The origins of 12-month attachment: a microanalysis of 4-month mother-infant interaction.
The origins of 12-month attachment: a microanalysis of 4-month mother-infant interaction.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/14616730903338985
复制
发表时间：
2010-01
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Feldstein S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Beebe B;Jaffe J;Markese S;Buck K;Chen H;Cohen P;Bahrick L;Andrews H;Feldstein S
一个详细的微观分析4个月的母婴面对面的沟通揭示了一个细粒度的规范基本的沟通过程，预测12个月的不安全的附件的结果，特别是阻力和混乱的分类。一个城市社区样本的84个二人组在4个月的面对面互动，并在12个月的安斯沃思奇怪的情况下录像。四个月的母亲和婴儿的沟通方式的注意，影响，触摸和空间方向编码从分屏录像带上的1秒的时间基础上，母亲和婴儿的面部视觉“参与”变量的构建。我们使用权变措施（多层次时间序列建模），以检查随着时间的推移的二元时间过程，和特定的速率的定性特征的行为，以检查的内容。自我偶然性（自相关）测量个体自身行为节奏的稳定性/不稳定性程度;交互偶然性（滞后互相关）测量个体行为与伴侣先前行为相关的调整。我们证明，母亲和婴儿行为的自我和互动偶然性以及特定的定性特征都是4个月时依恋形成的机制，将12个月的不安全型、抵抗型和混乱型依恋分类与安全型依恋区分开来;回避型依恋太少，无法测试。所有通信模式都作出了独特的贡献。不同的通信模式的单独分析确定的联运差异或冲突，包括个人和人际，特点是不安全的二人。相反，占主导地位的理论在文献中的面对面的互动，母亲与婴儿的应急协调措施产生了最少的协会与12个月的附件，而母亲和婴儿的自我应急，和婴儿应急协调与母亲，产生了相当数量的研究结果。而不是更常见的假设，更多的应急是“更好”，我们部分支持我们的假设，即12个月的不安全感与更高和更低的4个月的自我和互动的应急值比安全，作为母亲与婴儿和沟通方式的函数。因此，在依恋安全的起源中，更多的偶然性不一定更好。一个显着程度的分化被确定在4个月的模式，“未来”C和D婴儿，分类为阻力和混乱，分别在12个月。只有未来的D婴儿情绪困扰，同时积极和消极的差异影响，只有他们的母亲表现出难以分享婴儿的影响，特别是痛苦，并降低了他们的应急协调与婴儿的面部视觉参与。这种降低的偶然协调性使得婴儿更难以期望他们的情绪/注意力状态可以影响母亲与他们协调，从而损害婴儿的互动效能感。只有未来的C二人组表现出空间的方法/避免模式的“追逐和躲闪”，只有未来的D婴儿的母亲表现出的空间入侵模式的“若隐若现”到婴儿的脸。未来的C和D二对显示模式的触摸失调。未来的C型婴儿抑制了他们与母亲不那么深情的触摸的情感协调，好像在调谐它。未来的D二对表现出二对触摸失调，其中母亲降低了与婴儿触摸的协调，而婴儿使用自己触摸的能力降低。与未来B婴儿的母亲相比，未来C和D婴儿的母亲都以更不可预测的方式在向上、向前和织机方向之间转换，从而扰乱了相遇的空间“框架”的稳定性。只有未来D婴儿的母亲也扰乱了注意力“框架”，与未来B婴儿的母亲相比，她的目光从婴儿的脸上移开。只有未来D婴儿的母亲表现出管理自己状态的方法，这些方法使她们与婴儿保持距离，例如广泛地看向别处和“关闭”她们的脸。未来C婴儿的母亲的完整的互动权变总体上保障了婴儿的互动能动性，以及婴儿对母亲将匹配婴儿情感变化的方向、分享婴儿状态的期望。然而，我们提出，未来的C婴儿将有困难的感觉，感觉到和知道母亲在她的空间/触觉入侵。未来D型人格的核心特征是，在极度痛苦的婴儿背景下，个体内和人际间的不和谐或冲突。降低产妇特遣队的协调，和失败的产妇情感通信，构成产妇的情绪退缩，从痛苦的婴儿，影响婴儿的互动机构和情感的连贯性。因此，未来D二分体的失调水平与未来C二分体的失调水平完全不同。我们提出，未来的D型婴儿代表母亲没有感觉到和知道，特别是在痛苦的状态下。我们提出，未来D型婴儿的内部工作模式包括对他们自己的基本情感组织的困惑，对他们母亲的情感组织的困惑，以及对他们母亲对他们痛苦的反应的困惑，这可能会扰乱人的基本整合。这些发现对临床干预具有丰富的意义，对不同类型的母婴痛苦具有显着的特异性。在不同的模式中，提高和降低自我和互动偶然性的概念，以及所确定的特定行为品质，提供了一套更有区别的概念来指导临床干预。
A detailed microanalysis of 4-month mother-infant face-to-face communication revealed a fine-grained specification of essential communication processes that predicted 12-month insecure attachment outcomes, particularly resistant and disorganized classifications. An urban community sample of 84 dyads were videotaped at 4 months during a face-to-face interaction, and at 12 months during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. Four-month mother and infant communication modalities of attention, affect, touch, and spatial orientation were coded from split-screen videotape on a 1s time base; mother and infant facial-visual “engagement” variables were constructed. We used contingency measures (multi-level time-series modeling) to examine the dyadic temporal process over time, and specific rates of qualitative features of behavior to examine the content of behavior. Self-contingency (auto-correlation) measured the degree of stability/lability within an individual’s own rhythms of behavior; interactive contingency (lagged cross-correlation) measured adjustments of the individual’s behavior that were correlated with the partner’s previous behavior. We documented that both self- and interactive contingency, as well as specific qualitative features, of mother and infant behavior were mechanisms of attachment formation by 4 months, distinguishing 12-month insecure, resistant, and disorganized attachment classifications from secure; avoidant were too few to test. All communication modalities made unique contributions. The separate analysis of different communication modalities identified intermodal discrepancies or conflict, both intrapersonal and interpersonal, that characterized insecure dyads. Contrary to dominant theories in the literature on face-to-face interaction, measures of maternal contingent coordination with infant yielded the fewest associations with 12-month attachment, whereas mother and infant self-contingency, and infant contingent coordination with mother, yielded comparable numbers of findings. Rather than the more usual hypothesis that more contingency is “better,” we partially supported our hypothesis that 12-month insecurity is associated with both higher and lower 4-month self- and interactive contingency values than secure, as a function of mother vs. infant and communication modality. Thus, in the origins of attachment security, more contingency is not necessarily better. A remarkable degree of differentiation was identified in the 4-month patterns of “future” C and D infants, classified as resistant and disorganized, respectively, at 12 months. Only future D infants were emotionally distressed, with simultaneous positive and negative discrepant affect; only their mothers showed difficulty in sharing infant affect, particularly distress, and lowered their contingent coordination with infant facial-visual engagement. This lowered contingent coordination makes it more difficult for infants to come to expect that their emotional/attentional states can influence mothers to coordinate with them and thus compromises the infant’s sense of interactive efficacy. Only future C dyads showed the spatial approach/avoid pattern of “chase and dodge;” only mothers of future D infants showed the spatial intrusion pattern of “looming” into the infant’s face. Both future C and D dyads showed patterns of touch dysregulation. Future C infants inhibited their emotional coordination with mothers’ less affectionate touch, as if tuning it out. Future D dyads showed a dyadic touch dysregulation, in which mothers lowered their coordination with infant touch, while infants had a lowered ability to use their own touch. Both mothers of future C and D infants disturbed the stability of the spatial “frame” of the encounter by transitioning among upward, forward and loom orientations in less predictable ways than mothers of future B infants. Only mothers of future D infants disturbed the attentional “frame” as well, by looking and looking away from the infant’s face in less predictable ways than mothers of future B infants. Only mothers of future D infants showed methods of managing their own state which distanced them from their infants, such as extensive looking away and “closing up” their faces. The intact interactive contingency of the mother of the future C infant overall safeguards the infant’s interactive agency, and the infant’s expectation that mother will match the direction of infant affective change, sharing infant states. However, we proposed that the future C infant will have difficulty feeling sensed and known by mother during her spatial/tactile intrusions. The central feature of future D dyads is intrapersonal and interpersonal discordance or conflict in the context of intensely distressed infants. Lowered maternal contingent coordination, and failures of maternal affective correspondence, constitute maternal emotional withdrawal from distressed infants, compromising infant interactive agency and emotional coherence. The level of dysregulation in future D dyads is thus of an entirely different order than that of future C dyads. We proposed that the future D infant represents not being sensed and known by the mother, particularly in states of distress. We proposed that the emerging internal working model of future D infants includes confusion about their own basic emotional organization, about their mothers’ emotional organization, and about their mothers’ response to their distress, setting a trajectory in development which may disturb the fundamental integration of the person. The findings have rich implications for clinical intervention, with remarkable specificity for different kinds of mother and infant distress. The concepts of heightened and lowered self- and interactive contingency, in different modalities, as well as the specific behavioral qualities identified, provide a more differentiated set of concepts to guide clinical intervention.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4
作者：
BAHRICK, LE;WATSON, JS
通讯作者：
WATSON, JS
影响因子：
2.1
作者：
ANTONUCCI, TC;LEVITT, MJ
通讯作者：
LEVITT, MJ
DOI：
10.2307/3333832
发表时间：
1985-01-01
影响因子：
9.5
作者：
BATES, JE;MASLIN, CA;FRANKEL, KA
通讯作者：
FRANKEL, KA
影响因子：
2.4
作者：
Beebe, B
通讯作者：
Beebe, B
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
Barrett, KC;Campos, JJ;Emde, RN
通讯作者：
Emde, RN