Infant disorganized attachment: Clarifying levels of analysis

Abstract

Lack of clarity regarding the infant disorganized attachment classification has caused confusion in the clinical, forensic, and research contexts in which it is used. This article offers distinctions to clarify the concept with the goal of increasing understanding and identifying potential misapplications. In particular, attention is drawn to the fact that there are many indices used to code “disorganized attachment,” and that so far they have been validated as a set rather than individually; and it is noted that the construct validation of disorganization in naturalistic settings is partially finished. Clinicians and social workers should be cautious in their interpretations of such behavior.

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

“…Recent reviews of the D classification in infancy (Duschinsky, ; Duschinsky & Solomon, ; Reijman, Foster, & Duschinsky, ) have provided a second opportunity to consider the expansion of the Ainsworth categories. We wonder whether the three decades of work on non‐Ainsworth patterns carried out by DMM researchers might be of use to those trying to make meaning of D. We hope, in this article, to demonstrate that the two lines of research and theory can be considered together.…”

“…Consequently, differences within D, both in infancy and the preschool years, have scarcely been studied. As Duschinsky and Solomon () noted, “The behaviors have become invisible to the field, with attention paid exclusively to the classification and its correlates” (p. 533).…”

“…The theory that developed around D/disorganized focuses on frightened, frightening, or dissociative mothers (Hesse & Main, ; Liotti, ); this suggests applicability of the construct of disorganization to maltreatment where mothers presumably would be frightening and children frightened. This idea has not, however, been fully developed, and as Duschinsky and Solomon () noted, there is a lack of clarity around levels of analysis for the construct of disorganization. Indeed, the meaning of “disorganization” was left sufficiently unclear that many professionals, including Crittenden, took the word literally to mean that maltreated children lacked organization in the face of frightening parental behavior.…”

Disorganized attachment and defense: exploring John Bowlby’s unpublished reflections

“…Main and Solomon (1990) go on to state, “signs of apprehension may seem less disorganized or disoriented than many of the other behaviour patterns” (p. 136). Despite this, they conclude that “‘disorganized/disoriented’ still seemed an acceptable descriptive heading” (p. 136) to describe phenomena related to an inferred disruption at the level of the child’s attachment response (Duschinsky & Solomon, 2017). Nonetheless, Goldstein, Bowlby, and Main and Solomon have substantial overlap in their investments in the concept, using it to mean an affective and motivational predicament that disrupts behavioral sequencing and environmental responsiveness.…”

“…Nonetheless, Goldstein, Bowlby, and Main and Solomon have substantial overlap in their investments in the concept, using it to mean an affective and motivational predicament that disrupts behavioral sequencing and environmental responsiveness. However, one lesson from examining the origins of the concept of disorganization is the importance of considered and careful use of terminology about behavior, psychological process, and classification that matches intended meaning, rather than assuming that the term “disorganized” is self-evident in its meaning (Duschinsky & Solomon, 2017). Soon after the end of the Second World War, Leeper (1948) was already warning the neurological research community that the term was ambiguous and ripe for contributing to misunderstandings if adequate definition was not provided.…”