The Intergenerational Transmission of Attachment: Understanding Continuity and Discontinuity Brianna S. Coffino & Rebecca J. Shlafer Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota Introduction  Life Stress – G2 at age 26 Life Events Scale (Cochrane et al.,1973: Egeland & Deinard,1975).   Parenting – G2 at G3’s 24 month assessment Parental supportive presence during a series of dyadic problem- solving tasks (Teaching Tasks; Matas, Arend, & Sroufe, 1978 ) Intergenerational Infant Attachment Concordance Significant relationship between G2 (at 18 months) and G3 infant disorganization scores (r = .618, p = .014). Significant concordance in infant disorganization across generations χ2 (1, N = 33) = 3.92, p = .048; Fig.1). Figure 1 Second and third generation infant attachment security No stability between 2-way (i.e., secure/insecure) infant attachment ratings across generations χ2 (2, N = 49) = 1.11, p > .05). Infant and Adult Attachment Concordance (within G2) Concordance between G2 infant security and security at age 26, χ2 (2, N = 160) = 8.02 , p = .02; Fig. 2) There was a similar trend at age 19 χ2 (2, N = 157) = 5.09 , p = .078). Figure. 2 Second generation infant and adult attachment security Significant concordance between disorganized infant attachment histories (G2) and insecurity in adulthood both at age 19, χ2 (1, N = 122)= 5.49, p = .02) and at age 26, χ2 (1, N = 123)= 10.35 , p = 001; Table 1). Significant concordance between infant attachment disorganization and unresolved  status in adulthood χ2 (1, N = 135)= 7.53, p = .006). Table 1 Infant disorganization and adult state of mind Intergenerational Adult and Infant Attachment Concordance No concordance between G2 adult security and G3 infant security (AAI age 19: χ2(1, N = 44) =.10, p > .05; AAI age 26:χ2 (1, N = 47) = .03, p>.05). Mediators of G2 and G3 Infant Attachment Logistic regression analysis revealed G2 coherence of mind (at age 19 or 26) was not a significant mediator between infant attachment security in G2 and G3. No relationship between G2 life stress (at age 26) or parenting quality (at G3’s 24-month assessment) and G3 infant security. Infant disorganization was particularly robust in predicting both insecurity in adulthood (measured at two time points) and also in predicting insecure infant attachment in the next generation. In our low-income high-risk sample, we found no evidence of continuity in specific attachment patterns between generations. In a more stable sample, continuity may be more robust. Although several potential mediators of G2 and G3 infant security were examined, we did not find G2 adult state of mind, parenting, or stressful life events to account for the relationship. The small sample size within G3 may preclude us from finding results. The Strange Situation was only administered to G2 mothers; therefore, our results may not be generalizable to G2 fathers or their children. Overall, these results suggest that while disorganized infant attachment predicts some attachment patterns that persist into adulthood and the next generation, the mechanisms that explain this continuity and discontinuity are unclear. Research has found a 75% concordance between adult states of mind regarding attachment and infant attachment classifications (i.e. secure-insecure) (van Ijzendoorn (1995). Attachment theory posits that early attachment experiences are transmitted to the next generation via attachment representations or internal working models (Main, Kaplan, Cassidy, 1985). Few studies have prospective, longitudinal, multigenerational data to examine the processes through which attachment representations are transmitted across generations. The aim of this study is to examine the continuity of infant attachment classifications within and across generations and to investigate potential mechanisms of transmission. MN Longitudinal Study of Parents & Children (Egeland & Sroufe 1981) Prospective, and currently ongoing, longitudinal study of low SES status mothers (first generation, G1) and their firstborn children (G2). Measures collected from birth to age 32. Subset sample: G2 participants who have become parents and completed a 12-month assessment with a G3 child (n = 50). Infant Attachment Security – G2 & G3 The Strange Situation procedure (Ainsworth & Wittig, 1969) was conducted with G2 at 12 and 18 months old and with G3 at 12 months. Classified using the original classifications (A, B, C, and D). Dichotomous variables were created: Secure (B) versus insecure (A, C, and D) Organized (A, B, and C classifications) versus disorganized (D) Infants were rated for indicators of disorganization (1-9) G2 security score: Number of times secure at 12 &18 months (0,1,2) Adult “State of Mind” – G2 The Adult Attachment Interview (George, Kaplan, & Main, 1985) was conducted when G2 was 19 and 26 years old. Classified using the original classifications: F, Ds, E, or U. Autonomous/ secure (F) vs. not autonomous/ insecure (Ds, E, U) Resolved (F, Ds, E) vs. Unresolved (U) G2 Adult Attachment Interview Age 19 Age 26 Age 19 and 26 G2 Strange Situation Secure Insecure Resolved Unresolved Not Disorganized 32 48 46 67 20 Disorganized 8 34 13 26 22 Results Purpose G2 Infant Attachment G2 Adult State of Mind G3 Infant Method Participants Conclusions Measures G2 Strange Situation Classification