negative affect and disorganized att paper
TRANSCRIPT
Running head: NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
Negative Affect Among Attachment Classifications and Disorganized Attachment SubtypesJessica Cooke
Kent State University
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
Abstract
Children with disorganized attachments are at greater risk for developing
psychopathology in childhood and adolescence, as well as experiencing childhood maltreatment,
than children with secure, avoidant, and ambivalent attachments. Previous research has shown
negative affect varies among 4-way classification of attachment, but it is unknown whether
negative affect differs among disorganized attachment subtypes. The current study hypothesized
that 1) preschoolers’ negative affect would differ among disorganized attachment subtypes and
that 2) preschoolers with controlling-punitive attachments would display more negative affect
than preschoolers with controlling-caregiving attachments. To investigate the current study, N=
187 children completed a Modified Strange Situation procedure at 36 months to assess
attachment patterns. At 54 months, children’s negative affect was assessed by three observed
interaction tasks with the mother, an adult other than the mother, and a peer. It was found that
preschoolers’ negative affect did not differ among disorganized attachment subtypes. However,
post-hoc analysis revealed negative affect differed among 4-way classification of attachment,
such that preschoolers with disorganized attachments displayed more negative affect with
mothers and peers than preschoolers with secure and avoidant attachments. These findings
support previous research suggesting the preschool-age period may be a primary time to
intervene in disorganized attachment relationships in order to enhance affective communication
and prevent maladaptive controlling behaviors from consolidating.
2
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
Negative Affect Among Attachment Classifications and Disorganized Attachment Subtypes
Researchers have shown increasing interest in disorganized attachment due to its
implications on the development of psychopathology in childhood and adolescence (Dubois-
Comtois, Moss, Cyr, & Pascuzzo, 2013). Children with disorganized attachments are at higher
risk for developing aggressive and antisocial behaviors, internalizing problems such as
depressive and anxiety symptoms, and a wide range of personality disorders (Lecompte & Moss,
2014; Mash & Wolfe, 2014). Children with disorganized attachments are also at a higher risk for
experiencing childhood maltreatment (Mash & Wolfe, 2014). Despite this rising interest, there is
still far less research on disorganized attachment in comparison to organized patterns of
attachment. Additionally, disorganized attachment can be further divided into four subtypes:
controlling-punitive, controlling-caregiving, controlling-mixed, and behaviorally disorganized.
Only a number of studies have investigated the differentiating factors between these subtypes
(Dubois-Comtois et al., 2013; Lecompte & Moss, 2014; Moss, Cyr, & Dubois-Comtois, 2004;
O’Connor, Bureau, McCartney, & Lyons-Ruth, 2011; Teti, 1999), and none have looked at the
role of negative affect among these subtypes.
Attachment theory posits that infants form close emotional bonds with their caregivers as
a means of seeking proximity when facing stressful or threatening situations (Bowlby, 1969;
Ainsworth & Witting, 1969). The attachment figure serves as a secure base in which the child is
free to explore his or her environment. If the child becomes distressed, the attachment figure
serves as a safe haven for the child, providing comfort and support (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth &
Witting, 1969). Through dyadic experiences with the attachment figure, the child learns patterns
of interpreting the environment that can be applied to future relationships (Mash & Wolfe, 2014).
Mary Ainsworth and Barbara Witting (1969) classified attachment according to patterns
3
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
found in Ainsworth’s Strange Situation Procedure- a procedure where the child undergoes
separation-reunion sessions with the attachment figure. In the Strange Situation Procedure, three
organized styles of attachment emerged: secure (B) attachment, avoidant (A) attachment, and
ambivalent (C) attachment. Securely attached infants engage in exploration and seek proximity
to the attachment figure when distressed. The dyadic relationship is supportive and considered to
be a protective factor against developing psychopathology. Infants with an avoidant style of
attachment mask visible signs of distress when separated from their attachment figure.
Ambivalent infants demonstrate distress before separation and are difficult to comfort when the
attachment figure returns (Ainsworth & Witting, 1969). Mary Main, a student of Ainsworth,
recognized the need for a fourth style of attachment: disorganized (D) attachment, for children
who did not display organized patterns (Main & Soloman, 1990).
Disorganized attachment is characterized by contradictory and incoherent behavior in the
presence of the attachment figure (Main & Soloman, 1990). Disorganized children are faced with
a paradoxical situation: the attachment figure is supposed to serve as a secure base for the child,
yet also serves as the child’s source of fear or distress. When this occurs, a breakdown of the
child’s attachment strategy is expected to occur because they are left to deal with “fright without
solution.” Several behaviors of disorganized infants reflect this breakdown, including: a)
simultaneous displays of contradicting behaviors, b) freezing or stilling, indicating fear or
apprehension toward the attachment figure, c) confusion and disorganization in proximity of the
parent, d) unusual posture or movements, and e) undirected or misdirected expressions (Hesse &
Main, 2000; Main, 1999). Main and Soloman’s (1990) disorganized attachment classification
has been misinterpreted as a variegated category, lacking any understandable meaning or
differentiation, and is thought to complete a four-part classification system of attachment
4
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
(Dunchinsky, 2015). This four-part classification system is not an exhaustive method of
distinguishing attachment styles.
Previous research has revealed four subtypes of disorganized attachment in preschoolers:
controlling-punitive, controlling-caregiving, controlling-mixed, and behaviorally disorganized
(Dubois-Comtois et al., 2013; Lecompte & Moss, 2014; Moss et al., 2004; O’Connor et al.,
2011; Teti, 1999). Between the ages of 2 and 6, approximately two-thirds of children who were
classified as disorganized show a pattern of role reversal with the attachment figure. In the role
reversal, or “parentification,” the child acts as the caretaker for the attachment figure (Bowlby,
1977, 1980, 1988; Green & Goldwyn, 2002; Lyons-Ruth, Easterbrooks, & Cibelli, 1997; Main &
Cassidy, 1988; Moss et al., 2004). As the caretaker, the child attempts to control and organize the
behavior of the attachment figure. Disorganized/controlling subtypes include controlling-
punitive, controlling-caregiving, and controlling-mixed. Controlling-punitive children exhibit
hostile, directive behavior and may threaten harm or utilize commands in an effort to control
their caregiver. Controlling-caregiving children are overly concerned with their caregiver, and
focus on guiding, cheering-up, or orienting the caregiver (Lecompte & Moss, 2014; Moss, St.-
Laurent, & Tarabulsy, 2011). Controlling-mixed children show characteristics of controlling-
punitive or controlling-caregiving subtypes towards their parents, or show controlling behaviors
not characteristic of the aforementioned subtypes (O’Connor et al., 2011). While two-thirds of
disorganized children show controlling behaviors, the remaining one-third are referred to as
behaviorally disorganized because their patterns of disorganized behaviors continue on after
infancy (Moss et al., 2011). Controlling patterns of attachment become more consolidated and
methods of children’s control become more authoritarian as children reach the end of the
preschool period, suggesting the preschool period is an important time for intervention (Moss,
5
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
Cyr, Bureau, & Tarabulsy, 2005).
The quality of the attachment interaction during the preschool period is thought to guide
how children organize emotional experiences and how they develop emotional abilities, such as
emotion regulation and competence (Carlson & Sroufe, 1995; Lind, Bernard, Ross, & Dozier,
2014; NICHD, 2004). John Bowlby (1969) proposed negative affect to be the most powerful tool
an infant has for communication due to its saliency and distinctiveness to the caregiver,
regardless of context. In the dyadic attachment relationship, the child’s expression of emotion
draws reactions from the environment. This affective communication may provide an essential
context for how children come to understand and organize emotion (Cassidy, 1994).
Two models that may account for how understanding and organization of emotion are
formed within attachment relationships are Gianino and Tronick’s (1992) Mutual Regulation
Model and Gergely & Watson’s (1996, 1999) Social Biofeedback Model of Affect-Mirroring.
Both theories agree there are innate attributes of emotion regulation in infants. The Mutual
Regulation Model argues that dyadic affective communication serves the goal of intrapersonal
emotion regulation between the infant and caregiver (Gianino & Tronick, 1992). The Social
Biofeedback Model argues that the variable range of the infant affective response is contingent
on parental reactivity, in order to discover the degree of control the infant holds over the
caregiver’s evoked responses. In this model, the infant becomes sensitized to what internal and
external cues elicit and constitute emotions (Gergely & Watson, 1996, 1999). Both models
emphasize the role of affective display by infants in the development of emotion regulation and
understanding. Negative affect is a powerful tool of affective communication because signals the
need for comfort from the caregiver (Bowlby, 1969). When the child is unable to rely on the
caregiver to provide comfort or, in the case of disorganized infants, is unable to predict the
6
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
comfort of the caregiver, this may lead to the formation of poor emotion regulation, emotion
understanding, and affective communication (Bowlby, 1969; Carlson & Sroufe, 1995; Morris,
Silk, Steinberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007).
Empirical research has evidenced that displays of affect differ between secure, avoidant,
ambivalent, and disorganized attachment patterns. Secure children have been found to express
negative affect when separated from the attachment figure and the negative affect dissipates
when the caregiver returns (Goldberg, MacKay-Sororka, & Rochester, 1994). Ambivalent
children show escalated and exaggerated displays of negative affect (Goldberg et al., 1994;
Lecompte & Moss, 2014). Avoidant children suppress visible signs of negative affect, remaining
affectively neutral (Goldberg et al., 1994; Lecompte & Moss, 2014). Disorganized children are
contradicting or incoherent in their displays of negative affect (Beebe & Steele, 2013; Lecompte,
2014). Beebe & Steele (2013) also report that disorganized infants displayed more vocal distress,
combined vocal and facial distress, and more discrepant affect, than secure infants. These
displays of negative affect are consistent with the disorganized patterns of behavior in
disorganized children.
While differentiation in the display of negative affect exists among the four
classifications of attachment, it is unknown if there is differentiation among the four subtypes of
disorganized attachment. Minimal research has examined the role of externalizing and
internalizing problems as a differentiating factor between the subtypes, revealing mixed results.
Externalizing problems are recognized as behaviors encompassing acting-out behaviors such as
aggression and delinquent behaviors, while internalizing problems include anxiety, depressive,
somatic, and withdrawn symptoms and behaviors. Externalizing problems are typically
characterized by outright displays of behavior, while internalizing problems are less visible, and
7
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
more difficult to detect (Mikolajewski, Allan, Hart, Lonigan, & Taylor, 2013). In controlling-
punitive subtypes, mothers consistently reported higher levels of internalizing and externalizing
problems (Bureau, Easterbrooks, & Lyons-Ruth, 2009b; Dubois-Comtois et al., 2013; O’Connor
et al., 2011; Teti, 1999). Teachers only reported more externalizing problems, but not
internalizing problems, in controlling-punitive attachments (Moss et al., 2004; O’Connor et al.,
2011). In controlling-caregiving subtypes, children reported high levels of internalizing
problems, but did not report externalizing problems, although observational measures revealed
externalizing problems of controlling-caregiving children still rested above externalizing
problems of organized attachment patterns (Bureau et al., 2009b; Dubois-Comtois et al., 2013;
O’Connor et al., 2011; Teti, 1999). Dubois-Comtois et al., (2013) suggests internal problems are
a result of children feeling they can’t openly express distress and anger, and turn their feelings
inward. O’Connor et al., (2011) reported that controlling-mixed subtypes had higher levels of
internal and external problems than secure attachments. For behaviorally disorganized subtypes,
two studies reported higher levels of internal and external problems in home and daycare
(Bureau et al., 2009b; O’Connor et al., 2011). One study found slightly higher levels of external
problems in school settings (Moss et al., 2004). Another study found slightly higher levels of
external problems and aggression, but no difference in internal problems between securely
attached and behaviorally disorganized subtypes (Dubois-Comtois et al., 2013).
For the current study, I hypothesize that 1) the amount of negative affect displayed by
preschoolers will differ among disorganized attachment subtypes and that 2) preschoolers with
controlling-punitive attachments will display more negative affect than preschoolers with
controlling-caregiving attachments. This study focused on preschool-aged children because this
is the time role reversal begins to occur and consolidate, and it is also an important time for the
8
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
development of emotional competence and regulation, making it a primary time for intervention
methods (Carlson & Sroufe, 1995; Lind et al., 2014; Moss et al., 2005; NICHD, 2004;
Thompson, 2008).
Method
Participants
This study used data from Phase I and II of the National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care. The original sample consisted of
1364 children and their families. Families were recruited from 10 sites across the United States
when the child studied was one month old. Families were excluded if the mother was younger
than 18 years of age, did not speak English, or had a history of substance abuse. Families were
also excluded if they intended to move, or if the child had a disability or had been hospitalized
for more than one week after birth. At the time of recruitment, 80.4% of the sample was
Caucasian, 12.9% African American, and 6.7% another ethnicity. 84% of the children lived in an
intact household and 15% in a single parent household. Children’s attachment was assessed at 36
months and children’s negative affect was assessed at 54 months. A total of 187 participants
were classified with disorganized attachment subtypes (see Table 1 for distributions). 110
participants were girls and 77 were boys. 74.87% of the sample was Caucasian, 19.79% was
African American, and 5.34% were of another ethnicity. 1140 participants were studied for the
post-hoc analysis of negative affect among 4-way classification of attachment. 558 participants
were girls and 582 were boys. 82.54% of the sample was Caucasian, 11.32% was African
American, and 6.14% was of another ethnicity.
Procedure
At 36 months, children and their mothers completed a modified Strange Situation to
9
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
assess attachment patterns. When the children were 54 months, their negative affect was assessed
in a structured toy activity with their mothers during a lab visit and with another adult during a
home visit. Children’s negative affect was also assessed during a structured friendship
interaction at 54 months.
Measures
Child attachment. At 36 months, the mother and child completed a modified Strange Situation
procedure. The mother and child were left in a playroom for 3 minutes. Then a researcher would
knock on the door and the mother would leave the room. After another 3 minutes, the mother
would return. 3 minutes later, another knock on the door would occur and the mother would
leave for 5 minutes. The mother then returned for a final reunion of 5 minutes. Coders reviewed
videotapes of the separation-reunions and classified children according to 4-way attachment
category ratings (secure, avoidant, ambivalent, and disorganized). Coders also classified
children’s attachment subcategories according to the MacArthur Working Group on Attachment
coding system. According to this system, children were categorized as secure, ambivalent,
avoidant, controlling-caregiving, controlling-punitive, controlling-mixed, or behaviorally
disorganized. Intercoder agreement on categorical classifications was 75.7% (kappa= .58)
(O’Connor et al., 2011).
Negative affect. At 54 months, children and their mothers completed a 15 min. structured toy
activity during a lab visit. First they completed an Etch-A-Sketch maze, followed by a task
where variously shaped blocks were used to build same-sized towers, and finally they used
animal puppets during a free-play period. Their interactions were coded by trained observers.
Children’s negativity was rated on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being very low and 7 being very high.
10
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
Children also completed a 15 min. structured toy activity at home with another adult,
other than their mother. Adults included fathers, grandparents, other relatives, mothers’ partners,
or other adults. First they built a structure using Marbleworks. This involved using chutes and
ramps for marbles to run through. Then they played with a set of African animals and props.
Children’s negativity was observed and coded according to the same 7-point scale.
Finally, children completed three structured play sessions with a peer. In the first session,
the child and peer played a Mickey Mouse pop-up game. During the second session, they played
with a Viewmaster. For the third session, they were given a Fisher-Price doctor kit and a doll to
play with. Observers scored the child’s contribution to negative interaction. Scores ranged from
1 to 3, with higher scores indicating higher expression of negativity in the interaction. There was
modest internal reliability for this measure, as Cronbach’s alpha was .66.
Results
This study investigated whether negative affect differed among disorganized attachment
subtypes in preschool-aged children (see Table 2 for means, standard deviations, and ranges of
variables). I first determined the frequency distribution of participants among the four
disorganized attachment subtypes (see Table 1). Of the original 1364 participants, 187 were
classified as disorganized. Further classification according to the MacArthur Working Group on
Attachment coding system revealed 26 participants were classified as controlling-punitive, 43
participants were classified as controlling-caregiving, 33 participants were classified as
controlling-mixed, and 85 participants were classified as behaviorally disorganized.
My first hypothesis, that the amount of negative affect displayed by preschoolers at 54
months would differ among disorganized attachment subtypes, and my second hypothesis, that
preschoolers with controlling-punitive attachments would display more negative affect than
11
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
preschoolers with controlling-caregiving attachments, were examined by a one-way analysis of
variance (see Table 3) and an independent samples t-test (see Table 4). The one-way ANOVA
revealed no significant differences in negative affect between disorganized attachment subtypes
for the measure of child negativity with the mother, F(3, 162)= 1.063, p= .367, for the measure
of child negativity with another adult, F(3, 113)= .509, p= .677, and for the measure of child
negativity with the mother, F(3, 106)= .169, p= .911. The independent samples t-test also failed
to reveal significant differences in negative affect between disorganized attachment subtypes for
the measure of child negativity with the mother, t(62)= -1.23, p= .233, for the measure of child
negativity with another adult, t(46)= -5.14, p= .610, and for the measure of child negativity with
a peer, t(39)= -.438, p= .664. Cohen’s D revealed small effect sizes for all measures of negative
affect. Therefore, both hypotheses failed to be supported.
Following my analyses, I conducted a post-hoc one-way ANOVA and least significant
difference multiple comparisons to determine whether negative affect varied between 4-way
classification of attachment in preschoolers (see Table 5 for means, standard deviations, ranges).
The one-way ANOVA revealed significant differences for the measure of children’s negative
affect with the mother, F(3, 997)= 4.630, p= .003, and for the measure of children’s negative
affect with a peer, F(3, 718)= 2.841, p= .037, but did not find significant differences for
children’s negative affect with another adult, F(3, 750)= 1.654, p= .176. Mean differences (see
Table 6) revealed for the measure of children’s negative affect with the mother, children with
secure attachments displayed less negative affect than children with ambivalent attachments,
MD= -.195, and children with disorganized attachments, MD= -.408. Children with avoidant
attachments displayed less negative affect than children with disorganized attachments, MD=
-.508. For the measure of children’s negative affect with the peer, children with secure
12
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
attachments displayed less negative affect than children with disorganized attachments, MD=
-.108. Children with avoidant attachments displayed less negative affect than children with
ambivalent attachments, MD= -.222, and children with disorganized attachments, MD= -.269. In
conclusion, preschoolers with disorganized attachments displayed more negative affect than
preschoolers with secure or avoidant attachments.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to determine whether displays of negative affect in
preschoolers varied among disorganized attachment subtypes. My first hypothesis, that displays
of negative affect would differ among disorganized attachment, was not supported. Therefore,
my second hypothesis, that children with controlling-punitive attachments would display more
negative affect than children with controlling-caregiving attachments, was also not supported.
Although approximately two-thirds of disorganized children experience role reversal within the
attachment dyad and shift to exhibit more controlling behaviors, it may be that they do not shift
in their expressions of emotion or strategies of emotion regulation (Moss et al., 2011). Internal
working models of affective communication formed in the attachment relationship may be fairly
stable and consolidated by the time role reversal occurs (Carlson & Sroufe, 1995; NICHD, 2004;
Thompson, 2008).
While both findings were contrary to what was predicted, post-hoc analysis to determine
whether negative affect varied among 4-way classifications of attachment in preschoolers
revealed significant differences among classifications. For the measure of child negativity with
the mother, children with secure attachments displayed less negative affect than children with
ambivalent and disorganized attachments, but not children with avoidant attachments. Children
with avoidant attachments displayed less negative affect than children with disorganized
13
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
attachments. For the measure of child negativity with a peer, children with secure attachment
displayed less negative affect than children with disorganized attachment. Children with avoidant
attachment displayed less negative affect than children with ambivalent or disorganized
attachment, but not children with secure attachment. For both measures, children with
disorganized attachment displayed more negative affect than children with secure or avoidant
attachment, but did not differ from children with ambivalent attachment.
These findings are consistent with previous research supporting that displays of negative
affect differ among attachment patterns (Beebe & Steele, 2013; Goldberg et al., 1994; LeCompte
& Moss, 2014). Displays of emotion draw reactions from the environment and help to shape
children’s experiences. Because children with disorganized attachments display more negative
affect, they are at higher risk for child abuse and negative dyadic interactions with caregivers.
The early preschool age is an important period to intervene in the disorganized attachment
relationship, as children are forming and consolidating internal working models of emotion.
Earlier treatment may prevent maladaptive strategies of coping from developing and promote
more beneficial and supportive attachment relationships.
Several issues may have affected the results of this study. First, while the sample size for
all children with disorganized attachments was adequate, the sample size of each subtype was
small, which may have hindered the ability to detect significant effects. The sample size also
decreased for measures of children’s negative affect with another adult and with a peer. Another
factor was that the measures of the children’s negative affect were all observational methods of
the children involved in a toy-interaction with another individual, due to limits within the
NICHD SECCYD data set. Measures of children’s negative affect should be assessed in different
contexts to increase external validity. The NICHD also failed to report reliability measures for
14
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
children’s negative affect with the mother and an adult other than the mother. The measure of
children’s negative affect with another adult also allowed for the adult to be anyone other than
the mother (such as a father, grandparent, partner, or friend of the mother), which may have
altered results. The NICHD SECCYD study also excluded mothers who did not speak English,
which may have subsequently excluded high-risk families, reducing the number of disorganized
attachment dyads. Finally, the MacArthur Working Group on Attachment coding system utilizes
categorical classifications and sub-classifications of attachment, while a continuous measure
might better indicate the extent of behaviors among subtypes of disorganized attachment.
Differences among negative affect may not have been observed because observed punitive,
caregiving, and disorganized behaviors differ within the disorganized attachment classification
along a continuum, with each individual child experiencing varied levels of behaviors.
Although this study did not find significant differences among preschoolers with
disorganized attachment subtypes, it is important to further investigate the role of emotion
among subtypes. This study only observed displays of negative affect, but it may be beneficial to
observe displays of positive affect. Controlling-caregiving children may display more positive
affect than other subtypes due to attempts to guide, cheer-up, or orient their caregiver. It is also
important to examine why role reversal is observed in two-thirds of children with disorganized
attachment. Researchers might explore whether this shift occurs as a strategy of behavioral
regulation or coping mechanism. Attention should focus on determining if expressions of
emotion and strategies of emotion regulation change across a greater span of time, from before
role reversal, to after, and into middle childhood and adolescence. There is still little research on
disorganized attachment subtypes. Disorganized attachment has been linked to maladaptive
implications on childhood and adolescence, including child abuse and numerous internalizing
15
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
and externalizing problems (Mash & Wolfe, 2014). It is important to expand our knowledge of
these subtypes to better understand the disorganized attachment relationship, in order to develop
effective strategies to improve attachment relationships and support adaptive development of
children with disorganized attachments.
16
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
References
Ainsworth, M. D., & Wittig, B. A. (1969). Attachment and exploratory behavior of one-year-
olds in a strange situation. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of Infant Behavior Vol. 4,
pp. 111-136). London: Methuen.
Bowlby, J. (1969-1980). Attachment and loss. (Vol. 1-3) New-York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York. Basic Books.
Bureau, J.- F., Easterbrooks, M. A., & Lyons-Ruth, K. (2009a). Maternal depressive symptoms
in infancy: unique contribution to children’s depressive symptoms in childhood
and adolescence? Development and Psychopathology, 21, 519–537.
Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1995). The contribution of attachment theory to developmental
psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental Processes and
Psychopathology: Volume 1. Theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches
(pp. 581-617). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. In N. Fox
(Ed.), The developmement of emotion regulation. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 59 (2-3, Serial No. 240), 228-249.
Dubois-Comtois, K., Moss, E., Cyr, C., & Pascuzzo, K. (2013). Behavior problems in middle
childhood: The predictive role of maternal distress, child attachment, and mother–child
interactions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 1311-1324.
Duschinsky, R. (2015). The emergence of the disorganized/disoriented (D) attachment
classification, 1979–1982. History Of Psychology, 18(1), 32-46.
Gergely, G. & Watson, J. (1996). The social biofeedback model of parental affect-mirroring.
International Journal of Psvcho-Analvsis, 77, 1181–1212.
17
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
Gergely, G. & Watson, J. S. (1999). Early social-emotional development: Contingency
perception and the social biofeedback model. In P. Rochat (Ed.), Early social cognition
(pp. 101–136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gianino, A. & Tronick, E. Z. (1992). The Mutual Regulation Model: The infant’s self and
interactive regulation and coping and defensive capacities. In T. M. Field, P. M. McCabe
& N. Schneiderman (Eds.), Stress and coping across development. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goldberg, S., MacKay-Soroka, S., & Rochester, M. (1994). Affect, attachment, and maternal
responsiveness. Infant Behavior & Development, 17(3), 335-339.
Green, J., & Goldwyn, R. (2002). Annotation: Attachment disorganization and psychopathology:
new findings in attachment research and their potential implications for developmental
psychopathology in childhood. Journal Of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43(7), 835-
846.
Hesse, E., & Main, M. (2000). Disorganized infant, child, and adult attachment: collapse in
behavioral and attentional strategies. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic
Association, 48, 1097–1127.
Lecompte, V., & Moss, E. (2014). Disorganized and controlling patterns of attachment, role
reversal, and caregiving helplessness: Links to adolescents’ externalizing problems.
American Journal Of Orthopsychiatry, 84(5), 581-589.
Lind, T., Bernard, K., Ross, E., & Dozier, M. (2014). Intervention effects on negative affect of
CPS-referred children: Results of a randomized clinical trial. Child Abuse & Neglect,
38(9), 1459-1467.
18
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
Lyons-Ruth, K., Easterbrooks, M.A., & Cibelli, C. D. (1997). Infant attachment strategies, infant
mental lag, and maternal depressive symptoms: Predictors of internalizing and
externalizing problems at age 7. Developmental Psychology, 33, 681–692.
Main, M. (1999). Epiloque. Attachment theory: Eighteen points with suggestions for future
studies. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver, Handbook of attachment. Theory, research, and
clinical applications (pp. 845–887). New York: Guilford.
Main, M., & Cassidy, J. (1988). Categories of response to reunion with the parent at age six:
Predicted from infant attachment classifications and stable over a one-month period.
Developmental Psychology, 24, 415–426.
Main, M., & Soloman, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented
during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mash, E., & Wolfe, D. (2014). Abnormal Child Psychology, 6th Edition. United States:
Cengage Learning.
Mikolajewski, A., Allan, N., Hart, S., Lonigan, C., & Taylor, J. (20130). Negative affect shares
genetic and environmental influences with symptoms of childhood internalizing
and externalizing disorders. Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 411-423.
Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S. S., & Robinson, L. R. (2007). The role of the
family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16(2),
361-388.
Moss, E., Bureau, J.-F., St.-Laurent, D., & Tarabulsy, G. M. (2011). Understanding disorganized
attachment at preschool and school age: Examining divergent pathways of disorganized
and controlling children. In J. Solomon & C. George (Eds.), Disorganized attachment and
caregiving (pp. 52–79). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
19
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
Moss, E., Cyr, C., Bureau, J.-F., Tarabulsy, G. M., & Dubois-Comtois, K. (2005). Stability of
attachment during the preschool period. Developmental Psychology, 41, 773–783.
Moss, E., Cyr, C., & Dubois-Comtois, K. (2004). Attachment at early school age and
developmental risk: examining family contexts and behavior problems of controlling-
caregiving, controlling- punitive, and behaviorally disorganized children. Developmental
Psychology, 40, 519–532.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2004). Affect dysregulation in the mother- child
relationship in the toddler years: antecedents and consequences. Development and
Psychopathology, 16, 43–68.
O’Connor, E., Bureau, J. F., McCartney, K., & Lyons-Ruth, K. (2011). Risks and outcomes
associated with disorganized/controlling patterns of attachment at age three years in the
national institute of child health & human development study of early child care and
youth development. Infant Mental Health Journal, 32, 450–472.
Teti, D. M. (1999). Conceptualizations of disorganization in the preschool years: An integration.
New York: Guilford Press.
Thompson, R. A. (2008). Early attachment and later development: Familiar questions, new
answers. New York: Guilford Press.
20
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
Table 1.
Frequency Distribution of Disorganized Attachment SubtypesDisorganized Attachment Subtype (36 mo.) Frequency
Controlling-Punitive 26
Controlling-Caregiving 43
Controlling-Mixed 33
Behaviorally Disorganized 85
Total 187
Note. The total number of disorganized participants came from an original sample of 1364 participants.
21
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
Table 2.
Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for Disorganized Attachment SubtypesNegative Affect (54 mo.)
Disorganized Attachment Subtype (36 mo.)
N Mean (SD) Minimum Maximum
Child Negativity with
Mom
Controlling-Punitive
25 2.40 (1.53) 1.00 7.00
Controlling-Caregiving
39 1.97 (1.22) 1.00 5.00
Controlling-Mixed
29 2.07 (1.25) 1.00 5.00
Behaviorally Disorganized
73 1.88 (1.24) 1.00 6.00
Child Negativity with
Other Adult
Controlling-Punitive
20 1.40 (.82) 1.00 4.00
Controlling-Caregiving
28 1.29 (.71) 1.00 4.00
Controlling-Mixed
23 1.35 (.77) 1.00 4.00
Behaviorally Disorganized
46 1.52 (.96) 1.00 5.00
Child Negativity with
Peer
Controlling-Punitive
14 1.57 (.62) 1.00 2.67
Controlling-Caregiving
27 1.49 (.49) 1.00 2.67
Controlling-Mixed
24 1.60 (.58) 1.00 2.67
Behaviorally Disorganized
45 1.51 (.62) 1.00 3.00
22
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
Table 3.
One-Way ANOVA for Disorganized Attachment SubtypesNegative Affect Measure (54 mo.)
SS df MS F Sig.
Child Negativity with Mom
5.249
266.727
3
162
1.750
1.646
1.063 0.367
Child Negativity with Other Adult
1.098
81.210
3
113
0.366
0.719
0.509 0.677
Child Negativity with Peer
0.183
36.084
3
106
0.061
0.340
0.179 0.911
23
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
Table 4.
Disorganized Attachment Subtypes t-TestNegative Affect Measure
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)
MD Std. Error Diff.
95% CI of the DifferenceLower Upper
Child Negativity with Mom
1.000 0.321 -1.231 62 .223 -.426 .346 -1.117 .266
Child Negativity with Other Adult
0.696 0.408 -.514 46 .610 -.114 .222 -.562 .333
Child Negativity with Peer
2.449 0.126 -.438 39 .664 -.078 .177 -.436 .281
Table 5.
24
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for 4-Way Classification of AttachmentNegative Affect Measure (54 mo.)
Attachment Classification (36 mo.)
N Mean (SD) Minimum Maximum
Child Negativity with Mom
Secure 616 1.70 (1.02) 1.00 7.00
Avoidant 48 1.60 (.92) 1.00 5.00
Ambivalent 171 1.89 (1.19) 1.00 7.00
Disorganized 166 2.01 (1.29) 1.00 7.00
Child Negativity with Other Adult
Secure 477 1.27 (.66) 1.00 6.00
Avoidant 33 1.24 (.56) 1.00 3.00
Ambivalent 127 1.37 (.82) 1.00 7.00
Disorganized 117 1.41 (.84) 1.00 5.00
Child Negativity with Peer
Secure 465 1.43 (.49) 1.00 3.00
Avoidant 29 1.26 (.33) 1.00 2.00
Ambivalent 118 1.49 (.52) 1.00 3.00
Disorganized 110 1.53 (.58) 1.00 3.00
25
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
Table 6.
Mean Differences of 4-Way Attachment Classification and Negative AffectNegative Affect Measure (54 mo.)
Attachment Classification (36 mo.)
Mean Differences
Child Negativity with Mom
Secure Avoidant
Ambivalent
Disorganized
.096
-.195*
-.312*
Avoidant Secure
Ambivalent
Disorganized
-.096
-.291
-.408*
Ambivalent Secure
Avoidant
Disorganized
.195*
.291
-.117
Disorganized Secure
Avoidant
Ambivalent
.312*
.408*
.117
Child Negativity with Other Adult
Secure Avoidant
Ambivalent
Disorganized
.028
-.100
-.140
Avoidant Secure
Ambivalent
Disorganized
-.028
-.128
-.168
Ambivalent Secure
Avoidant
.100
.128
26
NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT
Disorganized -.040
Disorganized Secure
Avoidant
Ambivalent
.140
.168
.040
Child Negativity with Peer
Secure Avoidant
Ambivalent
Disorganized
.161
-.061
-.108*
Avoidant Secure
Ambivalent
Disorganized
.061
.222*
-.269*
Ambivalent Secure
Avoidant
Disorganized
.061
.222*
-.047
Disorganized Secure
Avoidant
Ambivalent
.108*
.269*
.047
27