Attachment may have reached a turning point in which two sometimes incompatible approaches to individual differences in attachment are being compared. The outcome could influence future work in attachment. This article focuses on individual differences because applications of attachment are predicated on the consequences of individual differences for adaptation and well-being. The issue is which model is better suited to future research and clinical applications. Both models augment the original Ainsworth ABC model that everyone agrees is not sufficiently differentiated to cover the range of human behavior. The two models are “ABC+D” (the model that has disorganization (D) as its fourth category) and “DMM” (the model that expands the A and C categories from two subcategories each to a total of eight each, plus A/C combinations). The current disagreement has two sources: (a) the increasing acceptance outside the United States of the DMM, particularly in clinical and forensic settings, while the US remains largely unaware of the DMM; and (b) the recent announcement by prominent ABC+D researchers from Europe and the US that D is not a suitable category for clinical or forensic use. ABC+D researchers have not proposed an alternative, and some US funding sources and courts eschew attachment altogether, believing the theory itself lacks validity and utility, thus weakening attachment’s potential to inform clinical research and decision-making. This article proposes DMM as a viable alternative to both ABC+D and psychiatric diagnoses and examines the development and contributions of each model for the purpose of creating a model of individual differences in attachment that is scientifically robust, open to change as new evidence becomes available, and applicable to troubled individuals and families. Notably, attachment theory has engendered controversy from its beginnings. When John Bowlby offered attachment as a universal human characteristic that promoted species and individual survival, he was criticized by others in his field. When Mary Ainsworth identified the ABC categories of individual differences in attachment, her ideas were attacked from outside attachment theory. While the “first generation” issue around the existence of attachment has largely died away, a second generation of attachment theorists is disputing the nature of individual differences, their focus on individuals (ABC+D) or interpersonal systems (DMM Family Functional Formulations), and their relevance to clinical work. The ABC+D and DMM models that expand Ainsworth’s work were developed by two of her students, Mary Main (ABC+D) and Patricia Crittenden (DMM). They and their colleagues have worked separately for half a century producing two large and sometimes discrepant bodies of work, which have now become the topic of open debate. This bibliography focuses on the conceptual and empirical bases for that exchange. Part I outlines the roots of the ABC+D and DMM models, together with comparative validating information. Part II presents the central research findings on individual differences in attachment from four decades of research with each model. The authors wish to thank Robbie Duschinsky, Udita Iyengar, and Andrea Landini for their helpful comments on this bibliography.
Steve Farnfield describes a modification of the Strange Situation Procedure (SSP), commonly used in the assessment of infant and pre-school children's attachment, for use in the assessment of sibling relationships. The modified SSP was developed for use in cases where social workers had to decide whether or not to split up groups of siblings for placement in adoptive or long-term foster homes. However, it can also be applied as an aid to understanding sibling interactions in other contexts as well as the attachment of siblings to one another and to birth or substitute parents. Following some practical and theoretical comments, an account of the procedure is given together with case examples.
Purpose-Attachment has long been considered relevant to child care proceedings. However, compared to other forms of evidence, it has been limited by the lack of consistent methods of assessment, training of experts, and empirical evidence. To reduce these limitations, The International Association for the Study of Attachment (IASA) has developed a Family Attachment Court Protocol for assessment and formulation of attachment issues. The purpose of the Protocol is to act as a guide to good practice and to begin a process of improving the application of attachment to family court proceedings. Design/methodology/approach-The Dynamic-Maturational Model of Attachment and Adaptation (DMM) and its associated assessments were adapted for forensic use. The resulting Family Attachment Court Protocol was trialed in cases before 15 judges in five countries and modified based on feedback. Findings-The judges and most of the professionals working for the court expressed approval of the new Protocol. Research limitations/implications-Implementation of the Protocol will require additional authorised experts. Practical implications-The primary practical implication is that the courts will receive verifiable evidence on attachment can be tested and, thus, validated or disproven. Social implications-If accepted, the IASA Protocol will reduce the idiosyncratic nature of child care proceedings and increase the rigour of professional qualification to address attachment. Originality/value-The IASA Protocol is new and valuable because its theoretical underpinnings in the DMM are based on both clinical and also neurological evidence about protection from danger, and it can replace untestable expert opinion about attachment with evidence-based assessment and transparent formulation of recommendations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.