Comparing Main, Goldwyn, and Hesse (Berkeley) and Crittenden (DMM) coding systems for classifying Adult Attachment Interview transcripts: an empirical report

Abstract

Few studies have compared different systems in classifying Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) transcripts. In this study, the AAI was administered to 90 Italian parents (45 couples), and the AAI transcripts were independently classified according to Main, Goldwyn, and Hesse's (Berkeley) and Crittenden's (Dynamic-Maturational Model [DMM]) criteria. The two classification systems were not significantly associated, with some limited convergent results only when the interviews resulted in organized (Berkeley) and normative (DMM) attachment classifications. Otherwise, the Berkeley system identified more secure individuals than the DMM system, and many texts judged secure on the Berkeley system were identified as insecure on the DMM system. Since the Berkeley and the DMM systems rest on remarkably different conceptualizations of the nature and functioning of the attachment behavioral system (e.g. fear is conceived as organizing in the DMM and as potentially disorganizing in the Berkeley), the attachment classifications resulting from their applications should not be considered measurements of the same phenomena.

Can Attachment Inform Decision‐making in Child Protection and Forensic Settings?

“…The DMM classifications have been criticized as overidentifying risk. It is true that DMM studies, across the life span, almost always identify higher rates of risk and lower rates of security than do ABC+D studies (Baldoni et al., ; Crittenden et al., ; Shah et al., ; Spieker & Crittenden, ). It is not clear, however, whether the DMM overidentifies risk or whether ABC+D underidentifies risk and overidentifies security.…”

A Social Neuroscience Approach to Interpersonal Interaction in the Context of Disruption and Disorganization of Attachment (NAMDA)

“…Conversely, others consider fear linked to the AF as an organizing force and "disorganization" to be a misnomer (34,35). In line with Ainsworth's later work, for Crittenden fear of the AF thus promotes excessive tendencies to either (1) overemphasize cognitive predictability at the expense of negative affect expression or (2) overamplify negative affect at the expense of cognitive predictability (34).…”

“…Actually, a debate within the attachment field that is still ongoing and began with classic attachment theorists, including Main and Ainsworth, implied that disorganization is continuous with the insecure strategies(151).It is also worth noting that our model is primarily informed by studies relying on Main and Hesse's conceptualization of disorganized attachment(45), which to date has been examined in more fMRI research. Yet, as noted above, Crittenden's conceptualization of the sequelae of maltreatment or abuse from caregivers holds that children's attachment becomes markedly organized(34,35). Notably, Crittenden's and Main's attachment categories show poor empirical overlap(35), cautioning scholars against considering them equivalent.…”

“…Yet, as noted above, Crittenden's conceptualization of the sequelae of maltreatment or abuse from caregivers holds that children's attachment becomes markedly organized(34,35). Notably, Crittenden's and Main's attachment categories show poor empirical overlap(35), cautioning scholars against considering them equivalent.…”

Mummy, Daddy, and Addiction: Implicit Insecure Attachment is Associated with Substance Use in College Students

“…These measures are supposed to capture automatic processes, such as implicit emotion regulation (Jacobvitz, Curran, & Moller, 2002). However, these instruments have been criticized because of their low reliability (low inter-coder agreement) and lack of convergent validity (Baldoni et al, 2018). Thus, further research is needed to develop and test more reliable and convenient measures of implicit attachment.…”