Parents and infants: determinants of attachment in a ... - Generation R

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 6 Figure 1. Measurement of gangliothalamic ovoid diameter Note: Cranial ultrasound was performed with a multifrequency electronic transducer (3.7-9.3 MHz) with a scan angle of 146˚ (Voluson 730 Expert, GE Healthcare, Waukesha WI, USA). The largest diameter was measured from the frontal horn (F) to approximately the middle of the choroid plexus (P). The following structures are identified: frontal horn (F), caudate head (C), putamen (Pu), pallidum (Pa), thalamus (T), and plexus (P). Attachment classification. Parent-infant dyads were observed in the Strange Situation Procedure (SSP) when the infant was about 14 months of age (M = 14.7, SD = 0.9). The SSP is a widely used and well-validated procedure to measure the quality of the attachment relationship and is considered the gold-standard procedure to assess attachment in infants between 12-18 months of age. The procedure consists of eight episodes of 3 minutes each and is designed to evoke mild stress in the infant to trigger attachment behavior evoked by the unfamiliar lab environment, a female stranger entering the room and engaging with the infant, and the parent leaving the room twice (see Ainsworth et al., 1978, for the protocol). The SSP used in the current study included all these stimuli but to make it fit into a tight time schedule, we shortened the (pre-) separation episodes with one minute keeping the critical reunion episodes intact (Luijk, Saridjan, Tharner, Van IJzendoorn, Bakermans-Kranenburg, et al., in press). Attachment behavior during reunion episodes was coded from DVD-recordings according to the Ainsworth et al. (1978) and Main and Solomon (1990) coding systems by two 112
Subcortical structures and the neurobiology of infant attachment disorganization reliable coders, trained at the University of Minnesota. Infants were classified as secure (B: n = 321), insecure-avoidant (A: n = 78), insecure-resistant (C: n = 98) (4) or disorganized (D: n = 132) (Ainsworth et al., 1978, Main and Solomon, 1990). Secure (B) infants seek proximity to and contact with the attachment-figure to be comforted or reassured after the separation and resume exploration of the environment when he/she is settled. Insecureavoidant (A) infants evade direct contact with the attachment-figure and focus on the environment. Insecure- resistant (C) infants react ambivalently to the reunion: they anxiously seek contact while at the same time resisting contact with the attachment-figure (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Disorganized classification was based on a score of > 5 on the attachment disorganization scale ranging from 1 (no signs of attachment disorganization) to 9 (strong signs of attachment disorganization) (Main & Solomon, 1990). The following behaviors were coded: sequential or simultaneous display of contradictory behaviors (e.g. distress and avoidance); undirected or misdirected movements and expressions; stereotypical or anomalous movements; freezing or stilling behaviors; expressions of fear or apprehension regarding the parent, and clear indices of confusion in the presence of the parent. Inter-coder agreement was calculated on 70 SSPs that were coded by both coders. For ABCD classification, inter-coder agreement was 77% ( = .63); agreement on disorganization was 87% ( = .64). Eight percent of the cases were discussed with one of two expert coders (MvIJ, MBK) and classification was assigned after consensus was reached. It has been suggested that some of the behaviors that are coded as indices of a disorganized attachment relationship may in fact be medical symptoms of neurological impairments such as autism, cerebral palsy, Down syndrome or epilepsy (Pipp-Siegel, Siegel, & Dean, 1999). The following behaviors might fall into this category: dazed or impassive expressions, incomplete, slowed or limp movements, asymmetrical movements or facial expression, stereotypical repetitive movements, anomalous postures, jerky, unmonitored movements, freezing or stilling, disoriented movements or facial expressions. This is taken into account by the D-coding system that states that all behaviors have to occur in relation to the attachment-figure in order to be coded as indices for attachment disorganization. However, to exclude the possibility that D-classification merely reflected the level of neurological functioning, we distinguished two groups of disorganized infants: Those who were classified as disorganized due to the above mentioned behaviors that may be neurobiologically determined (n = 28), and those who were classified as disorganized due to behaviors that are relationship characteristic (n = 95). 113
Page 1 and 2: Parents and Infants: Determinants o
Page 3 and 4: Parents and Infants: Determinants o
Page 5 and 6: There are two lasting bequests we c
Page 8 and 9: The importance of infant attachment
Page 10 and 11: Introduction disorganized attachmen
Page 12 and 13: Introduction (for a review see Jans
Page 14 and 15: Introduction The Generation R study
Page 16 and 17: Introduction 19
Page 18 and 19: Chapter 5 ABSTRACT Both attachment
Page 20 and 21: Chapter 5 predict differences in in
Page 22 and 23: Chapter 5 Results for both insecure
Page 24 and 25: Chapter 5 Study Population In the c
Page 26 and 27: Chapter 5 Psychology, Professor Dr.
Page 28 and 29: Chapter 5 Table 1. Child and parent
Page 30 and 31: Chapter 5 Figure 1. Insecure-resist
Page 32 and 33: Chapter 5 Discussion In a large coh
Page 34 and 35: Chapter 5 frightening parenting, th
Page 37 and 38: 6Subcortical structures and the neu
Page 39 and 40: Introduction Subcortical structures
Page 41 and 42: Subcortical structures and the neur
Page 45: Subcortical structures and the neur
Page 58 and 59: Discussion Discussion In the curren
Page 60 and 61: Discussion a secure attachment rela
Page 62 and 63: Discussion (Ainsworth et al., 1978)
Page 64 and 65: Discussion less serious ones, may h
Page 66 and 67: Limitations Discussion The studies
Page 68 and 69: Discussion involving active interac
Page 70 and 71: Discussion might still affect child
Page 72 and 73: Appendices References 183
Page 74 and 75: tivity and attachment interventions
Page 76 and 77: Byles, J., Byrne, C., Boyle, M.H. &
Page 78 and 79: DeKlyen, M., & Greenberg, M.T. (200
Page 80 and 81: analysis and dynamic modeling of de
Page 82 and 83: Hazen, N.L., McFarland, L., Jacobvi
Page 84 and 85: dian cortisol activity, and behavio
Page 86 and 87: unipolar mood disorders. Annual Rev
Page 88 and 89: Pruessner, J.C., Kirschbaum, C., Me
Page 90 and 91: T Tabachnik, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (
Page 92: Weinfield, N.S., Sroufe, L.A., Egel
Page 96 and 97:
Summary Summary The formation of an
Page 98 and 99:
Summary index of the basic function
Page 100:
Summary These findings apply simila
Page 104 and 105:
Samenvatting Nederlandse samenvatti
Page 106 and 107:
Nederlandse samenvatting spiegel bl
Page 108 and 109:
Nederlandse samenvatting reacties t
Page 110:
Conclusie Nederlandse samenvatting
Page 114 and 115:
About the author About the author A
Page 116 and 117:
2. Teaching activities year Practic
Page 118:
Luijk, P.C.M., Saridjan, N., Tharne
show all

Parents and infants: determinants of attachment in a ... - Generation R

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?