s rapid response when her child is in distress (e.g., Del Carmen, Pederson, Huffman, & Bryan, 1993), as well as her warmth and involvement with the child (e.g., Leyendecker, Lamb, Fracasso, Scholmerich, & Larson, 1997) have been repeatedly linked to secure attachment in the child including across cultures and SES (Belsky & Fearon, 2008). However, meta‐analytic research on these relations reveals small effect sizes (De Wolff & van IJzendoorn, 1997; Belsky & Fearon, 2008). Two related concepts—maternal reflective functioning (Fonagy, Steel, & Steel, 1991) and maternal mind‐mindedness (Bernier & Dozier, 2003)—have garnered attention within attachment research. Both of these concepts are centered upon a parent’s ability to recognize their baby’s underlying mental states and link these mental states to the baby’s behavior. Research suggests that increases in this maternal capacity enhance attachment security in young children (Slade et al., 2005).

Social support

Research suggests that social support is associated with more sensitive parenting. Among low‐income ethnic minority mothers, social network size (Burchinal, Follmer, & Bryant, 1996) and material support from social networks (Feiring, Fox, Jaskir, & Lewis, 1987) have been associated with more engaged and responsive caregiving. Moreover, child attachment security has been linked to the family’s social support (e.g., Crnic, Greenberg, & Slough, 1986). However, research suggests that social support enhances caregiving, thus predicting attachment security, but it does not have a direct influence on attachment security (Belsky & Fearon, 2008).

Gene–Environment Interplay

Gene–environment interactions

Several of the biological contributors to attachment that we have already discussed have been shown to impact attachment via interactions with environmental variables. Although researchers are careful to point out that gene–environment interaction studies in attachment are sparse, the prevailing view is that there are likely to be genetically based vulnerabilities that make children more or less susceptible to caregiving environments (Gervai, 2009). For example, a polymorphism of the serotonin transporter gene interacts with the caregiving environment to predict attachment insecurity (Spangler, Johann, Ronai, & Zimmerman, 2009). Similar findings have been noted with regard to a dopamine receptor gene; genetic vulnerability seems to increase the effects of difficult caregiving on attachment (van IJzendoorn & Bakermans‐Kranenburg, 2006) but also enhances the effects of a positive environment (Bakermans‐Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 2007), suggesting differential susceptibility to both favorable and unfavorable environments.

Gene–environment correlations

Caregiving environments are heavily affected by genetic influences (Kendler & Baker, 2007). Burt (2009) calls the gene → behavior → social consequence chain an evocative gene–environment correlation, in which an individual’s genes evoke a particular environmental response through their behavior. Imagine, for example, a child with a disorganized attachment; this child, when upset and dysregulated, would evoke a different response from adults than a securely attached child. If we can tie the genes linked to disorganized attachment to those caregiver responses, we have identified an evocative gene–environment correlation with consequences for the study of attachment. Researchers have just recently begun to document these sorts of gene–environment correlations with regard to the serotonin transport and dopamine receptor genes we have discussed. For instance, the serotonin transport gene has been linked to peer popularity (Burt, 2008, 2009) such that genetic factors predict rule‐breaking behavior which, in turn, results in peer popularity. The DRD2 dopamine receptor gene has been associated with unfavorable caregiving as well (Beaver, Shutt, Vaughn, DeLisi, & Wright, 2012), although whether these links represent an evocative gene–environment correlation is not yet known.

Developmental Timing Effects: Sensitive Periods

Most attachment research has traditionally pointed to early infancy as an influential time in the parent–child attachment. Separations from primary caregivers that occur near six months of age appear to have a particularly detrimental impact on children’s attachment (Hazen et al., 2015). Still, it would be too simplistic to say that only the first six months of life are relevant for later attachment. Indeed, Fraley and Hefferman (2013) found that individuals who were younger (i.e., within the first few years of life) at the time that their parents divorced were more likely to have an insecure parental attachment in adulthood than individuals whose parents divorced later in childhood.

Interventions

Given links between attachment and psychopathology, numerous researchers have developed attachment intervention programs. Perhaps the best‐known attachment intervention is Circle of Security (Hoffman, Marvin, Cooper, & Powell, 2006), a program for parents of young children that focuses on augmenting a parent’s ability to serve as a secure attachment figure by providing comfort in times of threat and serving as a base from which to explore their environment (see Figure 4.6). This intervention decreases disorganized and insecure attachment styles (Cassidy, Woodhouse, Sherman, Stupica, & Lejuez, 2011; Hoffman et al., 2006).

Child–Parent Psychotherapy (CPP) is a manualized intervention for families with young children (less than five years of age; Lieberman & Van Horn, 2005) who have experienced trauma and helps parent resolve their own difficult childhood experiences. This program increases maternal empathy (Lieberman, Weston, & Pawl, 1991) and attachment security (Cicchetti, Rogosch, & Toth, 2006), and reduces psychopathology among children (Lieberman, Van Horn, & Ippen, 2005). Two other programs, the UCLA Family Development Project (e.g., Heinicke et al., 2006) and Minding the Baby (e.g., Slade et al., 2005), target mothers before the birth of their firstborn infants.

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, we introduced attachment theory and assessment. We summarized how behavioral difficulties and psychopathology relate to attachment security. We also presented complex findings regarding the interplay of genetic, neurobiological, cognitive, temperamental, and environmental factors that contribute to attachment insecurity and closed with several current interventions intended to address attachment insecurity and related problems.

Schematic illustratration of the circle of Security.

FIGURE 4.6 Circle of Security.

Source: Cooper, Hoffman, Marvin, & Powell, CircleofSecurity.org. 1998.