An Overview of Attachment and Child Development

Summary #

The intent of this Overview is to convey the findings of decades of empirical research regarding Attachment and the deleterious effects of damaging that system in children; effects that last a lifetime for that child.

A)  Attachment Overview #

Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1973, 1980) is possibly the most recognized and well-studied concept in Developmental Psychology. This theory posits that instinctual and adaptive programming allows for the formation of bonds between infant and caregiver. This bond is a product of the infant’s mental representation of the caregiver. The infant forms this representation via experiential learning through repeated interactions with the caregiver. When a caregiver provides a safe, stable and nurturing environment, the infant is able to form a healthy mental representation of the caregiver. A safe and responsive environment created by the caregiver is believed to be crucial to the development of a Secure Attachment (Bowlby; Simpson, 1999).When an infant experiences neglect, inconsistent care, abuse, or frightening behavior from the caregiver, the mental representation developed by the infant will reflect these experiences. It is by these negative representations that Insecure attachments are formed.

B) Attachment Classifications #

There are four classifications of infant/child Attachment: Secure, anxious-avoidant, anxious-ambivalent, and disorganized; these are categorized in two separate ways:

• Secure vs. Insecure and (b) organized vs. disorganized (see Benoit, 2004 for discussion).
• Secure Attachment is both Secure and organized. Of the three Insecure classifications, only anxious-avoidant and anxious-ambivalent are organized. Secure infants and children are believed to have received responsive and nurturing care that has led to the development of working-models of the Attachment figure and self that reflect the safety and consistency of that relationship.
• These working- models are enable the child to better process their environment, self-regulate affect and behavior, and engage in deep meaningful relationships, thereby reducing psychological and physical stress throughout the lifespan.
• Anxious-avoidant children often have not received responsive care nor had their needs met in a nurturing manner (i.e., rejecting), learning that bids for affection and nurture are not fulfilled by the caregiver.
• Anxious-ambivalent children are believed to have received inconsistent care with regard to their needs or bids for affection.
• Disorganized children are believed to have been exposed to frightening, frightened, and/or incompetent caregiving, in such a manner that the child has been unable to develop an organized response to their environment. These children are believed to have caregivers who are not only their supposed source of safety, but also their source of fear. This creates an inability to organize a coherent strategy to process the caregiver-child relationship which in turn affects the child’s ability to process their environment. While increased risk for cognitive, social, and behavioral difficulties, and poorer mental and physical health outcomes have been found for insecurely attached children, children exposed to frightening, frightened, and/or incompetent caregiving have a greater probability of developing a disorganized Attachment (van IJzendoorn, Schuengel, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 1999), which is associated with even greater behavioral problems, psychopathology, cognitive difficulties, and stress dysregulation than those evidenced in other types of non-Secure ttachments (e.g., Bohlin, Eninger, Brocki, & Thorell, 2012; van Ijzendoorn et al., 1999).

C) Outcomes #

Research has identified links between abuse/neglect, Insecure and/or disorganized Attachment, and a myriad of health, social, psychological, and physiological difficulties that may endure across the lifespan (e.g., Bohlin et al., 2012; Burgess, Marshall, Rubin, & Fox, 2003), while Secure Attachment has been found to be a buffer against many environmental and social stressors (e.g., Sroufe, Egeland, & Kruetzer, 1990). Therefore, infants and children who are exposed to sub-optimal care with regard to having their emotional needs met in a safe and nurturing manner are at greater risk across their lifespan for behavioral problems, drug/alcohol abuse, poor relationships, physiological/medical difficulties, and even premature death. Additionally, Attachment patterns developed in childhood have been found to endure across the lifespan (Fraley, 2002), which may account for the poor outcomes for children and adults with Insecure/disorganized Attachment patterns. It is believed that the continual stress upon the hypothalamic-pituitary- adrenal (HPA) axis associated with an Insecure/disorganized Attachment pattern creates an ongoing ‘threat’ that prohibits healthy development across numerous domains, both psychological and physiological.

Research has delineated the infant Attachment cycle at a physiological/neurochemical level (Schore, 2001). As shown in Figures 1 and 2, an optimal Need Expressed/Need Met cycle promotes Secure Attachment, and behavioral, biological, and neurochemical balance in the infant’s stress-response system, which is centered in the HPA axis (Schore, 2001), while The Attachment cycle likewise helps an infant achieve neurochemical balance between the expression of excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters (see Schore, 2001 for discussion). The Need Expressed phase prompts the release of excitatory neurotransmitters associated with the fight, flight, or freeze survival mechanisms (e.g., dopamine, adrenaline), while the Need Met phase prompts the release of inhibitory neurotransmitters associated with safety, comfort, and contentment (e.g., serotonin, GABA). This neurochemical balance becomes the foundation for mental health, well-being, and stability (Kraemer, 1992; Schore, 1994; Suomi, 1999); without balance, a chronic state of fear/anxiety may override the proper functioning of numerous developmental and cognitive systems.

The interplay between caregiver responsiveness, the neurochemical response of the infant, and the critical periods of Attachment formation have been well documented (see Zeanah, Berlin, & Boris, 2011 for discussion). As shown in Table 1, critical periods of an infant’s early years drive the formation of Attachment, whether Secure or Insecure. The age ranges presented in Table 1 represent the cognitive age of the child, rather than the chronological age. Delays in these benchmarks can be caused by abuse, neglect, privations, and physiological insult, among other things. Interestingly, aberrant environmental conditions (i.e., poor quality and/or unloving caregiving) impair development of Attachment more than physical or neurological abnormalities (Zeanah, et al., 2011).

D) Critical Stages #

These critical stages of infant Attachment development have been found to be most important from about 6 months of age to 24 months of age. Children adopted from harsh conditions prior to 6 months of age later show little sign of the abuse/neglect, and deprivation(s) that they may have endured (Rutter, Kunsta, Schlotz, & Sonuga- Barke, 2012), while children adopted before 12 months typically show no differences in Attachment when compared to their low-risk peers (van den Dries, Juffer, van IJzendoorn, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2009). Children adopted past the age of 12 months typically show the greatest difficulties in multiple domains (physiological, Attachment, behavioral, etc.), and many may not fully recover from early deprivation, trauma, or poor caregiving.

Note. Age ranges are tied to cognitive rather than chronological ages. Table adapted from (Zeanah, et al., 2011).

E) Custody Evals Lack Validity #

While there is some evidence of empirical Attachment assessments being utilized in child custody hearings, and arguments that they easily meet Daubert Standards (Purvis, McKenzie, Kellermann, & Cross, 2010), it has been found that most measures and techniques currently employed by evaluators to measure the child- caregiver relationship have no scientific or theoretical bases, lack established reliability and validity, and often have little to do with Attachment theory (Byrne, O’connor, Marvin, & Whelan, 2005). This is not due to a lack of empirically validated measures that are widely utilized and accepted as ‘gold standards’ by which to measure adult and infant Attachment, but rather is noted as a “a clear misunderstanding and misapplication of Attachment theory” (Byrne, et al., 2005, p 117). The gold standard measures which are employed to measure Attachment, and the only widely accepted measures of Attachment, are the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; Main & Goldwyn, 1985; Main & Hesse, 2002), the Strange Situation Procedure (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978), and the Attachment Q-set (AQS; Waters, 1987).

While Attachment patterns begin to emerge in infancy (at approximately 6 months of age), the effects of parental Attachment Patterns continue to affect the developing child well into adulthood; the process is ongoing and requires constant input. The unequivocal best interest for any child is to be raised by, and have consistent access to, parents with Secure Attachment Patterns. This positive/healthy input via the Attachment system throughout childhood and adolescence promotes healthy outcomes in all areas of development and provides as a buffer to environmental stressors. Our State completely ignores decades of scientific data in our Family Courts, DFPS/CPS, and all other domains where the “best interest” of children is being decided by wholly unqualified individuals. Texas is actively perpetrating:

Child Abuse is Defined by the Texas Family Code 261.001(1)(A) and (B) as: #

• “Abuse” includes the following acts or omissions by a person:
•  mental or emotional injury to a child that results in an observable and material impairment in the child’s growth, development, or psychological functioning;
•  causing or permitting the child to be in a situation in which the child sustains a mental or emotional injury that results in an observable and material impairment in the child’s growth, development, or psychological functioning;

 F) Effects of Disrupted Attachment/Parent-Child Relationships #

Disruption of Attachment, the severing or damaging of an Attachment relationship, is a severe and well-documented trauma that effects a child over the course of a life-span across multiple domains (e.g., Lawrence, Carlson, & Egeland, 2006, Rutter & O’Connor, 2004, USDHHS, 2009). The exponential risk for children to exhibit significant problems in all domains of development (e.g., learning, socioemotional, cognitive, physiological, etc.) have been well documented for decades; these negative effects continue into adulthood (Schneider, et al. 2009).

Children who are denied consistent and continual caregiving from their parents have suffered a serious trauma, experience significantly worse outcomes in all areas of development that last into adulthood, and they are at a much greater risk of transmitting this trauma to their own children (e.g., Özcan, 2016). By definition, divorce/removal/custody disputes are a Disruption of Attachment, and custody arrangements that do not place the child’s need for consistent and continual access to both parents at all times is a trauma to the child that will likely have severe and life-long negative effects.

G) Effects of Fatherlessness on Children #

Over and above the extreme trauma a child experiences during a divorce/removal/custody dispute, the effects of restricting a child’s access to the father have proven to be even more traumatic for children (e.g., U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). According to statistics held by the Texas Office of Attorney General, Texas Fathers have less than a 10% chance to receive Primary Custody of their child, and are often completely removed by the courts by unqualified judges and State employees.

Some of the negative effects for these children who are raised in fatherless homes are: 4X more likely to live in poverty (USCB, 2011) 10X more likely to abuse alcohol/drugs (Hoffman 2002, USDHHS, 1993), more likely to have severe internalizing and/or externalizing behaviors (Hofferth, S. L., 2006), more likely to experience psychiatric hospitalizations (Block, Block & Gjerde, 1988), and are at much greater risk for suicide, criminal activity, and a myriad of other difficulties.

Again, these risks and traumatic effects last a life-time, and are well-established by decades of peer-reviewed scientific research (e.g., Amato 2001; Amato & Keith 1991; Bramlett and Blumberg, 2007; Clarke-Stewart & Hayward, 1996).

References #

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Amato, P. (2001) Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, Vol 15(3), pp 355- 370.

Amato, P. and Keith, B. (1991) Parental Divorce and Adult Well-Being: A Meta- Analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 53(1), 43-58.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890423349.

Benoit, D. (2004). Infant-parent attachment: Definition, types, antecedents, measurement and outcome. Paediatrics & Child Health, 9(8), 541-545.

Block, J., Block, J. H., & Gjerde, P. F. (1988). Parental functioning and the home environment in families of divorce: Prospective and concurrent

analyses. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 27(2), 207-213.

Bohlin, G., Eninger, L., Brocki, K., & Thorell, L. B. (2012). Disorganized attachment and inhibitory capacity: Predicting externalizing problem behaviors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(3), 449-458. doi:10.1007/s10802-011- 9574-7

Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2: Separation. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss, Vol. III, Loss: Sadness and depression. New York: Basic Books.

Bramlett, M. D., and Blumberg, S. J. (2007). Family structure and children’s physical and mental health. Health Affairs, 26, 549–558.

Burgess, K. B., Marshall, P. J., Rubin, K. H., & Fox, N. A. (2003). Infant attachment and temperament as predictors of subsequent externalizing problems and cardiac physiology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44(6), 819- 831. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00167

Byrne, J. G., O’Connor, T. G., Marvin, R. S., & Whelan, W. F. (2005). Practitioner Review: The contribution of attachment theory to child custody assessments. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(2), 115-127. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00396.x

Clarke-Stewart, K. A., & Hayward, C. (1996). Advantages of father custody and contact for the psychological well-being of school-age children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 17(2), 239-270.

Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment Stability from Infancy to Adulthood: Meta-Analysis and Dynamic Modeling of Developmental Mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 123–151.

Hofferth, S. L. (2006). Residential father family type and child well-being: Investment versus selection. Demography, 43(1), 53-77.

Hoffmann, J. P. (2002). The community context of family structure and adolescent drug use. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(2), 314-330.

Kraemer, G. W. (1992). A psychobiological theory of attachment. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 493-541.

Lawrence, C. R., Carlson, E. A., & Egeland, B. (2006). The impact of foster care on development. Development and psychopathology, 18(1), 57-76.

Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1985). Adult attachment scoring and classification system. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley.

Main, M., Goldwyn, R., & Hesse, E. (2002). Adult attachment scoring and classification systems. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley.

Özcan, N. K., Boyacioğlu, N. E., Enginkaya, S., Bilgin, H., & Tomruk, N. B. (2016).

The relationship between attachment styles and childhood trauma: a transgenerational perspective–a controlled study of patients with psychiatric disorders. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 25(15-16), 2357-2366.

Pederson, D. R., & Moran, G. (1995). A categorical description of infant-mother relationships in the home and its relation to Q-sort measures of infant- mother interaction. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60(2-3), 111-132. doi:10.2307/1166174

Porges, S. W., Doussard-Roosevelt, J. A., & Maiti, A. K. (1994). Vagal tone and the physiological regulation of emotion. In N. A. Fox (Ed.), the development of

 emotion regulation: Biological and behavioral considerations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59 (Serial No. 240, Nos. 2-3, pp. 167-186).

Purvis, K. B., McKenzie, L., Kellermann, G., & Cross, D. R. (2010). An attachment based approach to child custody evaluation: A case study. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues, and Practices, 7(1), 45-60. doi:10.1080/15379410903554832

Rutter, M., Kumsta, R., Schlotz, W., & Sonuga-Barke, E. (2012). Longitudinal studies using a “natural experiment” design: The case of adoptees from Romanian institutions. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 51(8), 762-770. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2012.05.011

Rutter, M., & O’Connor, T. G. (2004). Are there biological programming effects for psychological development? Findings from a study of Romanian adoptees. Developmental psychology, 40(1), 81.

Schneider, R., Baumrind, N., Pavao, J., Stockdale, G., Castelli, P., Goodman, G. S., & Kimerling, R. (2009). What happens to youth removed from parental care?: Health and economic outcomes for women with a history of out-of- home placement. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(4), 440- 444.Schore, A. N. (1994). Affect regulation and the origin of the self: The Neurobiology of emotional development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schore, A. N. (2001). Effects of a secure attachment relationship on right brain development, affect regulation, and infant mental health. Infant Mental Health Journal, 22(1–2), 7–66.

Schore, A. N. (2003). Affect regulation and disorders of the self. New York: W. W. Norton.

Siegel, D. J. (1999). The developing mind. New York: Guilford.

Simpson, J. A. (1999). Attachment theory in modern evolutionary perspective. In Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 115-140). New York: Guilford.

Sroufe, L., Egeland, B., & Kreutzer, T. (1990). The fate of early experience following developmental change: Longitudinal approaches to individual adaptation in childhood. Child Development, 61(5), 1363-1373. doi:10.2307/1130748

Suomi, S. J. (1999). Attachment in Rhesus monkeys. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 181-197). New York: Guilford.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB; 2011), Children’s Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March 2011, Table C8. Washington D.C.: 2011.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS; 1993). National Center for Health Statistics. Survey on Child Health. Washington, DC, 1993.

US Department of Health and Human Services. (UDDHHS; 2009). Risk and protective factors for mental, emotional and behavioral disorders across the life cycle.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS; 2012); ASEP Issue Brief: Information on Poverty and Income Statistics. September 12, 2012 http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/12/PovertyAndIncomeEst/ib.shtml

van den Dries, L., Juffer, F., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2009). Fostering security? A meta-analysis of attachment in adopted children. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(3), 410-421. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.09.008

van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Schuengel, C., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (1999). Disorganized attachment in early childhood: Meta-analysis of precursors, concomitants, and sequelae. Development and Psychopathology, 11(2), 225- 249. doi:10.1017/S0954579499002035

van Zeijl, J., Mesman, J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Juffer, F., Stolk, M. N., & … Alink, L. A. (2006). Attachment-based intervention for enhancing sensitive discipline in mothers of 1- to 3-year-old children at risk for externalizing behavior problems: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(6), 994-1005. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.74.6.994

Waters, E. (1987) Attachment Q-set (Version 3). Retrieved May 1, 2013 from http://www.johnbowlby.com

Waters, E. (1995). The Attachment Q-set (Version 3.0). Monographs of The Society for Research in Child Development, 60(2-3), 234-246. doi: 10.1111/j.1540- 5834.1995.tb00214.x

Zeanah, C. H., Berlin, L. J., & Boris, N. W. (2011). Practitioner review: Clinical applications of attachment theory and research for infants and young children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(8), 819-833. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02399.x