A Home‐based Description of Attachment in Physically Disabled Infants

Abstract

This study investigated attachment security and behavior in 34 physically disabled infants and 26 non-disabled infants by using convergent, categorical (secure, avoidant and ambivalent) and continuous (Attachment Behavior Q-Set) measures of the relationship, based on the same set of home observations. Proportions of attachment classifications were not different for disabled and non-disabled infants, but insecure infants in the disabled group scored consistently lower on the AQS security score than nondisabled insecure infants. This result suggests that while proportions of attachment classifications may not vary as a function of infant status, insecure disabled infants are more insecure than insecure non-disabled infants. An analysis of 5 behavioral dimensions of the AQS showed that secure infants emitted the same kinds of attachment behaviors without regard for infant status. Insecure disabled infants, however, showed lower levels of secure base behavior and physical contact with mother than their non-disabled counterparts, and showed a marginal tendency to fuss more as well. Discussion focuses on the potential benefits of using convergent, categorical and continuous measures of attachment in the study of both typical and atypical groups of infants.

Young children with significant developmental delay differentiate home observed attachment behaviour towards their parents

“…Parent-reported secure attachment behaviour (SBSHO) was not significantly associated with developmental age or the severity of cognitive delay, contrary to previous findings (e.g., De Schipper & Schuengel, 2010). Whereas one might argue that these child characteristics genuinely influence the differentiation of attachment behaviour, another possible explanation may be the fact that the scales of SSIB are highly physical and thus result in a lower susceptibility for children with (loco)motor im- recorded with the SSIB, which requires a minimal motor competence (Tessier, Tarabulsy, Larin, Laganière, & Gagnon, 2002). While epilepsy TA B L E 6 Descriptive statistics on observed attachment behaviour (SSIB) according to child characteristics with M (SD) and autism were associated with less parent-reported secure attachment behaviours, children with visual and motor impairments were rated slightly higher in parent-reported secure attachment behaviours than children without these respective diagnoses.…”

“…In that respect, it can be argued that children with motor impairment do indeed differentiate, but show it in a different way. Consistent with this idea, Blacher and Bromley (1987) suggested that physically impaired children exhibit alternative expressions for certain attachment behaviours (e.g., fussing upon a distance) with yet the same intention as the more recorded with the SSIB, which requires a minimal motor competence (Tessier, Tarabulsy, Larin, Laganière, & Gagnon, 2002).…”

“…One possible explanation could be that children do not feel the need or get the learning opportunities to maintain physical contact, because their mother is already installing a highly physical, intimate contact. Second, the highest scores of the SSIB often require (loco)motor behaviour (Tessier et al, 2002), which was not possible for a large group of physically impaired children. Another possible explanation might be that, due to high parental affect, children feel more competent and therefore explore more (Verschueren, Marcoen, & Schoefs, 1996).…”

“…This insufficiency could be discerned both within one interaction partner (e.g., some children smiled and glanced at their parent at the start of reunion, while others did not react in any way, but both received the lowest score on the scale proximity-and contact-seeking behaviour), as well as between two interaction partners (e.g., although children were more actively smiling or vocalizing towards the parent, they received the same score towards the researcher due to a lack of more pronounced behaviour). Second, the highest scores of the SSIB often require (loco)motor behaviour (Tessier et al, 2002), which was not possible for a large group of physically impaired children. Third, the SSIB demands interpretation of the observer (e.g., "gives the impression of liking it"; Waters, 2002a,b;p.…”

“…Consistent with this idea, Blacher and Bromley () suggested that physically impaired children exhibit alternative expressions for certain attachment behaviours (e.g., fussing upon a distance) with yet the same intention as the more (loco)motor variant. These kinds of behaviours were, however, not recorded with the SSIB, which requires a minimal motor competence (Tessier, Tarabulsy, Larin, Laganière, & Gagnon, ).…”