Secure (B)
The baby may be distressed during separations from caregiver. If she is distressed, she seeks contact with the parent during the reunions and is easily soothed by the parent. The baby actively seeks interaction with parent after separation with little resistance or avoidance. The baby clearly acknowledges parent’s return following separations with smile, cry, or approach. Good quality exploration and play prior to separations and after parent’s return
B1
Baby shows little or no distress during separations. He greets the parent upon return and seeks interaction but not physical contact
B2
The baby shows little or no distress during separations. She greets the parent upon return. She may show some initial avoidance of parent following first separation but seek contact with the parent following the second separation
B3
The baby may be distressed during the separation episodes. He actively seeks contact with the parent following separations and will maintain contact by resisting attempts to release him before he is ready. Given his level of distress, his quick recovery following his parent’s return is striking
B4
The baby is clearly distressed during separations, especially during the second separation where he seems entirely distressed. He seeks contact with the parent and, although there may be some evidence of mixed feelings, he clearly seeks to maintain contact with his parent
Table 5.2
Characteristics of secure child-parent attachment in modified separation-reunion procedure for preschool children. (Source: Cassidy and Marvin 1992)
Secure (B) | Child is interested in interacting with the parent. Child rarely shows extensive crying during separation but may exhibit muted exploration or search for parent. Child may exhibit no distress during separation—continuing to play until parent returns. Child displays relaxed pleasure at parent’s return. Following parent’s return, interaction picks up where it left off prior to separation |
Secure-reserved (B1) | Child displays some initial avoidance or reserve following separation. However, after a relatively short period of time (a minute or less) engages in happy, intimate interaction with parent |
Very secure (B3) | Child clearly enjoys interacting with the parent. Interactions appear calm and comfortable with almost no avoidance, ambivalence, disorganized, or controlling behavior |
Secure-dependent (B4) | Child displays some initial pouty or immature behavior following separation communicating hurt feelings or displeasure in the context of generally secure behavior |
Secure-feisty (B4) | Child is confidently assertive in interactions with parent. Child seems interested in showing off for parent, emphasizing both the relationship and their ability to make their own choices |
Secure-controlling (B4) | Child’s interactions with parent are generally secure with one or two isolated instances of trying to control parent |
Secure-other (B other) | Child clearly uses parent as secure base and safe haven but does not clearly fall into specific subgroup |
Rates of Secure Attachment
As early interventionists focused on improving parent-child interactions , it is easy to become focused on what is not working in the relationship. It is reassuring to remember most children have a secure attachment relationship with at least one parent (54–78 % in community samples) (Greenberg et al. 1991; Kochanska and Kim 2013; Leigh et al. 2004; Moss et al. 2004; Speltz et al. 1990, 1999; Troutman et al. 2010; van Ijzendoorn et al. 1999) and 40 % are securely attached to both parents (Kochanska and Kim 2013).
Although secure attachment is a protective factor, it is not a guarantee against conflicts in the parent-child relationship, including conflicts significant enough for the child to meet criteria for a disruptive behavior disorder. In clinical samples, the rate of secure attachment is significantly lower than community samples but one-fifth to one-third of dyads referred for clinical services are securely attached (Cohen et al. 1999; Greenberg et al. 1991; Speltz et al. 1990, 1995). The lowest rate of secure attachment is seen in families where a child has experienced physical abuse, neglect, or sexual abuse (3–25 %) (Cicchetti et al. 2006; Moss et al. 2011).
Parenting Behaviors Associated with Secure Attachment
As described in Chap. 2, parenting behaviors associated with the development of secure attachment include sensitive responsiveness to attachment cues (especially distress cues), support for exploration, affective attunement, delight in the child, and physical contact, especially in response to distress.
Secure/Autonomous State of Mind
The parental attachment state of mind associated with secure attachment is secure/autonomous. Individuals with a secure/autonomous state of mind tell the story of their childhood in a fresh manner—i.e. as though they are thoughtfully choosing their words. They indicate they value attachment relationships and experiences. The story is internally consistent regardless of whether they describe a loving or harsh childhood. The range of characteristics of Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) transcripts are shown in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3
Characteristics of secure/autonomous attachment state of mind in Adult Attachment Interview (AAI). (Source: Main and Goldwyn 1998)
Secure/Autonomous (F) | Values attachment relationships and experiences. Generalized descriptions of relationships with parents (semantic level) are supported by specific memories. Adult either supports descriptions of parents as loving during childhood or reflects on parents’ lack of loving behavior without angry preoccupation or idealization (earned secure) |
Some setting aside of attachment (F1) | Mild, unexamined sense of support from parents or describes conscious decision to not dwell on negative aspects of caregiving |
Some detachment (F2) | Similar to F3 but some indices of detachment such as difficulty supporting positive statements about parenting due to lack of memory or idealization of parents. May describe some mild derogation of parents mixed with overall valuing of attachment |
Very secure (F3) | Descriptions of parenting at the semantic level are supported by specific memories. Descriptions are fresh, coherent, and contained whether childhood experiences were easy or difficult |
Slightly preoccupied (F4) | Somewhat sentimental about supportive childhood or slightly confused by traumatic experiences |
Somewhat resentful/conflicted (F5) | Somewhat preoccupied with problematic parenting but anger is contained or accompanied by humor. Accepting of flawed relationship |
Rates of secure/autonomous state of mind are similar to rates of secure infant and toddler attachment with approximately half of adolescents and adults in community samples (48–59 %) classified with secure/autonomous state of mind using the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) (Booth-LaForce and Roisman 2014; Caspers et al. 2007; Van Ijzendoorn 1995; van IJzendoorn and Bakermans-Kranenburg 2008). Similar rates of secure/autonomous state of mind (47–57 %) are seen in low-income mothers participating in a study of an attachment-based home visiting intervention (Korfmacher et al. 1997). Among parents of infants with secure infant-parent attachment, the vast majority (73 %) are classified with secure/autonomous attachment state of mind (Van Ijzendoorn 1995). Rates of secure/autonomous attachment are lower among mothers seeking treatment for their child’s conduct problems (22 %) (Routh et al. 1995) and patients participating in psychotherapy outcome studies (5–30 %) (Levy et al. 2006; Stovall-McClough and Cloitre 2003; Talia et al. 2014).
Research on Secure/Autonomous State of Mind
In a small study examining behavioral and neural responses to infant crying, women with secure/autonomous state of mind exhibit less amygdala hyperactivity on functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging when listening to infant crying than women with insecure states of mind (dismissing, preoccupied, and unresolved) (Riem et al. 2012) indicating infant crying is less anxiety-provoking and aversive for secure/autonomous women. Women with secure/autonomous states of mind also rate infant crying as less irritating and are less likely to respond to crying with excessive force (as assessed with handgrip dynamometer) (Riem et al. 2012). Physiological measures of mother’s responses to infant distress also indicate mothers with secure/autonomous state of mind find crying less aversive (Ablow et al. 2013).
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
