Myth-Busting Around

Attachment TheoryOr rather, some empirical challenges to commonly held

interpretations of attachment theory….

Pasco Fearon

Attachment Theory

• Evolutionarily-rooted theory of the nature of a child’s ties to caregivers

• An eclectic, hybrid, theory drawing on biology, cybernetics, ethology, psychoanalysis, developmental psychology, cognitive science

• Remarkably influential, having impacts well beyond its own core phenomena (field of developmental psychopathology, early child development research, intervention science, child care policy and practice)

Testing the Theory

Some of attachment theory’s strong claims:

• Attachment security-insecurity is caused entirely by the

environment

• Attachment patterns, laid down in early life, are stable over time

and transmitted across generations

• Attachment security is crucial for children’s mental health

Environmental Causes

• Comparisons of MZ and DZ twins allows us to disentangle genetic influences from environmental ones

• Contemporary attachment theory makes the bold claim that ALL variation in attachment security is due to the environment

• How do twins behave in the Strange Situation?

52%48%

SSP Security

Commonenvironment

Non-sharedenvironment

77%

19%4%

TAS-45 Security

Commonenvironment

Non-sharedenvironment

Genetics

Bokhorst et al (2003), see also O’Connor & Croft, 2001 Roisman & Fraley (2008)

Estimates of Genetic and Environmental Effects in Twin Studies

0%

62%

38%

Child Attachment Interview Coherence

Commonenvironment

Non-sharedenvironment

Genetics

Genes and Environment in Adolescent Attachment

Fearon, Schmueli-Goetz, Viding, Fonagy & Plomin, 2014 551 Twin Pairs, Aged 15

Conclusions

Attachment in infancy is not heritable, but in adolescence there is evidence it is

In infancy and adolescence, the non-shared environment is highly significant and poorly understood

What might explain the increased role of genetics in adolescent attachment?

Developmental unfolding of genetic effects (rGE?)?

Different underlying systems mediating attachment behaviour and representational coherence?

Developmental change or construct shift?

Attachment Continuity

SSP (15 months) AAI (18 Years)

AQS (24 months) AAI (18 Years)

Modified SSP (36

months)AAI (18 Years)

Proportion of times

secureAAI (18 Years)

r = .04

r = .14**

r = .02

r = .11/.13**

Intergenerational transmission

• Caregiver

Legacy of caregiver’s upbringing

• Relationship

Quality of Care

• Infant

Infant’s Attachment

• Adult

Legacy of upbringing as adult

Meta-analytic evidence

Adult Attachment

RepresentationsStrange Situation

Paradigm

Maternal Sensitivity

≈ 25%

?? ≈ 75%

New Meta-Analysis (2016)

• Verhage, Schuengel, C., Madigan, S., Fearon, R., Oosterman, M., Cassibba,

R., . . . van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2015). Narrowing the Transmission Gap: A

Synthesis of Three Decades of Research on Intergenerational Transmission

of Attachment. Psychological Bulletin, 142(4):337-366.

Growth in Research on Transmission

19

95

1995 2015

(N = 4819)

(N =854)

Results: Autonomous AAI to Secure SSP

.47

.31

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

1995 2015

‘Forced classifications’

k = 83, N = 4102

Concordance = 78%

Moderators

See Verhage et al., 2018 in Child Development

Conclusion

Good evidence that infant attachment is predictable from measurements of the parents’ narrative regarding their own early attachment experiences

Association is substantial weaker than previously thought

Some factors are associated with weaker intergenerational transmission, especially risk status

Limited research to evaluate whether the association is a causal one

Attachment and Later Outcomes

• Three recent meta-analyses aimed to summarize the overall

evidence

• Meta-analysis 1: Children’s Externalizing Problems

• Meta-analysis 2: Children’s Internalizing Problems

• Meta-analysis 3: Children’s Social Competence

Attachment and

Externalizing Problems

•Fearon, R., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J.,

van IJzendoorn, M. H., Lapsley, A.-M., &

Roisman, G. I. (2010). The significance of

insecure attachment and disorganization in

the development of children s externalizing

behavior: A meta-analytic study. Child

Development, 81(2), 435-456.

Effect Sizes by Attachment Group

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Disorganized

Resistant

Avoidance

Insecure

N=5947, K=69

Moderators

Age Measure Clinical Population Gender

Stronger associations

in older children

Non-SSP measures

(AQS, Cassidy &

Marvin) stronger

Clinical groups

stronger

Association stronger

in males

Developmental

Effects

Measurement

Issues

Level of Risk

Attachment and

Internalizing Problems

• Groh, A. M., Roisman, G. I., van

IJzendoorn, M. H., Bakermans-

Kranenburg, M. J., & Fearon, R. (2012).

The significance of insecure and

disorganized attachment for children's

internalizing symptoms: A meta-analytic

study. Child Development, 83(2), 591-610.

Internalizing vs. Externalizing

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Disorganized

Resistant

Avoidant

Insecure

Externalizing

Internalizing

Attachment and

Social Competence

• Groh, A. M., Fearon, R. P., Bakermans-

Kranenburg, M. J., Van IJzendoorn, M.

H., Steele, R. D., & Roisman, G. I.

(2014). The significance of attachment

security for children’s social competence

with peers: a meta-analytic study.

Attachment & human development, 16(2),

103-136.

Group Effect Sizes

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Disorganized

Resistant

Avoidant

Insecure

Social Competence Externalizing Internalizing

Conclusions

Effects of attachment vary by domain

Stronger effects of externalizing problems and social competence than internalizing problems

Broader effects (across more insecure sub-groups) for social competence

Several moderators indicated (especially gender, age, measurement) needing more investigation

Effects are not large – insecure and disorganized attachments are NOT determinative of poor outcomes

So….