Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 55:9 (2014), pp 1042–1043
doi:10.1111/jcpp.12301
Commentary: Attachment is a biological concept – a reflection on Fearon et al. (2014) Michael Rutter MRC Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, King’s College London, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK
The article by Fearon, Shmueli-Goetz, Viding, Fonagy, and Plomin (2014) reports an important behavioural genetic study of individual differences in attachment features as measured by the Child’s Attachment Interview. The study has three very substantial strengths. First, it was based on a moderately large sample (n = 551) of twin pairs derived from a community sample. Second, when zygosity was uncertain on the basis of physical similarity, it was verified by DNA markers. Third, attachment features were assessed using a well-established interview measure. As such, it contributes usefully to the understanding of processes involved in the development of attachment features over the age span including adolescence. Fearon et al. (2014) report a heritability of 35% to 38% – indicating a substantial, but far from overwhelming, genetic liability. It is necessary to ask how robust this finding is likely to be? The main doubt concerns the unrepresentativeness of the sample. The overall participation rate was only 54%, with nonparticipants significantly more likely to be less well educated. There is also a concern that only some 3% of interviews were coded as showing disorganisation – a proportion well below that usually found. A consequence is that the analysis almost entirely concerned security versus dismissing attachment in a better educated subsample – a substantial limitation. Behavioural geneticists have always emphasised that heritability is a population-specific measure and not an intrinsic quality of a behaviour or trait. Accordingly, the first challenge concerns the question of the extent to which the findings here would generalise to higher risk samples in which disorganisation is much more common. A strong claim is made in the article that the genetic findings challenge the supposed main tenet of attachment theory that the quality of parenting – especially parental sensitivity – is the predominant causal influence on individual differences in attachment. But, is that so; the second challenge? As discussed in Cassidy and Shaver (2008), the most fundamental aspect of attachment theory is its focus on the biological basis of attachment behaviour. Moreover, although parental sensitivity does have a significant (but very weak) association with attachment security, it accounts for little of the overall variance (Cassidy & Shaver, 2008). Fearon, Bakermans-Kranenburg, Van IJzendoorn,
Lapsley, and Roisman (2010) is cited in the article as showing the long-term predictive power of attachment measured in infancy (as well as later age periods) but that is misleading. The long-term longitudinal studies brought together in Grossman, Grossman, and Waters (2005) clearly showed very weak persistence into adult life of the infancy/toddlerhood ratings based on the Strange Situation Procedure. By contrast, a wider range of measures applied across a broader age range in the early years showed moderately strong persistence. Overall, the findings support Bowlby’s claim that the roots of later social functioning are to be found in childhood but we remain surprisingly ignorant regarding the processes involved. There are also major problems in the way attachment is conceptualised. The problem is captured by the use of the unspecified noun ‘attachment’ in the title and text of the article. This implies that ‘attachment’ is a quality that does not require specification in terms of, say, security. More important, it ignores the fact that what starts as a dyadic feature develops into an individual feature (Cassidy & Shaver, 2008). Thus, infancy measures are concerned with behavioural responses to separation and reunion between the infant and its caregiver, and as such they are assessing a dyadic feature. In sharp contrast, the Child AttachmentInterview, as used in thisstudy, is concerned with an individual feature, dealing with the ways individuals think about and conceptualise their attachment relationships. One of the main challenges in understanding attachment relationships concerns the mechanisms involved in the transition from an initially dyadic feature to a later individual feature of a somewhat different kind. Because that is the case, it should not be expected that the findings in adolescence would be the same as those in infancy, when utterly different measures are being employed. More particularly, when switching to an individual measure rather than a dyadic feature, it would have been very surprising indeed if genetic factors did not come into play (as the article itself points out). The findings in this article are helpfully contributory in confirming that that is so, but major questions remain on just how that transition takes place and how the interplay between the child and other people serve to bring that about; the third challenge. The fourth main challenge concerns the major differences among attachment security, disorganised
© 2014 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA
doi:10.1111/jcpp.12301
attachment, disinhibited attachment and attachment disorders (Rutter, Kreppner, & Sonuga-Barke, 2009). Traditionally, the main attention was directed to security/insecurity, but the need for an additional construct of disorganisation soon became clear (see Cassidy & Shaver, 2008). Insecurity of attachment in infancy has only a weak association with the development of later psychopathology whereas disorganisation is not only more often found in high risk circumstances but also usually more strongly predicts mental disorder. More recently, it has been appreciated that, in addition, consideration of attachment disorders is required. These show the strongest association with severe psychosocial risk. Obviously, there will be interconnections among these different constructs but what are they, and how do they operate? The authors of Fearon et al. (2014) make an important contribution in opening up key questions on both the variety of attachment features and the crucial transition from a dyadic characteristic to an individual attribute that includes thoughts and feelings about attachment relationships and not just behavioural responses to separation and reunion.
Acknowledgements This commentary article was invited by JCPP Editors and has been subject to internal review. The author has declared that he has no competing or potential conflicts of interest.
Commentary
1043
Correspondence Michael Rutter, MRC Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, King’s College London, Institute of Psychiatry, PO 80 De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AF, UK; Email: michael. [email protected]
References Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. (Eds.) (2008). Handbook of Attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd edn). New York, London: Guilford Press. Fearon, R.P., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., Van IJzendoorn, M.H., Lapsley, A.-M., & Roisman, G.I. (2010). The significance of insecure attachment and disorganization in the development of children’s externalizing behavior: A meta-analytic study. Child Development, 81, 435–456. Fearon, P., Shmueli-Goetz, Y., Viding, E., Fonagy, P., & Plomin, R. (2014). Genetic and environmental influences on adolescent attachment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55, 1033–1041. Grossman, K.E., Grossman, K., & Waters, E. (2005). Attachment from infancy to adulthood: The major longitudinal studies. New York, London: Guilford Press. Rutter, M., Kreppner, J., & Sonuga-Barke, E. (2009). Emanuel Miller Lecture: Attachment insecurity, disinhibited attachment, and attachment disorders: Where do research findings leave the concepts? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 529–543.
Accepted for publication: 21 January 2014 Published online: 23 July 2014
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 55:9 (2014), pp 1043–1046
doi:10.1111/jcpp.12302
Commentary: Genetic influences on adolescent attachment security: an empirical reminder of biology and the complexities of development – a reply to Rutter (2014) Pasco Fearon,1 Yael Shmueli-Goetz,1 Essi Viding,1 Peter Fonagy,1 and Robert Plomin2 1
Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK; 2MRC Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, London, UK
We were delighted to learn that Michael Rutter had written a commentary (Rutter, 2014) on our article (Fearon, Shmueli-Goetz, Viding, Fonagy, & Plomin, 2014). In addition to his great scientific and conceptual work, he has for many years adopted the vital role of helpful critic of both attachment theory and behavioural genetics. A behavioural genetic study of attachment would then surely be of considerable interest to him, and we were extremely keen to hear his views. © 2014 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
Although there appear to be some minor points of difference, we were struck by the fact that the conclusions we drew from our study’s findings closely matched those in the Commentary. For us, behavioural genetic methodology, particularly when applied to a phenomenon that has a well-articulated theoretical base, such as attachment theory, has a remarkable capacity to turn received wisdom on its head and stimulate fresh thinking about our understanding of psychological development. The
doi:10.1111/jcpp.12301
Commentary: Attachment is a biological concept – a reflection on Fearon et al. (2014) Michael Rutter MRC Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, King’s College London, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK
The article by Fearon, Shmueli-Goetz, Viding, Fonagy, and Plomin (2014) reports an important behavioural genetic study of individual differences in attachment features as measured by the Child’s Attachment Interview. The study has three very substantial strengths. First, it was based on a moderately large sample (n = 551) of twin pairs derived from a community sample. Second, when zygosity was uncertain on the basis of physical similarity, it was verified by DNA markers. Third, attachment features were assessed using a well-established interview measure. As such, it contributes usefully to the understanding of processes involved in the development of attachment features over the age span including adolescence. Fearon et al. (2014) report a heritability of 35% to 38% – indicating a substantial, but far from overwhelming, genetic liability. It is necessary to ask how robust this finding is likely to be? The main doubt concerns the unrepresentativeness of the sample. The overall participation rate was only 54%, with nonparticipants significantly more likely to be less well educated. There is also a concern that only some 3% of interviews were coded as showing disorganisation – a proportion well below that usually found. A consequence is that the analysis almost entirely concerned security versus dismissing attachment in a better educated subsample – a substantial limitation. Behavioural geneticists have always emphasised that heritability is a population-specific measure and not an intrinsic quality of a behaviour or trait. Accordingly, the first challenge concerns the question of the extent to which the findings here would generalise to higher risk samples in which disorganisation is much more common. A strong claim is made in the article that the genetic findings challenge the supposed main tenet of attachment theory that the quality of parenting – especially parental sensitivity – is the predominant causal influence on individual differences in attachment. But, is that so; the second challenge? As discussed in Cassidy and Shaver (2008), the most fundamental aspect of attachment theory is its focus on the biological basis of attachment behaviour. Moreover, although parental sensitivity does have a significant (but very weak) association with attachment security, it accounts for little of the overall variance (Cassidy & Shaver, 2008). Fearon, Bakermans-Kranenburg, Van IJzendoorn,
Lapsley, and Roisman (2010) is cited in the article as showing the long-term predictive power of attachment measured in infancy (as well as later age periods) but that is misleading. The long-term longitudinal studies brought together in Grossman, Grossman, and Waters (2005) clearly showed very weak persistence into adult life of the infancy/toddlerhood ratings based on the Strange Situation Procedure. By contrast, a wider range of measures applied across a broader age range in the early years showed moderately strong persistence. Overall, the findings support Bowlby’s claim that the roots of later social functioning are to be found in childhood but we remain surprisingly ignorant regarding the processes involved. There are also major problems in the way attachment is conceptualised. The problem is captured by the use of the unspecified noun ‘attachment’ in the title and text of the article. This implies that ‘attachment’ is a quality that does not require specification in terms of, say, security. More important, it ignores the fact that what starts as a dyadic feature develops into an individual feature (Cassidy & Shaver, 2008). Thus, infancy measures are concerned with behavioural responses to separation and reunion between the infant and its caregiver, and as such they are assessing a dyadic feature. In sharp contrast, the Child AttachmentInterview, as used in thisstudy, is concerned with an individual feature, dealing with the ways individuals think about and conceptualise their attachment relationships. One of the main challenges in understanding attachment relationships concerns the mechanisms involved in the transition from an initially dyadic feature to a later individual feature of a somewhat different kind. Because that is the case, it should not be expected that the findings in adolescence would be the same as those in infancy, when utterly different measures are being employed. More particularly, when switching to an individual measure rather than a dyadic feature, it would have been very surprising indeed if genetic factors did not come into play (as the article itself points out). The findings in this article are helpfully contributory in confirming that that is so, but major questions remain on just how that transition takes place and how the interplay between the child and other people serve to bring that about; the third challenge. The fourth main challenge concerns the major differences among attachment security, disorganised
© 2014 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA
doi:10.1111/jcpp.12301
attachment, disinhibited attachment and attachment disorders (Rutter, Kreppner, & Sonuga-Barke, 2009). Traditionally, the main attention was directed to security/insecurity, but the need for an additional construct of disorganisation soon became clear (see Cassidy & Shaver, 2008). Insecurity of attachment in infancy has only a weak association with the development of later psychopathology whereas disorganisation is not only more often found in high risk circumstances but also usually more strongly predicts mental disorder. More recently, it has been appreciated that, in addition, consideration of attachment disorders is required. These show the strongest association with severe psychosocial risk. Obviously, there will be interconnections among these different constructs but what are they, and how do they operate? The authors of Fearon et al. (2014) make an important contribution in opening up key questions on both the variety of attachment features and the crucial transition from a dyadic characteristic to an individual attribute that includes thoughts and feelings about attachment relationships and not just behavioural responses to separation and reunion.
Acknowledgements This commentary article was invited by JCPP Editors and has been subject to internal review. The author has declared that he has no competing or potential conflicts of interest.
Commentary
1043
Correspondence Michael Rutter, MRC Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, King’s College London, Institute of Psychiatry, PO 80 De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AF, UK; Email: michael. [email protected]
References Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. (Eds.) (2008). Handbook of Attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd edn). New York, London: Guilford Press. Fearon, R.P., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., Van IJzendoorn, M.H., Lapsley, A.-M., & Roisman, G.I. (2010). The significance of insecure attachment and disorganization in the development of children’s externalizing behavior: A meta-analytic study. Child Development, 81, 435–456. Fearon, P., Shmueli-Goetz, Y., Viding, E., Fonagy, P., & Plomin, R. (2014). Genetic and environmental influences on adolescent attachment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55, 1033–1041. Grossman, K.E., Grossman, K., & Waters, E. (2005). Attachment from infancy to adulthood: The major longitudinal studies. New York, London: Guilford Press. Rutter, M., Kreppner, J., & Sonuga-Barke, E. (2009). Emanuel Miller Lecture: Attachment insecurity, disinhibited attachment, and attachment disorders: Where do research findings leave the concepts? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 529–543.
Accepted for publication: 21 January 2014 Published online: 23 July 2014
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 55:9 (2014), pp 1043–1046
doi:10.1111/jcpp.12302
Commentary: Genetic influences on adolescent attachment security: an empirical reminder of biology and the complexities of development – a reply to Rutter (2014) Pasco Fearon,1 Yael Shmueli-Goetz,1 Essi Viding,1 Peter Fonagy,1 and Robert Plomin2 1
Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK; 2MRC Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, London, UK
We were delighted to learn that Michael Rutter had written a commentary (Rutter, 2014) on our article (Fearon, Shmueli-Goetz, Viding, Fonagy, & Plomin, 2014). In addition to his great scientific and conceptual work, he has for many years adopted the vital role of helpful critic of both attachment theory and behavioural genetics. A behavioural genetic study of attachment would then surely be of considerable interest to him, and we were extremely keen to hear his views. © 2014 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
Although there appear to be some minor points of difference, we were struck by the fact that the conclusions we drew from our study’s findings closely matched those in the Commentary. For us, behavioural genetic methodology, particularly when applied to a phenomenon that has a well-articulated theoretical base, such as attachment theory, has a remarkable capacity to turn received wisdom on its head and stimulate fresh thinking about our understanding of psychological development. The
