ABC-D & DMM – conflict avoidance, appeasement, or read difference Danya Glaser With its biological, psychological, behavioural and social underpinnings, attachment is too big, too robust & fundamental to be liable to being split. What is attachment? • (In childhood) That aspect of the relationship between the developmentally less mature child and their (‘appointed’) attachment person(s), which maintains optimal safety for the child in the face of danger, with the implicit aim of reducing the danger and restoring the child to exploration and creativity • Attachment is complemented by caregiving • Nature of caregiving determines attachment organisation • In adulthood, the need for attachment continues, although usually neither of the attachment the attachment partners is consistently more dependent Similarities • In both systems, there is a recognition of the necessary adaptive nature of all but (the most secure) B and the cost of A, C & disorganised/unresolved strategies as an unsuitable/anachronistic in a different caregiving relationship • The term disorganised, in the ABC-D is primarily applicable to infants who may still be seeking a strategy. Thereafter, there is a move towards situation ally-adaptive organisation. Adaptation • Within ABC-D system – Evidence of move from disorganised to secure in 2nd year of life following parentinfant psychotherapy for maltreating mothers (Ciccehtti & Toth) – The adaptation of young fostered babies to the foster mothers’ attachment organisation (Dozier) Continuity & discontinuity • Like DMM, ABC-D only assumes continuity of child’s attachment organisation pattern if parental caregiving remains unchanged • Unlike DMM, ABC-D assumes continued parental sensitivity from infancy to early childhood, hence prediction of continuity of B • No evidence that ABC-D coding or rating is predicated on assumption of continuity, as raters must be blind to any previous assessments Differences • DMM appears more sensitive to A & C, to differences within A & C and therefore coding fewer subjects as B secure • DMM more clear in suggesting explicitly particular interventions but • DMM inter-rater reliability generally poorer, presumably due to its sophistication and complexity Questions to both systems • Is there evidence for the suggested change in the AAI from (before pregnancy to) pregnancy to post birth? • ?Evidence of shifting/deterioration of parental sensitivity with child's maturation • What is the basis for hypothesising an opposite child to parent classification? Steele & Fonagy studies showed continuity for B and A classifications. Is the hypothesis more appropriately one of same or opposite as a reflection of lack of integration? More questions • Why is there much greater difficulty for e.g. later-placed children to adapt to different caregiving & do so much more slowly, is probably less to do with sensitive or biologically determinative early processes • How does the Ambiance (Lyons Ruth) relate to the Care Index as an indicator of maternal caregiving? Gaps in DMM life-long scheme, possibly ‘filled’ by procedures currently used in ABC-D system • Story stem assessment for 4-8 year olds • Child Attachment Interview for 13-16 year olds • Need to continue to compare codings between the 2 systems Way forward As the procedures are similar and could be fully reconciled without sacrificing fidelity to the different schools, need for a conjoint coding exercise and dialogue to establish whether differences in what is being coded are due to differences in – What is being seen – Interpretation of what is being seen – i.e. meaning