Piecing together the sensitivity construct: ethology and cross-cultural research

Abstract

Although Ainsworth and Bowlby's perspective on attachment relationships has instinctive underpinnings, they also recognized variability in the ways caregiving is implemented in different ecologies. Ainsworth's naturalistic observations in two different societies provided early evidence about the development of infant-mother attachment, differences in the quality of attachment relationships, and the role of maternal care in attachment development. Further, her research demonstrated the importance of an ethological approach for research within and across cultures. Employing similar concepts and methods, my collaborators and I have tested and expanded Bowlby's and Ainsworth's ideas about the generality of the sensitivity construct and sensitivity-security link. In our research, ethological observations have been key to elaborating the quality of care construct and studying child-mother attachment relationships in different cultures, social contexts, and ages.

Revisiting the African origins of attachment research—50 years on from Ainsworth: A descriptive review

“…Posada et al. (; Posada, ) found similar results when comparing secure base behavior of children from 13 countries using the Attachment Q‐sort (AQS; Waters, ). Their findings have indicated that the secure base phenomenon is present in both Western and non‐Western populations, and although culture‐specific differences exist in the organization of attachment behavior, the within‐country similarities are not greater than those found between countries (Posada & Trumbell, ).…”

Contextual stress and maternal sensitivity: A meta-analytic review of stress associations with the Maternal Behavior Q-Sort in observational studies

“…Building upon this, the MBQS adapted Ainsworth's rather "global" impressions of sensitivity by very precisely quantifying what caregivers explicitly do in interactions with their infant (Posada, 2013). Using q-sort methodology, it weights the psychological significance of specific caregiving behaviors in a contingent, interactional context (Posada, 2013). Because of this particular methodology, and based on the especially extensive training process demanded of reliable coders, the MBQS provides highly standardized indices of sensitive caregiving that are theoretically translatable across contexts.…”

“…Importantly, maternal sensitivity is modifiable through intervention, with outcomes as profound as enhancement of child attachment security (Bakermans-Kranenburg, van Ijzendoorn, & Juffer, 2003;Moss et al, 2011) and reductions in internalizing and externalizing problems (Moss et al, 2011). The potential for modification has prompted calls for investigations that identify barriers to sensitivity, and in particular consideration of stress or adversity within the familial ecology (Feeney & Woodhouse, 2016;Hyunjeong, Young-Joo, Hosihn, & Gyeong-Ae, 2008;Posada, 2013;Tarabulsy et al, 2005). Without prior aggregated assessment of effects, how relevant the social ecology is to parental sensitivity has not been well understood.…”

Maternal Perspectives on Deployment and Child–Mother Relationships in Military Families

“…We constructed a brief index of mothers' quality of care over the past 4 weeks by using five items that we judged most representative of the Maternal Behavior with Preschooler Q‐Sort, as per its criterion (Posada et al, ). This instrument has been successfully used to assess mothers' sensitivity and ability to provide a secure base support to their children (e.g., Posada, ). The items used were (a) “I think I have been over‐controlling or intrusive with my child”; (b) “It has been hard to provide my child with the physical contact he/she needs”; (c) “I feel uncomfortable when my child expresses negative emotions (e.g., when he/she cries or is annoyed)”; (d) “I have been frequently irritated by my child's behavior”; and (e) “When my child is disappointed, upset, or crying, it is difficult for me to calm him/her down.” Mothers used a Likert scale that ranged from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ) to rate the items.…”