Are attachment theory classifications valid? (secure, ambivalent, avoidant, etc)

[katies_mama]

I was wondering how most AP moms feel about attachment theory and the validity of the strange situation protocol and the resulting classifications.

I am also curious to see if the AP population has a different statistical breakdown when it comes to the "official" ways that infants and toddlers are attached. I've included a poll in this thread.

I also think it would be interesting to hear about how AP moms classify their children. I sometimes see threads on MDC where parents are worried because their children exhibit behavior that is not indicative of secure attachment (though they don't say that, they just describe the behavior) and it makes me wonder, is attachment parenting a guarantee of secure attachment? Or not? And what worth are the strange situation classifications to the AP community?

More info for anyone not familiar with the theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_in_children

"In the general population, 55 percent to 65 percent of children tend to fall into the "secure" attachment category, while about 10 percent to 15 percent tend to show an "insecure-resistant/ambivalent" pattern, 20 percent to 25 percent show an "insecure-avoidant" pattern and 15 percent to 20 percent show an "insecure-disorganized" pattern."
http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/yf/famsci/fs617w.htm



Secure attachment - may be upset when mother/father (hereafter referred to as mother for simplicity)leaves, but greet mother eagerly and happily upon return, and seeks out mother when distressed.

Resistant/ambivalent attachment- anxious of exploration and of strangers, even when the mother is present. When the mother departs, the child is extremely distressed. The child will be ambivalent when she returns - seeking to remain close to the mother but resentful, and also resistant when the mother initiates attention.

Avoidant attachment- Characterized by children who avoid or ignore a mother's presence, show little response when the mother is close by, display few strong emotional outbursts, and may avoid or ignore their mother's responses toward them.

Disorganized attachment- Characterized by children who are not predictable in their behavior, seem unable to cope easily or be comforted when stressed, and show evidence of fear or confusion around their mother.

[katies_mama]

PS I wasn't sure where to put this thread. Here? Somewhere else? I need guidance!

[coloradoalice]

By those definitions both my kiddos are very secure. We are very hands on AP. Glad to know it seems to have worked!

[captain optimism]

This is a really interesting question.

I thought the whole reason to practice attachment parenting was to intentionally foster secure attachment. But it's still hard for me to believe that only 65% of children are securely attached. That's scary.

[flyingspaghettimama]

It's an interesting question, but I think there are some confounding variables here:

1) Not everyone on MDC actually practices attachment-style parenting, if you are proposing that AP produces secure attachment. I know it's an AP site, yada yada, but I have found that real life practice and online community membership are sometimes not the overlap one might think. One would need to ask 1) do you respond to your child at bedtime and throughout the night 2) breast/bottlefeeding practices 3) babywearing etc..etc...etc...and then one could always debate which of these practices is MOST important.

2) I'm not sure one can classify based upon highly subjective observation vs. actually conducting the strange situation (including strange strangers, etc).

3) Recent research has pointed to other factors regarding secure attachment. Apparently, a mother's anxiety issues are a major contributing factor to secure vs. ambivalent attachment. So you could do everything "right" regarding AP parenting, but if you also show a lot of fearfulness regarding the outside world or independence, you still end up with the signs of an insecurely attached child.

Captain Optimism, you are optimistic. I'm always surprised at that high of a rate. 65% of the general american public doesn't practice AP parenting, so it's obviously possible to end up with a secure child and not be AP. Or maybe the parents did aspects but didn't call it that?

It seems like a fairly obvious, clear-to-design research question, doesn't it? Following the parenting practices of AP families and conventional families, and how secure the children rate at 1, 3, and 6?

[sapphire_chan]

Don't have children, but I was raised in a fairly AP-style and I had a secure attachment as a child.

[captain optimism]

Originally Posted by flyingspaghettimama

Captain Optimism, you are optimistic. I'm always surprised at that high of a rate. 65% of the general american public doesn't practice AP parenting, so it's obviously possible to end up with a secure child and not be AP. Or maybe the parents did aspects but didn't call it that?

It seems like a fairly obvious, clear-to-design research question, doesn't it? Following the parenting practices of AP families and conventional families, and how secure the children rate at 1, 3, and 6?

You know it! I picked that username for a reason.

I think of AP parenting as simply codifying the practices that many people do to show affection to their children. So, you know, some people breastfeed but don't cosleep, or they don't babywear but they do pick them up when they cry, and like that.

"Conventional" parenting might have a lot of aspects of AP parenting.

It was my impression that you had to really parent in the opposite direction to get that kind of insecure attachment, but maybe a lot of people are more abusive or neglectful with their children than i think.

[flyingspaghettimama]

Originally Posted by captain optimism

It was my impression that you had to really parent in the opposite direction to get that kind of insecure attachment, but maybe a lot of people are more abusive or neglectful with their children than i think.

Yeah. I guess I personally know quite a few people who parent in what I would term "conventional" ways, i.e. pick up a random parenting magazine and follow it to the letter regarding sleep training, weaning, baby independence and "manipulation," etc. Their children are not what I would call attached. I doubt 65% of the kids in my daughter's preschool class were what I would term "securely attached," but once again - that's from subjective observation, not a true test.

I think it's probably all confusing. My MIL is what I would definitely think of as conventional, but you scratch the surface and discover cosleeping, nighttime responsiveness, etc. Bottlefed, hospital birthed all the way, but very, very responsive parenting. I personally : don't think breastfeeding alone has a huge impact on secure attachment. Many people BF (for a time) and spank, do CIO, etc. Likewise, babywearing. It would be possible to do babywearing but still not be responsive overall, just being practical!

I would think CIO/nighttime responsiveness might be a bigger indicator of attachment? If the parent can keep it together to be responsive at night, then they're more likely to be responsive overall to their child's needs?

[captain optimism]

I've also seen what i consider to be comprehensively unresponsive parenting of infants that results in what looks like attachment in toddlerhood and later. i have no idea whether the child is really attached or not.

While i think breastfeeding is an automatic advantage for attachment, it's not a necessary condition. i have a friend who had horrible low supply (PCOS) and has had to formula feed. i watch her feeding the baby and cuddling him and looking into his eyes. All the stuff you do when you nurse, she does.

(i tear up when I think about it. she was so disappointed not to be able to nurse, and man, she is just the best mom.)

i think it's the parents' attachment to the child that is the reason for the child's attachment to the parents.

[katies_mama]

My friend who uses CIO with her kids and breastfeeds very haphazardly (she weaned one at 3mo because of vacation, nursed the others for longer but none past 15mo), as far as I can see, has five securely attached children.

Also, though I'm not certain of their parenting practices, I've seen posts where moms say "DS is so clingy and screams and screams when I leave the house. He just wants mama. He is so mama attached. Then when I come back he is mad at me! What do I do?" This is describing ambivalent attachment to a T, but obviously none of those moms are responding to the poll.

I didn't really think any MDC moms would admit to an insecure attachment, even if they use CIO, and I agree it is necessary for independent observers and clinical conditions to really determine if the AP style of parenting causes children to be classified as attached in a Strange Situation.

I was thinking, though, how hard would it be if you did everything "right" and your child was not securely attached? I really wonder if that ever happens.

[darsmama]

Originally Posted by katies_mama

Secure attachment - may be upset when mother/father (hereafter referred to as mother for simplicity)leaves, but greet mother eagerly and happily upon return, and seeks out mother when distressed.

Resistant/ambivalent attachment- anxious of exploration and of strangers, even when the mother is present. When the mother departs, the child is extremely distressed. The child will be ambivalent when she returns - seeking to remain close to the mother but resentful, and also resistant when the mother initiates attention.

Kinda weird.
My oldest (who I wore in a sling and had me all to herself for a total of 11 months 1 day) is a complete SECURE attachment to a "T"
My youngest (who I did not wear in a sling and hold all the time, but we still co-slept) is a more like the Ambivalent attachment, I think. She dosen't like strangers and will cling to me. And she dosen't really notice when I leave or return. Otherwise though, she is secure. It could be her age, she is only 13 months.
Either way, I'm raising a family and we are all happy as individuals

(ETA I voted secure, because I know eventually Daphne will be. I think it is just a phase.

[Mama Poot]

Paddy is too secure- is that possible? I cant leave the ROOM sometimes without him either freaking out, following me-crying all the way. or sometimes he will just act silly and happy and follow. He says "daddy!!" when dh comes home, but if I go anywhere, when I come in the door he whines a little bit and scurries up to me and isnt happy until I pick him up. The only time he says "Mama" is when he doesnt feel good, bumped his head, etc... He knows Mama=comfort and Dada=playtime/fun. He has no problem approaching kids he doesnt know, but he is cautious with adults and will cling and cry if he is scared by your appearance ( men wearing hats, beards, and/or sunglasses can really freak him out ). He plays with dh happily when I'm out of the house, so he doesnt mind when I'm away. I bf him for 6 months until I got very sick....whole other thread...and co-slept for 7 months. He's never had trouble sleeping in his crib, and has only cried when he has a nightmare or he wakes up sick. We've also practiced babywearing since Paddy was a newborn. Now that I have another little one, dh just carries Paddy in arms when we go places. I think Paddy is a mix of secure/ambivalent. He kind of flip flops between the two. But he is a very loved and well cared for little boy. I *worry*the ambivalence largely stems from the early weaning. But I do the best I can to make up for that.

[flyingspaghettimama]

See, Mama Poot, I would hate for a thread like this to cause undue grief to mamas on here. I think there would be little clinical evidence that early weaning or not babywearing causes ambivalent attachment. There are many bottle-feeding mamas with securely attached babies.

Also, there are very well-defined emotional milestones regarding fear of strangers and separation anxiety that must be figured into any equation like this. And, as I recall in the research, being "mad at mama" for leaving is a normal reaction - it's just whether it continues for a much longer length of time, and if there was hitting, very aggressive behavior etc involved.

And, one would have to consider some of the other factors (which researchers do) - does the child have a consistent caregiver? Illness in the family? Parents have a secure relationship? Mother's anxiety level regarding strangers or strange situation?

For an excellent, excellent book on this topic, can I suggest this one:
Becoming Attached: First Relationships and How They Shape Our Capacity to Love by Robert Karen Ph.D.

I think the tricky thing is that what looks like secure attachment in our society (i.e. not caring if mom leaves, not preferring strangers vs. mama, much independence) can actually be signs of poor attachment. It's a fine line.

[Irishmommy]

Please post in Parenting.

[LynnS6]

Originally Posted by katies_mama

Also, though I'm not certain of their parenting practices, I've seen posts where moms say "DS is so clingy and screams and screams when I leave the house. He just wants mama. He is so mama attached. Then when I come back he is mad at me! What do I do?" This is describing ambivalent attachment to a T, but obviously none of those moms are responding to the poll. .

Part of the problem though is that attachment theory doesn't take things like temperament into account. Also, separation anxiety is a well known stage of development and some children appear to be more affected than others.

My ds might very well have been classified as "resistent/ambivalent" at 18 months by researchers because he WAS "anxious of exploration and of strangers, even when the mother is present. When the mother departs, the child is extremely distressed." Now he didn't display the second part, "is resistant when mother initiates attention" because he would have been glued to my knee. BUT he's very, very reserved and would have appeared resistant. Basically, when he's overwhelmed, he shuts down. I know this as a mother. I learned this very, very early.

I also have the benefit of hindsight -- he's 5 now. He's confident, separates easily and explores. What's changed? He's gotten older.

So, Mama Poot - don't worry. Paddy is not too attached. He's just in the middle of the separation anxiety stage. Some children get it harder than others -- and given the "upheavals" (new brother) of his life, it's not surprising he's got it harder. If he's still like this when he's 5, then you can worry. But it's perfectly possible to be a securely attached child who has separation anxiety. In fact, I'd worry if he DIDN'T show these behaviors.

[JustJamie]

I voted "secure attachment" as that's how DD is right *now*, but I personally think she's really too young to tell (12 months) how secure that attachment will be when she's older.

Obviously, my goal has been the secure attachment, though I didn't have a phrase to describe it until this thread, and I'm somewhat reassured that based on those definitions, I'm acheiving that goal thus far.

However, I think that life experience plays a big roll, too. Children can be very securely attached as infants/toddlers, and then experience some upheaval (a move, a divorce, death, etc.) that will negatively impact that attachment.

I would be interested to see not only statistics on responsive v. non-responsive parenting, but also one household kids v. divorced kids, 2 parent kids v. single parent kids, military kids v. non-military kids, kids with 2 working parents v. kids with a parent who stays home, only children v. children with siblings, etc.

[alicia622]

I would be surprised if anyone, whether on MDC or elsewhere, admits their child is anything but securely attached.

[Rivka5]

Originally Posted by flyingspaghettimama

Captain Optimism, you are optimistic. I'm always surprised at that high of a rate. 65% of the general american public doesn't practice AP parenting, so it's obviously possible to end up with a secure child and not be AP. Or maybe the parents did aspects but didn't call it that?

It is *absolutely* possible to not practice "AP parenting" as defined by MDC and have a secure parent-child attachment. Given the often-bemoaned rarity of perfect MDC parenting out there in the world, it's probably the case that *most* securely attached children weren't babyworn, co-slept with, and breastfed.

Most "mainstream" mothers are responsive to their babies.

[captain optimism]

Originally Posted by Rivka5

It is *absolutely* possible to not practice "AP parenting" as defined by MDC and have a secure parent-child attachment. Given the often-bemoaned rarity of perfect MDC parenting out there in the world, it's probably the case that *most* securely attached children weren't babyworn, co-slept with, and breastfed.

Most "mainstream" mothers are responsive to their babies.

Yes, I also assumed this. But I don't think it's true, or there wouldn't be a 35% rate of children who aren't securely attached.

I always thought AP was a philosophy of intentionally doing the many things that most parents do that help their children to attach. So, to my way of thinking, some moms breastfed, and some moms and dads coslept, and some were responsive to nighttime crying, and most were physically affectionate and just, you know, present--basically, everyone was doing a few of those codified practices that seemed to work.

i figured the reason for an attachment parenting philosophy was to counter parenting philosophies that opposed these normal practices.

But it looks from this study like there are some families where parents are so unresponsive that children are not securely attached. I doubt this is from following some philosophy, though. You have to have some kind of pathology to have disordered attachment. We aren't talking about children who are just shy.

[Oka-san]

Wow, so far 100% secure attachment in the voting. That’s amazing to me, even among a group of AP parents. I did vote “secure”, even though DD goes even further than that most of the time.

She barely reacts when I leave her in the gym day care; we all make a point of letting her know that mama’s leaving to go upstairs, and most of the time she’s so involved already in what’s going on in the day care room, and the people there, she sort of glances at me for a millisecond and then turns her attention back to the situation at hand. She’s not in the least bit concerned that I’m leaving.

Is there a separate term for this kind of attachment? Sometimes I wish she would mind a little more when mama goes bye-bye!! :

I do have to say that so far, since I’ve been a mother, I have never encountered a mother that was unresponsive to her children. All the moms I’ve met so far seems to take their children’s needs into account and react accordingly, giving them plenty of love and attention. Maybe it’s just the place we live (kind of crunchy, hippy, natural-type town)? Some of the moms I know are "mainstream" but all are very attentive. Have I just gotten lucky in who I've met, or what?