Mothers’ Representations of Their Own Attachment Histories Predict Future Children’s Developing Attachment Patterns

Difficulties in measuring quality of representation Potential covariates that could account for this relation (e.g., shoe size + height  footprint –Educational status –IQ –SES Potential mediators of this relation –Maternal behavior –Choice of alternate caregivers –Stability of environment Importance of relation between mental representations and infant attachment behavior –Models of mind transmitted intergenerationally –Development of models of mind dependent on environment, not genetics, specifically, relationship to caregiver –Infant attachment patterns are markers of future psychopathology (A  narcissism, antisocial, C  borderline, depression, D  borderline, trauma)

Brief Overview of Categories of Attachment Child –B—secure –A—anxious-avoidant –C—anxious-resistant Adult –F—autonomous –Ds—dismissing –E—preoccupied Disorganized attachment –Child-D—disorganized –Adult-U—unresolved

Mechanisms of Influence F—free to pay attention to child’s attachment concerns Ds—dismissal of child’s attachment needs (rejection) E—inconsistent, confused responses to child’s attachment needs

Fonagy Article—Prenatal Assessment Predicts Infant Attachment at 12 Months Prospective rather than retrospective or concurrent study No contamination of effects of infant attachment on mother’s mental representation Concordances –Secure  secure (75%) –Insecure  insecure (73%) –Ds—F—E  A—B—C (66%) –Ds  A, F  B, E  A or C Discordances –F  A or C (24%) –Ds or E  B (27%) –Possible reasons –Secure mothers not really secure ↓Anger ↑Idealization –Infants mostly of C2 subtype –No explanation given for insecure  secure (moderating role of father?) Poor adjustment to idea of motherhood  temporary changes in aspects of IWM  behaviors consistent with C patterns

Levine Article Prenatal assessment of maternal attachment, object representation predicts infant attachment at 15 months –Perceiving future child as whole, separate, differentiated would allow mother to meet attachment needs more adequately –Level of object representation  quality of attachment representation –Both measures related to infant attachment –Mention Q-sort data- overlap between two constructs (.90 Spearman-Brown correlation)

Frank Article Prenatal fantasy representations of mothers predict infant attachment at 14 months –Administered Rorschach during pregnancy Concept of primary-process integration (PPI) –Defense demand (DD) –Defense effectiveness (DE) –DD x DE = PPI “Controlled freedom” measure, Ψ Flexibility in interpreting infant cues, adaptation to shifts in infant relatedness, integrate range of affects without undue disruption in ability to attend to cues –↑PPI → B attachment –↑ maternal themes → B attachment –Emotional experiences not disavowed or distorted (minimized or maximized)

Goodman Article Perceptions of future infant predict infant attachment at 12 months –Mediational model Exposure  Representation  Attachment –Additive model Exposure + Representation  Attachment –Representation measured in two parts: Anticipated difference Degree of bothersomeness –Results ↓ Exposure + ↑ Bother  ↑ Contact ↑ Exposure + ↓ Bother  ↑ Differences  ↑ Avoidance ↑ Children + ↑ Exposure  ↑ Disorganization

–Mothers comfortable with their own negative affects will feel more comfortable with infants. Negative affects respond more sensitively than moms who dismiss or deny negative affects –Mothers who idealize become disillusioned when reality hits and respond insensitively to their infants –Did you find mistakes?