Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2015

DOI: 10.1111/sjop.12212

Personality and Social Psychology The transmission of attachment across generations: The state of art and new theoretical perspectives GIOVANNA SETTE,1 GABRIELLE COPPOLA2 and ROSALINDA CASSIBBA1 1 2

Department of Education, Psychology and Communication, University of Bari, Italy Department of Neuroscience, Imaging, and Clinical Sciences, University “G. D’Annunzio”, Chieti-Pescara, Italy

Sette, G., Coppola, G. & Cassibba, R. (2015). The transmission of attachment across generations: The state of art and new theoretical perspectives. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. The paper reviews the body of research testing the intergenerational transmission of attachment and the theoretical shift from the linear or mediation model (van IJzendoorn, 1995), according to which parental sensitivity is the main factor responsible for the correspondence between maternal and infant’s attachment, to the ecological model of the transmission of attachment (van IJzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 1997). This latter model has prompted researchers, over time, to identify potential mediators, other than caregiver’s sensitivity, of the established association between parental representations regarding attachment and infant’s attachment, as well as the potential moderators of the transmission process. Each of these two research domains will be carefully explored; lastly new perspectives on the intergenerational transmission of attachment and relevant areas of research needing more investigation are highlighted. Key words: Infant’s attachment, mother’s attachment, intergenerational transmission of attachment. Giovanna Sette, Department of Education, Psychology and Communication, University of Bari, Piazza Umberto I, 1 70121, Bari, Italy. Tel: +39 3356731408; e-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION It is widely assumed by many developmentally oriented scientists and clinicians that patterns of childrearing, parenting and, more generally, family processes are transmitted across generations (e.g., Besser & Priel, 2005; Hautam€aki, Hautam€aki, Neuvonen & Maliniemi-Piispanen, 2010). The “intergenerational transmission of attachment” is the label, used within the theory of attachment (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980) to identify the process that favors continuity across generations with respect to attachment patterns. This process is especially important in the understanding of parenting behavior, since parent-child daily interaction is the privileged context in which the transmission of attachment occurs. Every infant, even if maltreated, develops an attachment bond with a caregiver (Bowlby, 1969), in that human infants are born with a repertoire of behaviors (attachment behaviors) which increase the likelihood of maintaining proximity to supportive others (attachment figures). The nature of this relationship and the effectiveness with which the caregiver may be used as a source of comfort differs significantly across infant-caregiver dyads (Ainsworth, Bell & Stayton, 1971; Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters & Wall, 1978). These variations reflect the strategies developed by children to regulate contact with their attachment figures and therefore may be considered as specific adaptations to a particular caregiving environment (Ainsworth, 1967). The best known and validated assessment procedure for measuring attachment differences in infancy is the Strange Situation Procedure (SSP; Ainsworth et al., 1978), a laboratory procedure based on the observed behavior of infants (12–20 months of age) under conditions of increasing but moderate stress. The stress induced by the procedure is believed to activate the child’s © 2015 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

attachment behavioral system. On the basis of infants’ reactions to the procedure, three patterns of attachment can be distinguished (Secure; Insecure-Avoidant and Insecure-Resistant), each reflecting an organized dyadic strategy to regulate distress within the attachment relationship. In contrast to these three organized attachment patterns, which are thought to be adaptive in the way that they allow the child to maintain a connection with his or her attachment figure (Main & Hesse, 1990), the “disorganized/ disoriented” type (D), subsequently identified by Main and Solomon (1990), characterized by contradictory sequences of behaviors or direct indications of fear/apprehension regarding the parent, reveals that the infant lacks a coherent attachment strategy with respect to the caregiver. Within the attachment theoretical model, a central contention is that these differences are transmitted from one generation to the next, thus significant continuity may be found in the attachment patterns of parents and children (Bowlby, 1969; van IJzendoorn, 1995). The best assessment procedure for measuring attachment in adulthood is the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; George, Kaplan & Main, 1985), an hour-long semistructured interview developed to assess adults’ state of mind regarding attachment. The AAI’s construct validity has been testified by different studies, especially examining its discriminant validity with respect to autobiographical memory not related to attachment (Waters, Crowell, Treboux, O’Connor, Posada & Golby, 1993) and personality measures (De Haas, Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 1994). During the administration of this interview, participants are asked to describe their attachment-related childhood experiences, such as episodes of emotional closeness and support or rejection with parents, and to evaluate the impact of these experiences on their development, adult personality and

2 G. Sette et al. parenting. The AAI also includes queries about attachmentrelated traumas such as abuse and loss of significant others. On the basis of qualitative characteristics and coherence of the verbatim transcript, a categorization of the individual’s current state of mind regarding attachment is assigned (Main, Goldwyn & Hesse, 2003). Adults who value attachment relationships and who seem able to reflect coherently on their own parental relationships and to view them as affecting personality development, are classified as Autonomous. Adults rated as insecure with respect to attachment to their own parents not only lack these qualities but also display one of the following patterns. They (a) distance themselves from infancy experiences and deny the impact of attachment relationship on their subsequent development (Dismissing) or, (b) are still involved with their past experiences so that they are unable to describe them coherently and reflectively (Preoccupied), and/or (c) have not yet resolved an important lost or trauma (Unresolved). The first empirical work examining the intergenerational continuities in attachment status was a sixth-year follow-up study, conducted by Main and colleagues (Main & Goldwyn, 1984; Main, Kaplan & Cassidy, 1985) on 40 children who had been seen with each parent in the Strange Situation Procedure (SSP; Ainsworth et al., 1978) at 12 (or 18 for fathers) months of age. Parents’ attachment status was measured with the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; George et al., 1985). Results demonstrated that parents who were classified as autonomous were more likely to have secure attachment relationships with their infants. Dismissing parents tended to have infants who avoided them whereas preoccupied parents were more likely to have infants who were ambivalent to them. Finally parents of disorganized/ disoriented infants were more likely to show temporary alterations in consciousness when they spoke about experiences of loss, revealing manifestations of failed mourning (unresolved state of mind). Moreover, the authors found that the three-way agreement between AAI status and infant Strange Situation behavior was stronger for mother-infant dyads (75%) than for father-infant dyads (69%). In the intervening years also other studies have confirmed a robust empirical link between parental attachment representations and the quality of the parent–infant attachment relationship, in both high risk samples (e.g., Cox, Hopkins & Hans, 2000) and low risk groups (e.g., Arnott & Meins, 2007), in samples of middle class families (Steele, Steele & Fonagy, 1996), in families with low socioeconomic status (Bus & van IJzendoorn, 1992; Tarabulsy, Bernier, Provost et al., 2005) among adolescent mothers (Ward & Carlson, 1995), and in West European, Japanese, and Middle Eastern cultures (e.g., Behrens, Hesse & Main, 2007; Bus & van IJzendoorn, 1992; Sagi, van IJzendoorn, Grossmann et al., 2003; Sagi, van IJzendoorn, Scharf et al., 1997). More interestingly, attachment classifications have been found stable across three generations, from grandmother to mother to infant (Benoit & Parker, 1994; Hautam€aki et al., 2010). Researchers have confirmed the robustness of the transmission phenomenon in that similar rates of concordance have been found by using Waters and Deane’s Attachment Q-sort (e.g., Tarabulsy et al., 2005) or story-stem procedures (e.g., Gloger-Tippelt, Gomille, Koenig & Vetter, 2002; Miljkovitch, Pierrehumbert, Bretherton & Halfon, 2004), rather than the Strange Situation Pro© 2015 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Scand J Psychol (2015)

cedure to assess child attachment security. Even recent studies, which have implemented self-report measures to assess adult attachment style, have reported a significant association between maternal attachment and their own children attachment status (Besser & Priel, 2005; Sabatier & Lannegrand-Willems, 2005). Overall these findings, supported by the use of a variety of assessing procedures, indicate that the observed transmission does not result from a methodological artifact. Finally significant rates of correspondence between parents’ and infant’s attachment representations, similar to those found in biological dyads, have been found also in fostering (e.g., Dozier, Chase Stovall, Albus & Bates, 2001) and adoptive (e.g., Verissimo & Salvaterra, 2006) samples, suggesting that social experiences rather than shared genes account for this continuity across generations. In fact, as also proposed by the attachment theorists, the transmission process is not genetically mediated and this continuity stems from the history of interactions between infants and their attachment figures (Bowlby, 1973).

THE MECHANISMS UNDERLYING THE TRANSMISSION OF ATTACHMENT The main vehicles of the intergenerational transmission of attachment are internalized working models (IWMs; Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980, 1988), which are cognitive schemas of self and others in relationships based on “real-life experiences of day-to-day between children and caregivers” (Bowlby, 1988, p. 129). Because they are constructed in interpersonal relationships, models of self and attachment with significant others are mutually confirming, in that they represent both sides of the same relationship (Bowlby, 1973). Thus experiences with attachment figures who are available and responsive in times of distress promote positive expectations concerning other people as sensitive and protective, and enhance perceptions of oneself as valuable, and worthy of care. By contrast, when attachment figures are rejecting or inconsistently available, it is more likely that children will develop an internal working model of others as unavailable and a representation of the self as unlovable. These mental representations are thought to function largely outside of awareness and to provide a template for anticipating and interpreting the intentions and behavior of others, especially significant ones (Bowlby, 1988). Thus, internal working models “increasingly become a property of the child himself” (Bowlby, 1988, p. 127) and, by affecting beliefs and expectations, they may have important effects on later relationships. An important field in which the influence of the past attachment experiences on the adult functioning become evident is the caregiving system. As suggested by the “assimilation model of caregiving” proposed by George and Solomon (2008), in normal circumstances, a mother integrates her experiences with the child into her mental attachment representations, thus reproducing models of care which have been already experienced. Therefore, the set of mental representations regarding attachment is an important determinant of adult’s parenting behavior. Specifically, the caregiver’s capacity to regulate and organize his/her own thoughts and feelings about relationships with his/her primary caregivers (IWMs) is hypothesized to affect his/her ability to attend to and integrate attachment related cues from the infant,

Attachment across generations 3

Scand J Psychol (2015)

thereby influencing the extent to which he/she might respond in a sensitive and contingent manner (Ainsworth, 1982; Main, 2000; Main et al., 1985). In fact, maternal sensitivity has been considered for a long time as the most important mediating variable of the transmission, because of its relation with both caregiver’s attachment representations (e.g., Atkinson, Goldberg, Raval et al., 2005; Biringen, Brown, Donaldson, Green, Krcmarik & Lovas, 2000) as well as with the quality of infant’s attachment (e.g., De Wolff & van IJzendoorn, 1997; McElwain & Booth-LaForce, 2006; Raval, Goldberg, Atkinson et al., 2001). More specifically, secure mothers result to be more helpful, protective, responsive and to behave more sensitively with their children than insecure mothers do. Furthermore, children exposed to this type of caregiving are more likely to develop a secure attachment bond with their caregivers (e.g., De Wolff & van IJzendoorn, 1997; McElwain & Booth-LaForce, 2006; Raval et al., 2001). By contrast, insecure mothers appear to be more rejecting, controlling, anxious, and particularly dismissing mothers seem to dislike physical and emotional connectedness with their children. This kind of caregiving behavior predisposes the infant to develop an insecure attachment relationship with them (e.g., De Wolff & van IJzendoorn, 1997; McElwain & Booth-LaForce, 2006; Raval et al., 2001). Taken together these results support the hypothesis that sensitive responsiveness could be the vehicle for the intergenerational transmission of attachment by serving as the mediator between parental attachment representations and their children’s quality of attachment relationships. This interpretation is known as the linear or mediation model of the intergenerational transmission of attachment (Fig. 1) and the robustness of this hypothesis has lead even to propone in recent years that mirror neurons may be the anatomical substratum of this process (Botbol, 2010). A meta-analysis (van IJzendoorn, 1995) has verified this model by aggregating the results of 18 studies (N = 854) testing the correspondence between the caregiver’s state of mind with respect to attachment and the infant’s attachment. Although the findings show a concordance of 75% (k = 0.49 corresponding to a combined effect size of d = 1.06) between parental attachment representations and infant attachment security when two categories (secure vs insecure) were considered, decreasing to 70% (k = 0.46) and 63% (k = 0.42), respectively for the three-way and the four-way classifications, the concordance varied as a function of the quality of the attachment: the highest concordance between AAI’s classifications and SSP’s classifications was found for the autonomous-secure pairs (d = 1.09) whereas the weakest correspondence was for the preoccupied-ambivalent dyads (d = 0.39). More specifically it has been found that 74% of autonomous mothers had secure infants, 57% of dismissing mothers had avoidant infants, and 21% of preoccupied mothers had resistant infants. Strong correspondence between parent’s and infant’s attachment disorganization was also found (d = 0.65), and this finding was confirmed in further studies Early attachment experiences

Parental IWM

(e.g., Goldberg, Benoit, Blokland & Madigan, 2003; Hughes, Turton, McGauley & Fonagy, 2006); lastly, fathers’ attachment representations tended to be less strongly related to the security of the father-infant attachment relationship than in the case of the mothers (combined r = 0.37 and 0.50, respectively, for the secure-insecure split). With respect to the test of the mediating role of maternal sensitivity, the meta-analysis estimated the strength of the association between parent and infant attachment classifications at r = 0.47, and the link between parental attachment representations and parental sensitivity/responsiveness at r = 0.34. Thus it was found that only 23% of the direct association between parental state of mind and infant attachment security could be transmitted through maternal sensitivity/ responsiveness. van IJzendoorn (1995), concluding his meta-analysis, considered the results on the agreement between parents’ and infants’ attachment status as noteworthy, but he also raised new questions which, over time, have encouraged the refusal of the linear model on the intergenerational transmission of attachment. First, this meta-analysis, by demonstrating that the correspondence between parents’ and infants’ attachments varied according to the category and to the attachment figure considered, suggested that the transmission is not inevitable. Second, the striking evidence that challenged the linear model was that parental sensitivity provided only a partial explanation of the relation between parental attachment status and infant attachment, and so it cannot be considered the only vehicle of transmission. In sum, parental sensitivity accounted only for a small part of the variance linking parental state of mind and infant attachment strategies whereas the largest part would be considered as a “transmission gap” (van IJzendoorn, 1995), which describes the variance unexplained by sensitive responsiveness. An analogous gap has been reported in the transmission of disorganized attachment strategies (Madigan, Moran & Pederson, 2006). A first attempt to explain the “transmission gap” found by van IJzendoorn (1995) was proposed by Pederson, Gleason, Moran and Bento (1998). In reviewing van IJzendoorn’s (1995) meta-analysis, they noted that only few studies included in the meta-analysis, involved assessments of all three variables of the model. Thus, using contemporary scoring procedures for all three model components, they found a stronger association among the variables, even though maternal sensitivity again accounted for less than 25% of the direct relation between maternal and infant attachment. Also other meta-analyses, on the association between parental sensitivity and infant attachment, have consistently failed to document that maternal sensitivity and responsiveness is what links adults’ and infants’ attachment, as they report a significant but modest association between these two constructs (Atkinson, Paglia, Coolbear, Niccols, Parker & Guger, 2000, r = 0.27; De Wolff & van IJzendoorn, 1997, r = 0.24; Goldsmith & Alansky, 1987, r = 0.32). Furthermore these meta-analyses have demonstrated that the association between parents’ sensitivity and infants’ attachment may differ Sensitive responsiveness

Fig. 1. The Linear Model of the intergenerational transmission of attachment (van IJzendoorn, 1995). © 2015 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Infant attachment

4 G. Sette et al. according to characteristics such as: the time span between the two assessments (shorter intervals were associated with stronger effect sizes; Atkinson et al., 2000; De Wolff & van IJzendoorn, 1997; Goldsmith & Alansky, 1987); the age of the subjects (samples with younger infants showed smaller effect sizes than did samples with older children; De Wolff & van IJzendoorn, 1997); and the risk status of the sample (stronger links were found in middle-class than in lower-class samples; De Wolff & van IJzendoorn, 1997). Many scholars have appealed for methodological enhancements, including more powerful and contextspecific measures of sensitivity (Atkinson et al., 2005; Pederson et al., 1998; Thompson, 1997). As Pederson and colleagues (1998) noted, whereas parent and infant attachment assessments are based on well standardized training and procedures, measures of sensitivity vary widely among researchers and some of them have lost the original meaning attributed to maternal sensitivity by Ainsworth and colleagues (1971). A more recent metaanalysis (Atkinson et al., 2000), which focused on how different measures of maternal sensitivity affect the association between sensitivity and infants’ attachment, has indicated that naturalistic observations as well as subtle interactive behaviors (e.g., coordination of gaze direction, vocal inflections, body posture) may have stronger effects in supporting that association, than global measures of sensitivity. Also Thompson (1997) suggested that sensitivity in the context of attachment-relevant situations might be more telling than the general measures more commonly used. Besides these methodological issues, the recognition that the mechanism underlying the process of the intergenerational transmission of attachment remains elusive has encouraged researchers to further explain the links between parents’ and infants’ attachment, stimulating an extensive search for: (a) potential mediators other than caregivers’ sensitivity of the established association between parental representations regarding attachment and infants’ attachment; and (b) potential moderators of the transmission process.

THE MEDIATORS OF THE TRANSMISSION PROCESS The main attempts to bridge the transmission gap have suggested the importance of re-examining Ainsworth’s notion of maternal sensitivity (e.g., Meins, Fernyhough, Fradley & Tukey, 2001). Some scholars proposed that a more complex model of parenting, according to which sensitivity to the infants’ mental states, rather than responsiveness to their physical and emotional needs, may be the main vehicle of the intergenerational transmission of attachment (e.g., Fonagy, Steele, Moran, Steele & Higgitt, 1991; Meins et al., 2001). For example, Fonagy and co-workers developed the concept of reflective function (RF) in the context of attachment relationships, referring to the parents’ tendency to reflect on their children’s emotions and mental states (Fonagy et al., 1991; Fonagy, Gergely, Jurist & Target, 2002). Also Meins and colleagues (2001) coined the term of “maternal mindmindedness” to describe the mother’s proclivity to treat her child as a psychological being, an individual with a mind, rather than a mere creature with needs that must be satisfied. More recently, some scholars (e.g., Bogels, Lehtonen & Restifo, 2010) have emphasized the concept of mindful parenting to indicate a set of parenting skills including the recognition of child’s unique © 2015 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Scand J Psychol (2015)

nature, temperament, needs and the capacity to make links between mental states and behavior in self and others. Until now, only two studies have tested the role of the caregiver’s mentalization in the intergenerational transmission of attachment, demonstrating that the caregiver’s capacity to mentalize about his/her attachment experiences is related to both adult attachment and infant attachment classifications and mediates the relation between them (Grienenberger, Kelly & Slade, 2005; Slade, Grienenberger, Bernbach, Levy & Locker, 2005). More specifically, maternal mind-mindedness or reflective functioning may promote secure attachment because when parents are more reflective, children become more confident that their psychological states or needs will be correctly processed. This inner representation of being understood and emotionally cared for, lays the foundation for a secure attachment relationship. These results testify the property of RF as a construct at the interface between parents’ attachment and offspring’s attachment, helping to bridge the transmission gap identified by van IJzendoorn (1995).

THE MODERATORS OF THE TRANSMISSION PROCESS Instead of verifying the impact of other mediators different from sensitive responsiveness, some theorists have suggested, on a theoretical ground, the role of “ecological constraints” as moderators of the transmission process (e.g., Aviezer, Sagi-Schwartz & Koren-Karie, 2003; Sagi et al., 1997; van IJzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 1997). The ecological model proposed by Bronfenbrenner (1979) provided a means for expanding the theory of attachment. Specifically this model, drawing attention to the broader context beyond the specific mother-infant relationship, has demonstrated that attachment relationship is a complex process liable to environmental influences. Thus, whereas past studies recognized caregiver sensitivity as the principal determinant of infant attachment security, from an ecological perspective, the psychological attributes of the mother, her relationship with her partner, the extent to which she has access to others who provide instrumental and emotional support should also be associated with the quality of mother-infant attachment (Belsky & Fearon, 2008). Based on Bronfenbrenner’s model, van IJzendoorn and Bakermans-Kranenburg (1997) proposed an ecological approach, illustrated in Fig. 2, in order to further understand the mechanisms underlying the transmission of attachment patterns. According to this model, the transmission of attachment might be viewed as a dynamic process involving parent, child and ecological factors as contributors (van IJzendoorn & BakermansKranenburg, 1997). Thus, rather than simply focusing on the parenting variables impacting the process (parental attachment representations and sensitive responsiveness), it has been suggested that the role of the ecological niche in which children develop as well as the influence of individual differences among children should be considered. Thus individual and contextual factors are recognized as moderators which can affect each level of the process and might contribute to the discontinuity in attachment transmission (Fig. 2). As hypothesized by the contextual model of the intergenerational transmission of attachment (van IJzendoorn & BakermansKranenburg, 1997), later attachment experiences such as adult

Attachment across generations 5

Scand J Psychol (2015)

Early attachment experiences

Later attachment experiences

Parental IWM

Sensitive responsiveness

Social Context

Infant attachment

Individual features

Fig. 2. The Ecological Model of the intergenerational transmission of attachment (van IJzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 1997).

romantic attachment might modify parental attachment representations (IWMs) developed from early attachment experiences. Indeed, as suggested by Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980, 1988), these representations preserve the lessons of past experience and thus affect new close relationships (assimilation) but at the same time remain open to revision in light of significant new experiences (accommodation) such as adult romantic relationships. For example, a meta-analysis on the concordance between husband and wife attachment representations demonstrated that romantic relationships may contribute to the stability of the past IWMs, in that secure men and women tend to marry each other, as do insecure men and women (van IJzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 1997). Despite this tendency towards the stabilization of IWMs, changes in working models may occur when significant romantic experiences disconfirm expectations. For example, becoming involved in a stable and satisfying relationship may represent a significant change for those whose IWMs have led to skepticism about others’ feelings and availability (Feeney, 2008). Likewise, a secure person who is involved in a negative relationship (Feeney, 2008) or that has experienced traumatic events (e.g., divorce or loss of partner) may become insecure as a result of these experiences (Davila, Burge & Hammen, 1997; Kirkpatrick & Hazan, 1994). In sum, every opportunity to reflect and to achieve a new understanding of past attachment related experiences (e.g., through a romantic partner but also within a therapeutic context) may promote changes in the IWM. Considering the second step of the ecological model (see Fig. 2), the broader social context, beyond the caregiver-infant dyad, might interrupt the transmission process moderating the link between parents’ IWMs and their caregiving behavior. This idea is in line with the multi-factorial model of parenting according to which this is not seen as an individual quality but as the result of different factors involving parent, child, family and social context characteristics (Belsky & Jaffe, 2006). For example, studies have shown that a supportive relationship with a spouse or a partner correlates with the type of parenting related to attachment security (e.g., sensitive responsiveness; Belsky & Jaffe, 2006; Tarabulsy et al., 2005). By contrast, a low level of marital support, especially in stressful circumstances, or a high degree of marital conflict characterizes more frequently families in which infants develop insecure as well as disorganized attachments (El-Sheikh & Elmore-Staton, 2004; Laurent, Kim & Capaldi, 2008). The main interpretation of the link between the quality of marital relationship and child attachment focuses on a mediational hypothesis according to which marital quality influences the parent’s caregiving which, in turn, impacts the quality of the affective relationship with the infant. For example Isabella (1994), as well as more recent scholars (Cochran & Niego, 2002), found that women involved in a positive and supporting marital relationship become more confident in their own © 2015 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

caregiving abilities and, in turn, their performances with children also improve. Likewise, interparental conflict may disrupt the development of a secure parent–child attachment relationship, by interfering with sensitive parenting and/or by undermining the child’s confidence in the parent as a secure base (El-Sheikh & Elmore-Staton, 2004). Although marital support seems to be the most effective in influencing parental adjustment (Kroelinger & Oths, 2000), the support provided by significant others outside the family has also been suggested as a possible factor influencing caregiving behavior. Findings on this issue appear controversial: some studies have demonstrated that the amount and the nature of support that parents, and in particular mothers, receive from significant others affects positively their interaction with their infant (e.g., Smith, Landry & Swank, 2000) and it is also a protective factor against the negative effects of maltreatment (e.g., Mueller, GoebelFabbri, Diamond & Dinklage, 2000). By contrast, other work failed to find this expected associations (e.g., Ceballo & McLoyd, 2002). A possible explanation of these differences has been provided by the buffer hypothesis (Widmer, Le Goff, Levy, Hammer & Kellerhals, 2006) according to which social support may positively affect mental health, by buffering the negative effect of the stress, only under disadvantaged conditions. For example, mothers of preterm infants who benefit from a high level of social support in stressful circumstances, exhibit the most favorable patterns of parenting (Smith et al., 2000). Likewise, low-income African mothers, exposed to the stress of both poverty and discrimination, are more likely to be sensitive and responsive to their children’s needs if they are supported by significant others (Green & Rodgers, 2001). The third step (see Fig. 2) of the ecological model underlines the role of individual differences in the transmission process. In the linear model of the transmission of attachment, the infant is conceptualized as the passive recipient of the parents’ internal working models instead of an active participant in the dynamic process involving both parents and their children. IN contrast, the link between caregiver’s sensitivity and infant attachment might sometimes be moderated by factors related to the child such as his/her mental and physical health or his/her temperament. For example, studies on child’s illness have demonstrated that caring for a premature and/or sick child may be a difficult challenge even for a secure and sensitive parent. Indeed much empirical evidence has illustrated that parents of impaired children, compared to those of healthy children, appear to be more intrusive, less sensitive and to display less positive emotions and more depression and/or anxiety during the interaction with their children (e.g., Cassibba, van IJzendoorn, Bruno & Coppola, 2004; Schmucker, Brisch, Kohntop et al., 2005). To date, only few studies have tested the intergenerational transmission of attachment among dyads with clinically relevant infants (e.g.,

6 G. Sette et al. either born prematurely or affected by atopic dermatitis) and found no support to the transmission process in the clinical group, differently from what happened in the control one (e.g., Cassibba, van IJzendoorn & Coppola, 2011). Even non-clinical features related to the child, such as temperament, may be considered as moderators of the relation between caregiver’s sensitivity and child’s attachment. Despite accounts suggesting that the infant’s temperament (especially the child’s susceptibility to distress) directly affected attachment security and indeed is the main determinant of the behaviors observed in the Strange Situation Procedure (e.g., Kochanska, Aksan & Carlson, 2005), recent data conclude that temperamental differences may bias an insecure infant in the direction of avoidance or resistance but that the caregiving environment is what determines attachment security or insecurity (e.g., Marshall & Fox, 2005; Vaughn, Bost & van IJzendoorn, 2008). This has lead studies to investigate more fruitfully the contribution of both sensitivity and temperament to attachment, suggesting that any relation between temperament and infant attachment is only indirect and, specifically, though the mediation of caregiver’s behavior (e.g., Vaughn, Bost & van IJzendoorn, 2008). With this respect, it has been demonstrated that infants who scored high in irritability were more likely to develop an insecure resistant attachment if they did not experience sensitive caregiving in their attachment relationships (e.g., Laible, 2004). In sum the strength of the ecological model, proposed by van IJzendoorn and Bakermans-Kranenburg (1997), is in highlighting that the transmission process is not unique but that different pathways should be suggested for different groups.

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF ATTACHMENT Even though the transmission of attachment across generations is a basic issue within the theory of attachment, new intriguing questions, needing further investigation, can be highlighted. First, the great number of studies on the transmission process in motherinfant dyads sharply contrasts with the more limited interest for the transmission of attachment in father–child dyads. Likewise, most studies on this issue are carried out during early life instead of beyond infancy or in adulthood. Finally most of these studies deal with the transmission of attachment in parent-infant dyads rather than in grandparent-parent-infant triads. Thus the transmission across three generations is still scarcely investigated (but see Benoit & Parker, 1994; Hautam€aki et al., 2010). The last section of this contribution will briefly review literature on these topics.

THE ROLE OF FATHERS IN THE INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF ATTACHMENT Although most empirical research in the 1970s supported the view of the father more as a trusted play companion than as a principal attachment figure, based on the differences in early interaction with the infant between mothers and fathers (e.g., Schaffer & Emerson, 1964), recently significant shifts of the father’s role in the family have led to recognize that where fathers take a major role in childrearing, children could direct attachment behavior to both fathers as well as mothers (e.g., Bernier & © 2015 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Scand J Psychol (2015)

Miljkovitch, 2009). Grossmann and colleagues (Grossmann, Grossmann, Fremmer-Bombik, Kindler & Scheuerer-Englisch, 2002; Grossmann, Grossmann, Kindler & Zimmermann, 2008) have reconsidered the role of the father as an attachment figure and found that fathers’ sensitivity during play interaction together with the quality of mother–child attachment predicted the child’s internal working model of attachment by the age of 10. Moreover, in line with predictions from the theory of attachment, the quality of the attachment relationship with the fathers affects several areas of child development, such as social functioning and exploratory competence (e.g., Grossmann et al., 2002), as well as ego-resiliency and social competence in adolescence (e.g., Allen, McElhaney, Land et al., 2003). Notwithstanding these findings highlighting that fathers function as attachment figures, little is known about the transmission of attachment in the paternal line. van IJzendoorn’s (1995) metaanalysis showed concordances between paternal AAIs and infants’ attachment patterns with the father, although they were less consistent than for mothers. More recent studies have found that such transmission may depend upon the family context: studies involving intact families found no association between paternal and children’s attachment (Miljkovitch et al., 2004; Miljkovitch, Danet & Bernier, 2012) among preschoolers; conversely, among single-fathers, having full custody of their children and full responsibility in raising them, a significant relation between father and child attachment was found (Bernier & Miljkovitch, 2009; Miljkovitch et al., 2004). Nevertheless, these studies all involved preschool children and have not been replicated for infants. Moreover, no attention has been paid to father-infant dyads in adoptive families as well as to the intergenerational transmission of attachment disorganization among father-infant dyads. The issue of the transmission in the paternal line is worthwhile of interest especially in Scandinavian countries: according to the latest statistics reported by the European Commission, Scandinavian countries, especially Sweden, have one of the highest rates for divorce, births out of marriage and women’s employment, compared to other European countries (epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu). Moreover, Sweden has one of the most comprehensive and egalitarian parental leave policies in the world (Wells & Sarkadi, 2012). All these ecological conditions may favor in these countries fathers’ active involvement in child rearing practices and consequently reinforce the transmission of attachment patterns along the paternal line. Indeed, as a confirmation of such prediction, Hautam€aki and colleagues (2010) reported that children’s and fathers’ attachment classifications were significantly associated among a sample recruited in Finland.

THE INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF ATTACHMENT BEYOND EARLY INFANCY One relevant issue, raised by the ecological model, is that time is one variable that needs to be taken into account when investigating the intergenerational transmission of attachment patterns, because many events can occur in life which promote changes in the parents’ attachment organization, as well as in their caregiving behavior. With this respect, Bowlby (1973) regarded early interactions with caregivers as formative, but he

Scand J Psychol (2015)

also proposed that working models of attachment might be continually revised in light of the individual’s ongoing experiences and consequently may or may not correspond to later attachment representations. Therefore, testing the transmission process beyond infancy as well as across more generations could allow us to tell more about how stable this process is over time and across different developmental stages. With respect to the first issue, very few studies investigated the transmission process beyond infancy and produced contrasting results. For example Miljkovitch and colleagues (2004) examined mother–child transmission in middle childhood by the use of the Attachment Story Completion Task (ASCT; Bretherton, Ridgeway & Cassidy, 1990) and have reported significant concordance between maternal state of mind with respect to attachment and child attachment representations, although it was lower in magnitude than that found in mother-infants dyads (van IJzendoorn, 1995). By contrast a study conducted by Gloger-Tippelt and colleagues (2002) at the same age, has demonstrated a substantial association (78%) between mothers’ AAI classifications and children’s attachment representations, assessed through the Attachment Story Completion Task (Bretherton et al., 1990) at the age of 6. The degree of correspondence reported in this study is completely consistent with the amount of match (75%) found in van IJzendoorn’s (1995) meta-analysis using the two-way attachment classification (secure/insecure). Lastly Goldwyn and co-workers (2000) found only partial intergenerational links between maternal attachment representations and children’s attachment representations, measured using the Manchester Child Attachment Story task (MCAST; Green, Stanley, Smith & Goldwyn, 2000–2005). Specifically, this study yielded a significant correspondence between mothers’ unresolved attachment status and children’s attachment disorganization. No correspondence was reported, however, for maternal and child security or insecurity. Studies assessing preschoolers’ attachment, by the means of separation – reunion procedures (e.g., Solomon & George, 2008), have also demonstrated a significant but modest association between mothers’ AAI attachment representations and their children’s laboratory reunion attachment security (e.g., DeKlyen, 1996). The intergenerational transmission of attachment in adulthood is less investigated. Sagi and colleagues (2003) have investigated the transmission of internal working models from one generation to the next in a sample of female Holocaust child survivors and their adult daughters, and they found a significant but weaker concordance than those found in infancy. Specifically, they demonstrated that, although Holocaust survivors showed more often lack of resolution of trauma, the transmission of unresolved state of mind from mothers to adult daughters appeared not significant. Thus traumatic effects did not appear to be transmitted across generations. However, this work explored the intergenerational transmission of attachment in a particular and at risk sample, and does not take into account the intergenerational process in more usual conditions. Likewise, Delannes, Doyen, Cook-Darzens and Mouren (2006), studying attachment representations of young anorexic girls and their parents, confirmed the attachment transmission at this age and showed that the concordance between daughters’ and fathers’ attachment representations was higher than for mothers. © 2015 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Attachment across generations 7 As to the second issue, studies dealing with the transmission of attachment across three generations are scant. The first and most well-known work about was conducted by Benoit and Parker (1994), using a sample of 96 grandmother-mother-child triads. They reported a significant intergenerational match between grandmothers’ and mothers’ AAI classifications, and 1-year-old infants’ SSP classification with the mother. Specifically, they found a robust correspondence of 75% between grandmothers’ and mothers’ attachment representations. Likewise, also the correspondence of 80% between maternal attachment representations and infant attachment seemed consistent. Finally, the authors also found a robust and significant transmission across three generations, since 65% of the grandmothermother-child triads showed agreement with respect to their attachment patterns. To account for this continuity the authors proposed a “mediational hypothesis”, according to which any attachment correspondence between grandmother and grandchild should be considered as an indirect effect mediated through maternal attachment representations (second generation). Lastly, in line with the findings reported in two generation studies, Benoit and Parker (1994) showed that concordance was higher for autonomous-secure pairs than for insecure-insecure pairs and that more variability or intergenerational discontinuity may exist for insecure relationships (van IJzendoorn, 1995). Thus, it seems that whereas security tends to replicate itself across generations, insecurity has lower probability of being transmitted. Nevertheless, as highlighted by the same authors, these results must be viewed cautiously because of the skewed distribution of attachment classifications of the sample (Benoit & Parker, 1994). Specifically, this group of mothers was characterized by an overrepresentation of secure attachment categories (7% Ds, 72% F, 21% E), probably due to the features of the sample (high maternal education and socioeconomic status). Furthermore, they suggested that the same demographic characteristics were not representative of the general population, making these findings difficult to generalize (Benoit & Parker, 1994). Recently Hautam€aki and colleagues (2010) have conducted a similar study on the transmission of attachment across three generations, following a sample of primiparous mothers and maternal grandmothers from pregnancy until the child was 3 years old. The scholars found a correspondence of 59% between grandmothers’ and mothers’ attachment representations, whereas they reported a concordance across three generations lower than that reported by Benoit and Parker (1994). Specifically 47% of the 32 grandmother–mother–infant triads had corresponding attachment classifications. Furthermore, the results of this study indicated continuity across three generations for type B (secure) and for type A (avoidant) and alternations from A to C and vice versa for insecure attachment. Hautam€aki and colleagues (2010) explained this finding suggesting that a dismissing mother who wants to be more available and expresses her feelings more openly than her parents would not be able to consistently achieve this purpose, encouraging her child to use a type C (ambivalent) strategy. Indeed, as demonstrated by several studies, inconsistent parenting is the main feature related to insecure-resistant attachment (e.g., Ainsworth et al., 1971; Vondra, Shaw & Kevenides, 1995).

8 G. Sette et al. Other recent works, which have studied attachment continuities across generations in adulthood, have focused only on the transmission of romantic attachment styles measured by a selfreport instrument (e.g., Besser & Priel, 2005; Obegi, Morrison & Shaver, 2004), instead of exploring concordance in attachment internal working models. Furthermore, most of these studies have been conducted on grandmother-mother-child triads, excluding fathers and grandfathers. In summary, it is clearly evident that the study of the transmission of attachment beyond infancy is noteworthy of further consideration, even though enlarging the focus of attachment research throughout the life cycle raises new questions about the use of new attachment measures. In fact, while much progress has been made in the measurement of attachment in adolescence and adulthood (e.g., Adult Attachment Interview, AAI; George et al., 1985) considerably less advances have been made in the assessment procedures during middle childhood (see Solomon & George, 2008). Moreover, in contrast with the most validated observational assessment of infant’s early attachment, that is the Strange Situation Procedure (Ainsworth et al., 1978), it has been emphasized that there is not a complete body of validation data for any of the representational measures, frequently implemented to assess attachment at later ages (see Solomon & George, 2008).

FUTURE DIRECTIONS Although the attempts to bridge the “transmission gap” (e.g., parental reflective functioning or maternal mind-mindedness; the ecological model) have improved our knowledge of the intergenerational transmission of attachment, several questions need further consideration and suggest intriguing directions for future research. First, our review shows that even though the ecological model of the transmission of attachment (van IJzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 1997) appears the most convincing one, as it conceives the intergenerational transmission of attachment, more realistically, as a complex and multi-determined process, it has never been fully tested, in contrast to the linear model which underwent consistent empirical testing. Indeed, studies available provide evidence supporting specific steps of the process as, for example, that parents’ attachment and/or caregiving behavior can be influenced by later attachment experiences, social support or child’s features, such as illness, biological vulnerability and temperamental dispositions. Thus, future research should attempt to verify the ecological model through a more comprehensive approach. Moreover, some implications of the ecological model appear unexplored and needing future research attention: for example, the marital relationship has been studied as the main context in which the parent’s attachment model may undergo a reorganization, but we may suggest that another significant but less known context in which such reorganization could take place is the current family environment (e.g., Leveridge, Stoltenberg & Beesley, 2005). Thus a secure adult may confirm his/her internal working models of the self as lovable and of others as available by experiencing a new familiar context in which members help and support each other and are emotionally connected. Likewise, for an insecure adult the same family environment may contribute to modify his/her little trust in others into a more positive internal © 2015 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Scand J Psychol (2015)

working model of them. It is also possible that new relational inputs may contribute to a negative reorganization of earlier attachment representations. For example, disengaged families, characterized by extreme emotional separateness, little involvement among family members and family contexts in which individuals are unable to turn to one another for support and problem-solving, may contribute to shift a secure adult towards insecurity. Second, researches have begun to investigate underestimated issues, such as the transmission of attachment in father-child dyads. Although these attempts are valuable, we suggest that more attention should still be paid to a systemic model of attachment bonds, which, considering triadic relationships (father–mother–infant), is more complicated but at the same time more realistic (Bretherton, 2010; van IJzendoorn & De Wolff, 1997). Within this perspective a relevant area of research, that needs more investigation, should deal with the influence of the couple’s attachment (concordance between partner’s attachment representations) on the transmission of attachment. The assessment of both mothers’ and fathers’ features, within the same study, could help scholars to understand whether the transmission of attachment is only affected by each parental attachment representation or whether it is also influenced by the matching of attachment categories within the couple. Third, in line with the predictions of the ecological model, also macro-system influences on the transmission process should be encountered in future research. Here we refer to the sociocultural peculiarities and child welfare policies influencing child rearing believes and practices, which may contribute to the definition of specific ecological conditions for child development and impact the mechanisms of the intergenerational transmission of attachment patterns. The Scandinavian case is a good example of how the transmission process could be sensitive to macro-ecological features: besides the above mentioned conditions leading Scandinavian fathers to be more actively engaged in child rearing, Scandinavian countries, especially Sweden, are among the European countries where the provision of childcare services is independent from family income and with the highest percentage of children up to 3 years of age and from 3 years of age to mandatory school age, cared for by formal arrangements, the majority of which spending 30 hours or more a week in formal childcare services (Janta, 2014). Moreover, these countries are among the European ones with grandparents the least involved in intensive care for their grandchildren and with both mothers and father highly encouraged to take parental leave, because compensation levels during parental leave are kept at high levels compared to what happens in other European countries (Moss, 2013). All these peculiar macro-level parameters may impact the transmission (or lack thereof) of attachment in certain ways that may be somewhat unique to these countries. In conclusion, the Scandinavian example shows the importance of enlarging the focus of the investigation to the macro-ecological level in order to achieve a complete understanding of the transmission process within a specific cultural milieu. A fifth and last issue requiring further investigation is whether genetic mechanisms could be a good candidate for bridging the transmission gap (Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 2007; Belsky, 2009; Bokhorst, Bakermans-Kranenburg, Pasco

Attachment across generations 9

Scand J Psychol (2015)

Fearon, van IJzendoorn, Fonagy & Schuengel, 2003; Main, 1999). The state of art on this issue is promising: research available has aimed at testing a direct association between genes and attachment security, as well as the role of gene–environment interactions in predicting individual differences in attachment development, although a direct influence of the genetic mechanisms in the intergenerational transmission of attachment has never been carried out. As to the first issue, the evidence of a direct association between some genes and security of attachment is not convincing (e.g., Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 2007, 2011; Bokhorst et al., 2003; Luijk, Tharner, Bakermans-Kranenburg et al., 2011; van IJzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2006). Findings supporting such association are limited and related to small sample sizes (e.g., Lakatos, Toth, Nemoda, Ney, SasvariSzekely & Gervai, 2000; Gervai, Novak, Lakatos et al., 2007; Spangler, Johann, Ronai & Zimmermann, 2009): for example, Raby, Cicchetti, Carlson, Cutuli, Englund and Egeland (2012) found that the serotonin-transporter-linked polymorphic region (5-HTTLPR) failed to distinguish secure from insecure children, but was significantly predictive of insecure-resistant attachment. By contrast, research on gene–environment interactions, complementary to the traditional environment focused explanations of attachment, appears to be a more fruitful approach to understand the intergenerational transmission gap (e.g., BakermansKranenbur & van IJzendoorn, 2007, 2011; Belsky, 2009; Madigan, Moran & Pederson 2006; van IJzendoorn, 1995). Bakermans-Kranenburg and van IJzendoorn’s work (2007, 2011) shows that genes exert their influence more than directly, by influencing the individual’s phenotype, by determining the degree of individual susceptibility to environmental conditions. Such differential susceptibility hypothesis has been found to be reliable in predicting not only more negative outcomes for susceptible children in unfavorable environments, but also positive outcomes for susceptible children in favorable environments. For example, with respect to the development of attachment disorganization, the DRD4 7-repeat polymorphism increases the risk for attachment disorganization as well as for externalizing problems only in association with unfavorable caregiving conditions, such as a mothers with an unresolved state of mind with respect to a trauma and/or loss, or highly insensitive ones; conversely, such risk is buffered in the presence of a high maternal sensitivity (Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 2006). When analyzing the development of secure attachment, Luijk and colleagues (2011) found that infants carrying the minor mineralocorticoid receptor allele, involved in stress regulation, were more securely attached, if their mothers showed more sensitive responsiveness and less securely attached, if their mothers showed more extremely insensitive behaviors, whereas these associations were not significant for carriers of the AA (homozygous dominant) genotype of MR. Genetic variation in MR thus seems to modulate infants’ sensitivity to care in a positive (maternal sensitive responsiveness) as well as in a negative (maternal extreme insensitivity) environment. The gene-environment interaction has been explored to date only in the context of the mother-infant relationship; a deeper understanding of the intergenerational transmission of attachment could benefit from studies investigating such interaction in adult© 2015 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

hood. In this respect, Caspers, Paradiso, Yucuis, Troutman and Arndt (2009) found that the polymorphism 5-HTTLPR of the serotonin transporter gene contributed to adults’ susceptibility to develop an unresolved state of mind after experiencing a significant loss and/or trauma. Therefore, future studies should also address the question whether such differential susceptibility to favorable and unfavorable environmental influences is also applicable to other adult attachment organizations as well as to differences in parenting behaviors, which are the well recognized antecedents of infant’s attachment.

CONCLUSIONS The body of research, testing the intergenerational transmission of attachment through the correspondence of caregiver’s and infant’s attachment models, has consistently demonstrated the robustness of the process regardless of the type of caregiving (e.g., adoptive families; Verissimo & Salvaterra, 2006) the type of sample (e.g., at risk/not at risk samples; Arnott & Meins, 2007; Tarabulsy et al., 2005) or of the kind of measurement implemented (e.g., representational or observational measures; Miljkovitch et al., 2004; Tarabulsy et al., 2005). To explain the transmission process, attachment theorists and researchers have stated that the mechanism by which this occurs is the maternal sensitive responsiveness. Specifically, attachment theorists proposed a model, known as linear or mediation model (van IJzendoorn, 1995), according to which the parental state of mind with respect to attachment provides the basis for a sensitive caregiving, which is the primary antecedent of the child’s attachment security. However, in an influential meta-analysis testing this model, van IJzendoorn (1995) demonstrated that parental sensitivity accounted for only 23% of the variance linking parental state of mind to infant attachment strategies (the so-called “transmission gap” phenomenon), challenging researchers to consider psychological and social variables, other than sensitivity, which may intervene in the transmission process. Among the various attempts, the most promising research line has focused on the mediating role of parents’ sensitivity to the infants’ mental states. Nevertheless, only one of the two studies available testing such a role (Grienenberger et al., 2005; Slade et al., 2005) included measures of maternal and infants’ attachment and, because of the small sample size and the modest correlation between mothers’ and infant’s attachment, their promising findings showing that mothers’ ability to hold her baby and his mental states in mind mediated significantly the intergenerational transmission of attachment, must be considered as preliminary, inconclusive and needing further replications (Slade et al., 2005). The transmission gap also stimulated van IJzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg (1997) to propose the ecological model of the transmission of attachment that, until now, has never been fully tested. Also the new perspectives on the transmission of attachment (e.g., transmission in father-child dyads) have made only a modest beginning to what is an extraordinarily challenging phenomenon, reporting intriguing findings noteworthy of further consideration. Thus it is clearly evident that every effort to better understand the mechanisms underlying the inter-

10 G. Sette et al. generational transmission of attachment must be encouraged in that, up to now, these are not completely explained and continue to be elusive (van IJzendoorn, 1995).

REFERENCES Adam, E. K., Gunnar, M. R. & Tanaka, A. (2004). Adult attachment, parent emotion, and observed parenting behavior: Mediator and moderator models. Child Development, 75, 110–112. Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1967). Infancy in Uganda: Infant care and the growth of love. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1982). Attachment: Retrospect and prospect. In C. M. Parkes & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in human behavior (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E. & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M. & Stayton, D. (1971). Individual differences in Strange Situation behavior of one-year-olds. In H. R. Schaffer (Ed.), The origins of human social relations (pp. 17–57). London: Academic Press. Allen, P. J., McElhaney, B., Land, D. J., Kuperminc, G. P., Moore, C. W., O’Beirnie-Kelly, H. & Kilmer, S. L. (2003). A secure base in adolescence: Markers of attachment security in the mother-adolescent relationship. Child Development, 74, 292–307. Arnott, B. & Meins, E. (2007). Links between antenatal attachment representations, postnatal mind-mindedness, and infant attachment security: A preliminary study of mothers and fathers. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 71, 132–149. Atkinson, L., Goldberg, S., Raval, V., Pederson, D., Benoit, D., Moran, G. et al. (2005). On the relation between maternal state of mind and sensitivity in the prediction of infant attachment security. Developmental Psychology, 41, 42–53. Atkinson, L., Paglia, A., Coolbear, J., Niccols, A., Parker, K. C. H. & Guger, S. (2000). Attachment security: A meta-analysis of maternal mental health correlates. Clinical Psychology Review, 20, 1019–1040. Aviezer, O., Sagi-Schwartz, A. & Koren-Karie, N. (2003). Ecological constraints on the formation of infant-mother attachment relations: When maternal sensitivity becomes ineffective. Infant Behavior and Development, 26, 285–299. Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2006). Geneenvironment interaction of the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) and observed maternal insensitivity predicting externalizing behavior in preschoolers. Developmental Psychobiology, 48, 406–409. Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2007). Research review: Genetic vulnerability or differential susceptibility in child development – the case of attachment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 1160–1173. Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2011). Differential susceptibility to rearing environment depending on dopaminerelated genes: New evidence and a meta-analysis. Development and Psychopathology, 23, 39–52. Behrens, K. Y., Hesse, E. & Main, M. (2007). Mothers’ attachment status as determined by the Adult Attachment Interview predicts their 6-year-olds’ reunion responses: A study conducted in Japan. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1553–1567. Belsky, J. (2009). Origins of attachment security: Differential susceptibility or genetic vulnerability? In W. Yule, & O. Udwin (Eds.), Attachment: Current focus and future directions (pp. 37–46). London: ACAMH. Belsky, J. & Fearon, R. M. P. (2008). Precursors of attachment security. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment theory and research (2nd edn., pp. 295–316). New York: Guilford Press. Belsky, J. & Jaffe, S. (2006). The multiple determinants of parenting. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology (2nd edn., Vol. 3: Risk, disorder and adaptation, pp. 38–85). New York: Wiley. Benoit, D. & Parker, K. C. H. (1994). Stability and transmission of attachment across three generations. Child Development, 65, 1444–1457. © 2015 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Scand J Psychol (2015) Bernier, A. & Miljkovitch, R. (2009). Intergenerational transmission of attachment in father-child dyads: the case of single parenthood. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 170, 31–51. Besser, A. & Priel, B. (2005). The apple does not fall far from the tree: Attachment styles and personality vulnerabilities to depression in three generations of women. Personality and Social Psychology Bullettin, 31, 1052–1073. Biringen, Z., Brown, D., Donaldson, L., Green, S., Krcmarik, S. & Lovas, G. (2000). Adult attachment interview: Linkages with dimensions of emotional availability for mothers and their prekindergarteners. Attachment and Human Development, 2, 188–202. Bogels, S. M., Lehtonen, A. & Restifo, K. (2010). Mindful parenting in mental health care. Mindfulness, 1, 107–120. Bokhorst, C. L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Pasco Fearon, R. M., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Fonagy, P. & Schuengel, C. (2003). The importance of shared environment in mother-infant attaachment: A behavioral genetic study. Child Development, 74, 1769–1782. Botbol, M. (2010). Towards an integrative neuroscientific and psychodynamic approach to the transmission of attachment. Journal of Physiology, 104, 263–271. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and depression. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books. Bretherton, I. (2010). Fathers in attachment theory and research: A review. Early Child Development and Care, 180, 9–23. Bretherton, I., Lambert, J. D. & Golby, B. (2005). Involved fathers of preschool children as seen by themselves and their wives: Accounts of attachment, socialization, and companionship. Attachment & Human Development, 7, 229–251. Bretherton, I., Ridgeway, D. & Cassidy, J. (1990). Assessing internal working models of the attachment relationship: An attachment story completion task for 3-year-olds. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 273–308). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Context of child rearing: Problems and prospects. American Psychologist, 34, 844–850. Bus, A. G. & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1992). Patterns of attachment in frequently and infrequently reading mother-child dyads. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 153, 395–403. Caspers, K., Paradiso, S., Yucuis, R., Troutman, B. & Arndt, S. (2009). Association between the serotonin transporter promoter polymorphism (5–HTTLPR) and adult unresolved attachment. Developmental Psychology, 45, 64–76. Cassibba, R., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Bruno, S. & Coppola, G. (2004). Attachment to mothers and children with recurrent asthmatic bronchitis. Journal of Asthma, 41, 419–431. Ceballo, R. & McLoyd, V. (2002). Social support and parenting in poor, dangerous neighborhoods. Child Development, 73, 310–321. Cochran, M. & Niego, S. (2002). Parenting and social networks. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (pp. 393–418). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cox, S. M., Hopkins, J. & Hans, S. L. (2000). Attachment in preterm infants and their mothers: Neonatal risk status and maternal representations. Infant Mental Health Journal, 21, 464–480. Davila, J., Burge, D. & Hammen, C. (1997). Why does attachment style change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 826–838. De Haas, M., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1994). The Adult Attachment Interview and questionnaires for attachment style, temperament, and memories of parental behavior. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 155, 471–487. DeKlyen, M. (1996). Disruptive behavior disorder and intergenerational attachment patterns: A comparison of clinic-referred and normally functioning preschoolers and their mothers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 357–365.

Scand J Psychol (2015) Delannes, S., Doyen, C., Cook-Darzens, S. & Mouren, M. C. (2006). Transmission of attachment and family functioning in female adolescents with anorexia nervosa. Annales Medico-Psychologiques, 164, 565–572. De Wolff, M. S. & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infants’ attachment. Child Development, 68, 571–591. Dozier, M., Chase Stovall, K., Albus, K. E. & Bates, B. (2001). Attachment for infants in foster care: The role of caregiver state of mind. Child Development, 72, 1467–1477. El-Sheikh, M. & Elmore-Staton, L. (2004). The link between marital conflict and child adjustment: Parent-child conflict and perceived attachments as mediators, potentiators, and mitigators of risk. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 631–648. Feeney, J. A. (2008). Adult romantic attachment. Developments in the study of couple relationships. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd edn., pp. 456–481). New York: Guilford Press. Fergusson, E., Maughan, B. & Golding, J. (2008). Which children receive grandparental care and what effect does it have? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 161–169. Fonagy, P., Gergely, G., Jurist, E. L. & Target, M. (2002). Affect regulation, mentalization and the development of the self. New York: Other Press. Fonagy, P., Steele, M., Moran, G. S., Steele, H. & Higgitt, A. C. (1991). The capacity for understanding mental states: The reflective self in parent and child and its significance for security of attachment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 13, 200–216. George, C., Kaplan, N. & Main, M. (1985). Adult Attachment Interview. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley. George, C. & Solomon, J. (2008). The caregiving behavioral system: A behavioral system approach to parenting. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical application (2nd edn., pp. 833–856). New York: Guilford Press. Gervai, J., Novak, A., Lakatos, K., Toth, I., Danis, I., Ronai, Z. et al. (2007). Infant genotype may moderate sensitivity to maternal affective communications: Attachment disorganization, quality of care, and the DRD4 polymorphism. Social Neuroscience, 2, 307–319. Gloger-Tippelt, G., Gomille, B., Koenig, L. & Vetter, J. (2002). Attachment representations in 6 years old: Related longitudinally to the quality of attachment in infancy and mothers’ attachment representations. Attachment and Human Development, 4, 318–339. Goldberg, S., Benoit, D., Blokland, K. & Madigan, S. (2003). Atypical maternal behavior, maternal representations, and infant disorganized attachment. Developmental Psychopatholy, 13, 239–257. Goldsmith, H. H. & Alansky, J. A. (1987). Maternal and infant temperamental predictors of attachment: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 805–806. Goldwyn, R., Stanley, C., Smith, V. & Green, J. (2000). The Manchester Child Attachment Story Task: Relationship with parental AAI, SAT and child behavior. Attachment and Human Development, 2, 71–84. Green, B. L. & Rodgers, A. (2001). Determinants of social support among low-income mothers: A longitudinal analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 419–441. Green, J. M., Stanley, C., Goldwyn, R. & Smith, V. (2000–2005). Coding manual for the Manchester Child Attachment Story Task. Unpublished manual, Manchester University, Manchester. Grienenberger, J., Kelly, K. & Slade, A. (2005). Maternal reflective functioning, mother-infant communication, and infant attachment: Exploring the link between mental states and observed. Attachment & Human Development, 7, 299–311. Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., Fremmer-Bombik, E., Kindler, K., Scheuerer-Englisch, H. & Zimmermann, P. (2002). The uniqueness of the child-father attachment relationship: Fathers’ sensitive and challenging play as the pivotal variable in a 16-year longitudinal study. Social Development, 11, 307–331. Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., Kindler, H. & Zimmermann, P. (2008). A wider view of attachment and exploration. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd edn., pp. 857–879). New York: The Guilford Press.

© 2015 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Attachment across generations 11 Hautam€aki, A., Hautam€aki, L., Neuvonen, L. & Maliniemi-Piispanen, S. (2010). Transmission of attachment across three generations. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7, 618–634. Hughes, P., Turton, P., McGauley, G. A. & Fonagy, P. (2006). Factors that predict infant disorganization in mothers classified as U in pregnancy. Attachment and Human Development, 8, 113–122. Isabella, R. A. (1994). Origins of maternal role satisfaction and its influences upon maternal interactive behavior and infant-mother attachment. Infant Behavior and Development, 17, 381–387. Janta, B. (2014). Caring for children in Europe: How childcare, parental leave and flexible working arrangements interact in Europe. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Kirkpatrick, L. A. & Hazan, C. (1994). Attachment styles and close relationships: A four-year prospective study. Personal Relationships, 1, 123–142. Kochanska, G., Aksan, N. & Carlson, J. J. (2005). Temperament, relationships, and young children’s receptive cooperation with their parents. Developmental Psychology, 41, 648–660. Kroelinger, C. D. & Oths, K. S. (2000). Partner support and pregnancy wantedness. Birth, 27, 112–119. Laible, D. (2004). Mother-child discourse in two contexts: Links with child temperament, attachment security, and socioemotional competence. Developmental Psychology, 40, 979–992. Lakatos, K., Toth, I., Nemoda, Z., Ney, K., Sasvari-Szekely, M. & Gervai, J. (2000). Dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene polymorphism is associated with attachment disorganization in infants. Molecular Psychiatry, 5, 633–637. Lamb, M. E. (2010). The role of the father in child development. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Laurent, H. K., Kim, H. K. & Capaldi, D. M. (2008). Interaction and relationship development in stable young couples: Effects of positive engagement, psychological aggression, and withdrawal. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 815–835. Leveridge, M., Stoltenberg, C. & Beesley, D. (2005). Relationship of attachment style to personality factors and family interaction patterns. Contemporary Family Therapy, 27, 577–597. Luijk, M. P., Tharner, A., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Jaddoe, V. W., Hofman, A. et al. (2011). The association between parenting and attachment security is moderated by a polymorphism in the mineralocorticoid receptor gene: Evidence for differential susceptibility. Biological Psychology, 88, 37–40. Madigan, S., Moran, G. & Pederson, D. R. (2006). Unresolved states of mind, disorganized attachment relationships, and disrupted motherinfant interactions of adolescents mothers and their infants. Developmental Psychology, 42, 293–304. Main, M. (1999). Epilogue. Attachment theory: Eighteen points with suggestions for future studies. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment. Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 845–887). New York: Guilford Press. Main, M. (2000). The organized categories of infant, child, and adult attachment: Flexible vs. inflexible attention under attachment-related stress. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 48, 1055–1096. Main, M. & Goldwin, R. (1984). Predicting rejection of her infant from mother’s representation of her own experience: implications for the abused abusing intergenerational cycle. Child Abuse and Neglect, 8, 203–207. Main, M., Goldwyn, R. & Hesse, E. (2003). The Adult Attachment Interview: Scoring and classification system, version 7. 2. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley. Main, M. & Hesse, E. (1990). Parents’ unresolved traumatic experiences are related to infant disorganized attachment status. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 161–184). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Main, M., Kaplan, N. & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the representational level. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 66–104.

12 G. Sette et al. Main, M. & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 121–160). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Marshall, P. J. & Fox, N. A. (2005). Relations between behavioral reactivity at 4 months and attachment classification at 14 months in a selected sample. Infant Behavior and Development, 28, 492–502. McElwain, N. L. & Booth-LaForce, C. (2006). Maternal sensitivity to infant distress and non-distress as predictors of infant-mother attachment security. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 247–255. Meins, E., Fernyhough, C., Fradley, E. & Tuckey, M. (2001). Rethinking maternal sensitivity: Mothers’comments on infants’ mental processes predict security of attachment at 12 months. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 42, 22–31. Miljkovitch, R., Danet, M. & Bernier, A. (2012). Intergenerational transmission of attachment representations in the context of single parenthood in France. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 789–792. Miljkovitch, R., Pierrehumbert, B., Bretherton, I. & Halfon, O. (2004). Associations between parental and child attachment representations. Attachment and Human Development, 6, 305–325. Moss, P. 2013. International review of leave policies and related research 2013. London: International Network on Leave Policies and Research. Retrieved 15 March 2014 from http://www.leavenetwork.org/fileadmin/Leavenetwork/Annual_reviews/2013_complete.6june. pdf. Mueller, M. M., Goebel-Fabbri, A. E., Diamond, T. & Dinklage, D. (2000). Social support and the relationship between family and community violence exposure and psychopathology among high risk adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 449–464. Myers, B. J., Jarvis, P. A. & Creasey, G. L. (1987). Infants’ behavior with their mothers and grandmothers. Infant Behavior and Development, 10, 245–260. Obegi, J. H., Morrison, T. L. & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Exploring intergenerational transmission of attachment style in young female adults and their mothers. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 625–638. Pederson, D. R., Gleason, K. E., Moran, G. & Bento, S. (1998). Maternal attachment representations, maternal sensitivity, and infant-mother attachment. Developmental Psychology, 34, 925–933. Raby, K. L., Cicchetti, D., Carlson, E. A., Cutuli, J. J., Englund, M. M. & Egeland, B. (2012). Genetic and caregiving-based contributions to infant attachment: Unique associations with distress reactivity and attachment security. Psychological Science, 23, 1016–1023. Raval, V., Goldberg, S., Atkinson, L., Benoit, D., Myhal, N., Poulton, L. & Zwiers, M. (2001). Maternal attachment, maternal responsiveness and infant attachment. Infant Behavior and Development, 24, 281–304. Sabatier, C. & Lannegrand-Willems, L. (2005). Transmission of family values, attachment and family investment: A French three generation study. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 378–395. Sagi, A., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Grossmann, K. E., Joels, T., Scharf, M., Koren–Karie, N. & Alkalay, S. (2003). Attachment and traumatic stress in female holocaust child survivors and their daughters. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 1086–1092. Sagi, A., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Scharf, M., Joels, T., Koren–Karie, N., Mayseless, O. & Aviezer, O. (1997). Ecological constraints for intergenerational transmission of attachment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 20, 287–299. Schaffer, H. R. & Emerson, P. E. (1964). The development of social attachments in infancy. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 29, 1–77. Schmucker, G., Brisch, K. H., Kohntop, B., Betzler, S., Osterle, M., Pohlandt, F., et al. (2005). The influence of prematurity, maternal anxiety, and infants’ neurobiological risk on mother-infant interactions. Infant Mental Health Journal, 26, 423–441. Schmucker, G., Brisch, K. H., Kohntop, B., Betzler, S., Osterle, M., Pohlandt, F., et al. (2005). The influence of prematurity, maternal anxiety, and infants’ neurobiological risk on mother-infant interactions. Infant Mental Health Journal, 26, 423–441. Slade, A., Grienenberger, J., Bernbach, E., Levy, D. & Locker, A. (2005). Maternal reflective functioning, attachment and the transmis-

© 2015 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Scand J Psychol (2015) sion gap: A preliminary study. Attachment & Human Development, 7, 283–298. Smith, C. A., Landry, S. H. & Swank, P. R. (2000). Does the content of mothers’ verbal stimulation explain differences in children’s development of verbal and nonverbal cognitive skills? Journal of School Psychology, 38, 27–49. Solomon, J. & George, C. (2008). The measurement of attachment security and related constructs in infancy and early childhood. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd edn., pp. 383–416). New York: Guilford Press. Spangler, G., Johann, M., Ronai, Z. & Zimmermann, P. (2009). Genetic and environmental influence on attachment disorganization. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 952–961. Steele, H., Steele, M. & Fonagy, P. (1996). Associations among attachment classifications of mothers, fathers, and their infants. Child Development, 67, 541–555. Tarabulsy, G. M., Bernier, A., Provost, M. A., Maranda, J., Larose, S., Moss, E. et al. (2005). Another look inside the gap: Ecological contributions to the transmission of attachment in a sample of adolescent mother–infant dyads. Developmental Psychology, 41, 212–224. Thomas, A. & Chess, S. (1986). The New York Longitudinal Study: From infancy to early adult life. In R. Plomin & J. Dunn (Eds.), The study of temperament: Changes, continuities, and challenges (pp. 39–52). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Thompson, R. A. (1997). Sensitivity and security: New lessons to ponder. Child Development, 68, 595–597. van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1995). Adult attachment representations, parental responsiveness, and infant attachment: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the Adult Attachment Interview. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 387–403. van IJzendoorn, M. H. & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (1997). Intergenerational transmission of attachment: a move to the contextual level. In J. Atkinson & K. J. Zucker (Eds.), Attachment and psychopathology (pp. 135–170). New York: Guilford Press. van IJzendoorn, M. H. & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2006). DRD4 7-repeat polymorphism moderates the association between maternal unresolved loss or trauma and infant disorganization. Attachment and Human Development, 8, 291–307. van IJzendoorn, M. H. & De Wolff, M. S. (1997). In search of the absent father: Meta-analyses on infant–father attachment. Child Development, 68, 604–609. Vaughn, B. E., Bost, K. K. & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2008). Attachment and temperament: Additive and interactive influences on behavior, affect, and cognition during infancy and childhood. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications (2nd edn., pp. 192–216). New York: The Guilford Press. Verissimo, M. & Salvaterra, F. (2006). Maternal secure-base scripts and children’s attachment security in an adopted sample. Attachment & Human Development, 8, 261–273. Vondra, J. I., Shaw, D. S. & Kevenides, M. C. (1995). Predicting infant attachment classification from multiple, contemporaneous measures of maternal care. Infant Behavior & Development, 18, 415–425. Ward, M. J. & Carlson, E. A. (1995). Associations among adult attachment representations, maternal sensitivity, and infant-mother attachment in a sample of adolescent mothers. Child Development, 66, 69–79. Waters, E., Crowell, J., Treboux, D., O’Connor, E., Posada, G. & Golby, B. (1993). Discriminant validity of the Adult Attachment Interview. Paper presented at the 60th Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development. New Orleans, LA. Wells, M. B. & Sarkadi, A. (2012). Do father-friendly policies promote father-friendly child-rearing practices? A review of Swedish parental leave and Child health centers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21, 25–31. Widmer, E., Le Goff, J. M., Levy, R., Hammer, R. & Kellerhals, J. (2006). Embedded parenting? The influence of conjugal networks on parent-child relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 387–406. Received 15 May 2014, accepted 22 January 2015

The transmission of attachment across generations: The state of art and new theoretical perspectives.

The paper reviews the body of research testing the intergenerational transmission of attachment and the theoretical shift from the linear or mediation...
171KB Sizes 2 Downloads 10 Views