The Challenges Kids Face H 382 Holly Lem

The Challenges Kids Face H 382 Holly Lem, Ph. D. Attachment October 16, 2015

There is always wiggle room: �“I had a weak father, domineering mother, contemptuous teachers, sadistic sergeants, destructive male friendships, emasculating girlfriends, a wonderful wife and three terrific children. Where did I go right? ” (Jules Feiffer, satirist)

Parenting as a Projective: Open to Interpretation

Projectives and Parenting �Open-ended!!!!! �The rules are unclear �Lack of structure �Profound emotions are “pulled for” �You are required to respond �The purpose is unknown

How Comfortable are You in the Dance? �Autonomy �Need �Dependency �Intimacy �Closeness �Distance

Attachment leaves no fingerprints… but…

Case Study: “Craig”

Affective Ambiance Matters

When the Bough Breaks �Frontline Documentary �Produced and Directed by Neil Docherty � 1995 � 57 mins. �Examines closely the issues around attachment, intergenerational transmission and attuned parenting

Discussion Questions: �What were the pressing issues for each family? �What were the issues for each mother that seemed to interfere with their ability to respond in an attuned and sensitive way to their child? �Was the Center’s intervention helpful and if so, why did it work? Are there still gaps that are of concern?

SECURE BASE: SAFETY AND EXPLORATION

Felt Security (Ainsworth, 1973) �Provides consistency, warmth and attunement �Emotional core of the relationship �Feeling safe and protected in their presence �Feeling longing and a desire to regain closeness in person’s absence �Returning to them, feels like home

Attachment Styles and Parenting Secure: (67%) What does that parent’s behavior look like? 2. Insecure: Avoidant (21%) What does that parent’s behavior look like? 3. Insecure: Anxious/Resistant/Ambivalent (12%) What does that parent’s behavior look like? 4. Disorganized: 1.

Father as the “uncontaminated object” Paternal Involvement: (Lamb, 1987) 1. 2. 3. Interaction/engagement directly with child Accessibility- physically and/or psychologically Responsibility for child’s care and welfare Results: Quality contact more important than quantity of time Less desirable parenting practices + more involvement = less secure Low positive affect, insufficient task structure, intrusiveness + more involvement = detrimental to security/well-being

Strange Situation (Ainsworth, 1978 ) 1. 8 parts, each 3 minutes in its entirety 2. Mom and Child acclimate to room, stranger enters, mom leaves, mom returns, stranger leaves, mom leaves again, stranger returns, mom returns and stranger leaves. 3. Usually done between 12 -18 mos. 4. Attempting to activate separation anxiety 5. How child responds to departure and return results in attachment classification

Strange Situation: Lisa �http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=QTsew. Nr. HUHU

Controversy about the Strange Situation 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. What actually is the Strange Situation measuring? Quality of the relationship? Mother variables? Child variables? Temperament Culture

Is Attachment Universal? “The mother infant relationship does not exist in a vacuum. In any given culture this relationship is bound by accepted parenting practices and sociocultural influences” (Reebye, P. et. al. , 2000)

“Are we too attached to attachment theory? ” (Kagan, 2011) Temperament: 1. An inborn predisposition to experience certain feelings and display particular behaviors during the early years (Kagan, 2011). 2. Constitutionally based predisposition that is stable across time and generalizable across situations (Buss & Plomin, 1984)

Kagan’s Temperament Variables that Impact Attachment 1. 2. 3. 4. Vulnerability to distress Vigilance to Unfamiliar or Novel Events High Reactives: 20% (insecurely attached) Low Reactives: 40% (securely attached)

Van Den Boom study (1995) � 100 mother-child participants, intact families, low SES, first-born children, identified as irritable by Brazelton scale � 50 received intervention, 50 in control group �Between 6 and 9 mos. , 3 sessions, two hours each, work toward increasing maternal sensitivity �Objectives: Increase maternal sensitivity Achieve Felt Security a la Ainsworth

Relational Feedback loop Child Variables: Bids for Temperament Attention Mother’s degree of sensitivity, warmth, respect

Intervention: 1. Perceiving an infant signal 2. Interpreting the signal correctly 3. Selecting an appropriate response 4. Implementing the response effectively *** 5. Encouraging them to imitate infant’s behavior 6. Repeat child’s own verbal expressions 7. Maintain silence while infant’s gaze is averted

Three Month Follow-Up �Increased maternal sensitivity �More securely attached children compared to controls �Child behavior changed: more sociable, better able to self-soothe, more complex exploration behavior “Our research emphasizes maternal strengths rather than focusing on maternal inadequacies…believe it… enhances the mother’s feelings of effectiveness by making mothers self aware of their own growth. ” (Van den Boom, 1995)

“People get lost in familiar places” Internal working models �Good therapy and good relationships can “re-parent” 1. Attentiveness 2. Responsiveness 3. Respectfulness 4. Timeliness

Corrective Emotional Experience From Psychoanalysis: “ To expose the patient, under more favorable circumstances to emotional situations which he could not handle in the past… the patient in order to be helped must undergo a corrective emotional experience suitable to repair the traumatic influences of previous experiences. ” (Alexander and French, 1946) To Schools: Connect, Consistency, Clarity, Communicate

Adolescent Attachment and Self. Fulfilling Prophecies (Brown & Wright, 2003) �Adolescents with a secure attachment: rated by peers as popular, likeable, appealing �Adolescents with an avoidant attachment style: “bullies”, argumentative, aggressive, conduct disorders �Adolescents with an ambivalent style: may be victimized, insecure, less popular, tend to have the most psychopathological symptoms, usually internalizing disorders

Teachers/Students: Attachment Styles �Secure students -- teacher response: high expectations, warmth, respectful approach �Insecure students/ambivalent -- teacher response: warmth, highly controlling, low expectations �Insecure students/avoidant -- teacher response: no warmth, angry, punitive, controlling, most frequently angry with this group