Infant Attachment as a Dynamic System¹

Abstract

Research conducted over the last few decades has consistently highlighted the importance of the quality of infant attachment to primary caregivers in the fostering of positive child developmental outcomes both during the infancy period and beyond. However, the evidence is less conclusive regarding specification of the antecedent infant and caregiver behaviors, contextual factors, and interactive processes likely to produce optimal attachment relations. Although for many years the search for antecedents has focused primarily on caregiver sensitivity, researchers have recently recognized that attachment emerges based on a complex array of individual and environmental factors interacting in complex and often nonlinear ways. Scientific attempts to more precisely specify the origins of attachment behavior seem to have been thwarted by the limitations inherent in traditional models of development. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to explore application of dynamic systems theory to the study of attachment relations. Attachment theory and research are reviewed initially, followed by an overview of the basic tenets of dynamic systems theory. Based on specification of the dynamic components of attachment relations and an analysis of the central tenets of the dynamic systems perspective, an effort is made to illuminate the appropriateness of a dynamic systems framework as a guide for future conceptual and empirical work in the area of attachment. Specific ideas for applying a dynamic systems methodology to the study of attachment in early childhood are provided.

Human attachment as a multi-dimensional control system: A computational implementation

“…As a result, the DAM’s design is original, and the system expresses a non-linear dynamics that is not trivial to study. A programmed next step is to develop a simplified continuous model – relying on the discrete version presented here – to study its full dynamics through the tools of dynamical systems theory ( Thelen and Smith, 1994 ; Coleman and Watson, 2000 ; Fraley and Brumbaugh, 2004 ; van Geert, 2019 ). Moreover, many parameters of the current version could be potentially investigated, and the performed sensitivity analysis (cf.…”

Minimalist Approach to Perceptual Interactions

“…These are ancient traditions in social psychology and philosophy, from the work of George Herbert Mead (Gillespie, 2005 ) and Erwing Goffman (Goffman and Best, 2005 ) to the pragmatist approach of John Dewey (Petras, 1968 ) or the social psychology of Theodore Newcomb (Newcomb et al, 1966 ), from the phenomenology of Alfred Schütz (Schütz, 1970 ) to the work of Thomas Luckmann and Peter Berger (Berger and Luckmann, 1966 ). This sort of attention to interactions is found currently in the framework of theories of development (Trevarthen, 1993 ; Reddy, 2008 ), in dynamical systems theory (Coleman and Watson, 2000 ; Fogel, 2006 ), in the current of ecological psychology (Gibson, 1986 ), in enactive cognitive science (De Jaegher et al, 2010 ), and recently in certain areas of neuroscience (Schilbach et al, 2006 ; Dumas, 2011 ). However, all these studies are still affected by a tension between the collective aspects and individual cognition.…”

Cuidado materno y seguridad del apego antes del primer año de vida

“…a Para evaluar la significación en las pruebas ANOVA luego del MANOVA se utilizó la corrección de Dunn Sidak (1 -(1-a))/n = 0. (Marrone, 2001) al cumplir un rol central en la organización de su conducta de base segura y con ello en la seguridad del vínculo de apego (Bowlby, 1988;Coleman & Watson, 2000;Marrone, 2001;Oliva, 2004;van IJzerdoorn & Sagi-Schwartz, 2008). Esta evidencia a favor de la organización recí-proca del sistema de apego del niño de 8 a 10 meses y de la calidad del cuidado materno (Bowlby, 1982), apoya el postulado de la universalidad de una de las principales hipótesis de la teoría del apego (van IJzerdoorn & Sagi-Schwartz, 2008) la cual ha sido comprobada en estudios previos en grupos de niños de mayor edad (Atkinson et al, 2000;Atkinson et al, 2005;Behrens et al, 2011;Blesky, 1997;Braungart-Rieker et al, 2001;De Wolff & van Ijzendoorn, 1997;Goldsmith & Alansky, 1987;Leerkes, 2011;Nievar & Becker, 2008;Ravala et al, 2001;Seifer et al, 1996;Sroufe, 2005;Tarabulsky et al, 2005).…”