Categories of response to reunion with the parent at age 6: Predictable from infant attachment classifications and stable over a 1-month period.

Abstract

We describe the development of a system for classifying attachment organization at age 6 on the basis of study of children's responses to unstructured reunions with parents in a laboratory setting. In a study of 33 families in Berkeley, California, sixth-year attachment classifications to mother were found to be highly predictable from infancy attachment classifications to mother (84%), with children secure in infancy identified as secure on reunion at age 6 (Group B); children insecure-avoidant in infancy identified as insecure-avoidant (Group A); and children who were insecure-disorganized/ disoriented identified as controlling of the parent (Group D). Lower predictability (61 %) was found for attachment to father. An insecure-ambivalent (Group C) sixth-year classification was developed following the Berkeley study. In a second study of child-mother dyads conducted in CharlottesviUe, Virginia (N = 50), 62% of children were stable in (A, B, C, and D) classification across a 1-month interval. When D children were reassigned to their best-fitting alternative A, B, or C categories, stability was high both for major classifications (A4-B+C = 86%) and for seven subclassincations (Al, A2, B1/B2, B3, B4, Cl, C2 = 76%). Avoidance of the mother was stable across both the 5-year and the 1-month periods.The description of individual differences in attachment organization has traditionally focused on infancy and, specifically, on the infant's response to the Ainsworth Strange Situation (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978), a laboratory observation that involves the infant in two brief separations from and reunions with the parent. The principal assessment of attachment in infancy is the attachment classification, which is based chiefly on the infant's response to the two 3-min reunions with the parent (Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton, 1971;Ainsworth et al., 1978). Infants who actively attempt to regain proximity, contact, or interaction with the parent are classified as secure in their attachment to that parent (Group B); infants who actively avoid and ignore the parent on reunion are termed insecureavoidant (Group A); and infants who show anger or an inability to be settled by the parent (or both) on reunion are termed insecure-ambivalent (Group C). Insecure infants who could not be classified within this system were originally termed unclassifiable (Main & Weston, 1981).

A short-term longitudinal study of correlates and sequelae of attachment security in autism

“…Using these videotapes, Erik Hesse and Mary Main classified the children’s attachment organization using Ainsworth’s system (Ainsworth et al, 1978), the infant disorganized/disoriented classification (Main & Solomon, 1990), and the 6-year old system for coding (formerly disorganized) children as controlling (Main & Cassidy, 1988). Hesse and Main had had previous experience classifying attachment in children with autism (see Capps et al, 1994).…”

Disorganized attachment in infancy: a review of the phenomenon and its implications for clinicians and policy-makers

“…However, it can be briefly noted that with growing cognitive and social abilities, formerly disorganized children may adopt controlling (caregiving or punitive) strategies to help manage dysregulated, unpredictable, or frightening caregiving environments (e.g. Main & Cassidy, 1988; Solomon, George, & De Jong, 1995; compare with Crittenden, 2016). When assessed via representational (e.g.…”

Mindfulness and emotional regulation as sequential mediators in the relationship between attachment security and depression

“…Conversely, the absence of a sensitive caregiver reportedly results in an insecure attachment style associated with largely ineffective strategies for need fulfilment. The insecure attachment styles are differentiated into three categories: insecure-ambivalent, insecure-avoidant and insecure-disorganised attachment styles (Ainsworth, et al, 1978;Main & Cassidy, 1988) and are associated with poorer mental health outcomes, including depression (Cummings & Cicchetti, 1990;Sroufe, 2005). Adult classifications, i.e.…”