Mary Ainsworth’s legacy: a systematic review of observational instruments measuring parental sensitivity

Abstract

Since Mary Ainsworth's formulation of the Sensitivity-Insensitivity to Infant Signals and Communications observational scale, new instruments have been developed to observe parental sensitivity. In this paper, we provide an overview of eight commonly used observational instruments to measure parental sensitivity. Their similarities and differences in comparison to the original Ainsworth sensitivity construct and its applications will be discussed. Consistent with the search criteria, each of the instruments clearly includes the key elements of Ainsworth's definition of sensitivity. Notable deviations from the original scale are the use of composite scales rather than a single global scale and the related inclusion of new elements, and specifically the inclusion of positive affect as an indicator of sensitivity. Further, most of the instruments have a wider scope than Ainsworth's sensitivity scale in terms of target age groups and the assessment of sensitivity in fathers. We discuss the interpretation of the sensitivity construct depending on variations in how the construct is defined in different observational instruments, and advances in the application of the construct.

Is the ideal mother a sensitive mother? Beliefs about early childhood parenting in mothers across the globe

“…The top items across cultural groups also include items referring to positive affect and warmth. Although positive affect is not synonymous with sensitivity and can co-occur with low responsiveness (Mesman & Emmen, 2013), the combination of high positive affect and high responsiveness is characteristic of the sensitive mother and as such are also ranked high in the MBQs criterion sort. Interestingly, the top-scoring items across cultures also included items referring to close physical contact (such as ''displays affection by touching'') usually thought to be far more common as a part of sensitive parenting in non-Western cultures emphasizing relatedness than in Western cultures emphasizing autonomy (e.g., Keller et al, 2006).…”

How to Support Toddlers’ Autonomy: A Qualitative Study With Child Care Educators

“…Moreover, we suggest continuing the investigation of autonomy-supportive practices with child care educators and also with parents, as they may reveal additional and complementary practices. Finally, it would be informative to investigate how AS relates to other caregiving constructs, such as maternal sensitivity and cooperation with infant behaviors (Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton, 1971;Bretherton, 2013;Mesman & Emmen, 2013), and to do so using longitudinal designs. Perhaps highly sensitive and cooperative educators are more likely to act in an autonomy-supportive way as infants grow into toddlerhood.…”

The Myth of Universal Sensitive Responsiveness: Comment on Mesman et al. (2017)

“…Even though Mesman et al agree with Keller and others that warmth and sensitive responsiveness are separate constructs (Keller, Lohaus, V€ olker, Elben, & Ball, 2003), warmth is still considered an important aspect of this type of care. Warmth is included in the definition of sensitive responsiveness in seven of the eight most used observational instruments of parental sensitivity (Mesman & Emmen, 2013), and affection is a prominent dimension of maternal sensitivity in the Maternal Behavior Q-sort (Pederson & Moran, 1995), which is still being used (e.g., Zreik, Oppenheim, & Sagi-Schwartz, 2017). When we consider whether warmth is a universal characteristic of caregivers, we conclude that it is not.…”