Erik Hesse’s research while affiliated with University of California, Berkeley and other places

In this short-term longitudinal study, thirty preschool-aged children with autism were first observed in Ainsworth’s Strange Situation procedure and, separately, interacting with the primary caregiver in the home. One year later, each child completed both a developmental assessment and an observational assessment of empathic responding. Behaviors typical for children with autism were distinguished from behaviors suggestive of relationally based attachment disorganization. Forty five percent of the children were classified as securely attached. The secure group demonstrated language skills superior to those of the insecurely attached group, concurrently and during the follow-up. Compared to parents of children who were insecurely attached, parents of securely attached children were rated as more sensitive. Compared to both organized insecure and disorganized children, secure children were rated as more responsive to an examiner’s apparent distress during the follow-up relative to their ratings at intake, whereas empathy ratings of children with insecure classifications did not increase. Importantly, attachment security was associated with empathy above and beyond the contribution of children’s language level. These results indicate that the sequelae of attachment security in autism may be similar to those documented for typically developing children.

In this short-term longitudinal study, 30 preschool-aged children with autism were first observed in Ainsworth's Strange Situation Procedure and, separately, interacting with the primary caregiver in the home. One year later, each child completed both a developmental assessment and an observational assessment of empathic responding. Behaviors typical for children with autism were distinguished from behaviors suggestive of relationally based attachment disorganization. Forty-five percent of the children were classified as securely attached. The secure group demonstrated language skills superior to those of the insecurely attached group, concurrently and during the follow-up. Compared to parents of children who were insecurely attached, parents of securely attached children were rated as more sensitive. Compared to both organized insecure and disorganized children, secure children were rated as more responsive to an examiner's apparent distress during the follow-up relative to their ratings at intake, whereas empathy ratings of children with insecure classifications did not increase. Importantly, attachment security was associated with empathy above and beyond the contribution of children's language level. These results indicate that the sequelae of attachment security in autism may be similar to those documented for typically developing children.

Disorganized/Disoriented (D) attachment has seen widespread interest from policy makers, practitioners, and clinicians in recent years. However, some of this interest seems to have been based on some false assumptions that (1) attachment measures can be used as definitive assessments of the individual in forensic/child protection settings and that disorganized attachment (2) reliably indicates child maltreatment, (3) is a strong predictor of pathology, and (4) represents a fixed or static “trait” of the child, impervious to development or help. This paper summarizes the evidence showing that these four assumptions are false and misleading. The paper reviews what is known about disorganized infant attachment and clarifies the implications of the classification for clinical and welfare practice with children. In particular, the difference between disorganized attachment and attachment disorder is examined, and a strong case is made for the value of attachment theory for supportive work with families and for the development and evaluation of evidence-based caregiving interventions.

In 1990, Main and Solomon introduced the procedures for coding a new ‘disorganized’ infant attachment classification for the Ainsworth Strange Situation procedure. This classification has received a high degree of interest, both from researchers and from child welfare and clinical practitioners. Disorganized attachment has primarily been understood through the lens of the Hesse and Main’s concept of ‘fright without solution’, taken to mean that an infant experiences a conflict between a desire to approach and flee from a frightening parent when confronted by the Strange Situation. Yet looking back it can be observed that the way that Hesse and Main’s texts were formulated and read has generated confusion; there have been repeated calls in recent years for renewed theory and clarification about the relationship between disorganization and fear. Responding to these calls, this paper revisits the texts that introduced the idea of ‘fright without solution’, clarifying their claims through articulating more precisely the different meanings of the term ‘fear’. This respecified account will then be applied to consideration of pathways to infant disorganized behaviors.

Disorganized/disoriented (D) attachment has seen widespread interest from policy-makers, practitioners and clinicians in recent years. However some of this interest seems to have been based on some false assumptions: that (1) attachment measures can be used as definitive assessments of the individual in forensic/child protection settings, and that disorganized attachment (2) reliably indicates child maltreatment, (3) is a strong predictor of pathology, and (4) represents a fixed or static ‘trait’ of the child, impervious to development or help. This paper summarizes the evidence showing that these four assumptions are false and misleading. The paper reviews what is known about disorganized infant attachment and clarifies the implications of the classification for clinical and welfare practice with children. In particular, the difference between disorganized attachment and attachment disorder is examined, and a strong case is made for the value of attachment theory for supportive work with families and for the development and evaluation of evidence-based caregiving interventions.

This study investigates whether individual differences in attachment status can be detected by electrophysiological responses to loss-themed pictures. The Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) was used to identify discourse/reasoning lapses during the discussion of loss experiences via death that place speakers in the Unresolved/disorganized AAI category. In parents, Unresolved AAI status has been associated with Disorganized infant Strange Situation response, a known risk factor for psychopathology (e.g., internalizing/externalizing/dissociation). This association has been related to anomalous frightening (FR) parental behavior in the infant's presence, behavior presumed to be instigated by vulnerability to trauma-related fright. Here, psychophysiological methods were utilized to examine whether Unresolved AAI status could be detected in brain responses to subtle/symbolic reminders of loss. One year after AAI administration, 31 undergraduate women who had experienced loss (16 Unresolved) underwent continuous electroencephalogram (EEG) recording during a picture-viewing, valence-rating task. Picture onset-locked event-related potentials (ERPs) revealed millisecond responses to 4 picture categories: pleasant people, pleasant nature, cemetery (symbolic death), and gruesome death (dead or dying people). Participants' valence ratings did not differ between groups across picture categories. However, the N2 ERP, implicated in detecting stimulus salience, was selectively greater in Unresolved participants viewing cemetery scenes; it was in fact as high as the N2 for gruesome death images observed throughout the sample. Additionally, Unresolved participants exhibited a right-hemispheric P3 asymmetry across picture categories, suggestive of continuously heightened vigilance/arousal. Together, these results suggest that Unresolved AAI status is associated with greater neurophysiological sensitivity to subtle reminders of loss that may disrupt ongoing mental function.

Liotti proposed that interactions during infancy with a parent suffering unresolved loss could lead to vulnerabilities to altered states of consciousness. Hesse and van IJzendoorn provided initial support for Liotti's hypothesis, finding elevated scores on Tellegen's Absorption Scale - a normative form of dissociation - for undergraduates reporting that their parents had experienced the loss of family members within two years of their birth. Here, we replicated the above findings in a large undergraduate sample (N = 927). Additionally, we investigated mother's and father's losses separately. Perinatal losses, including miscarriage, were also considered. Participants reporting that the mother or both parents had experienced loss within two years of their birth scored significantly higher on absorption than those reporting only perinatal, only father, or no losses. While not applicable to the assessment of individuals, the brief loss questionnaire utilized here could provide a useful addition to selected large-scale studies.

We seek to understand why a relatively high percentage (39%; vs the meta-analytic average, 15–18%) of disorganized/disoriented (D) classifications has accrued in the low-risk Uppsala Longitudinal Study (ULS) study, using experienced D coders. Prior research indicates that D behaviours do not always indicate attachment disorganization stemming from a history of frightening caregiving. We examined the role of two other presumed factors: participation in a previous strange situation and overstress. Our findings indicate that both factors were highly prevalent in the ULS sample and that they jointly predicted higher rates of D. First, participation in a previous strange situation was associated with significantly higher distress displays during the second visit than occurred among previously untested children, suggesting that prior participation in the strange situation had a sensitizing effect on child distress during the second visit. Second, unless separations were cut short in lieu of high distres...

The term “attachment” is now in common usage and, as the readers of this Special Issue are aware, is referenced in a rapidly increasing variety of contexts involving child custody (McIntosh & Chisholm, 2008). The aim of this article is to provide judges, lawyers, mediators and mental health professionals involved in custody assessment with an overview of the history of the field of attachment and its principal measures, together with a clear description of what the term “attachment” does—and does not—mean to attachment researchers and theoreticians. Implications for normative separations that do not involve custody-related assessment or the intervention of courts or mediators are also considered. With respect to contested custody cases, we consider the use of standardized attachment measures, and note that sufficient validation for most such measures in clinical contexts is still developing. We describe three measures taken from the research literature (the Strange Situation procedure, the Attachment Q-sort and the Adult Attachment Interview), each subjected to meta-analyses and widely regarded as “gold standard” methods in research. These three methods come closest at this point in time to meeting criteria for providing “scientific evidence” regarding an individual's current attachment status. Limitations on widespread use include the need for substantiating meta-analyses on father-child relationships, and further validation across a wider spread of children's ages. We are confident that these restrictions can be solved by new research. In the interim, we argue that increased familiarity with the above measures will assist custody evaluators both in standardizing their assessment procedures and their capacity to gain more from the observational data available to them. Such increased standardization and depth of observation should be highly beneficial to the courts. Related to our endorsement of use of attachment measures in family law matters, we address issues of training, and strongly encourage custody evaluators to attend trainings in the principal methods of the field, and insofar as possible, to become certified in their use. Overall, we endorse the position that attachment theory provides important perspectives not only on the emotional process of divorce itself, but as well on the decisions made for and about the children concerned. Thus, this paper argues that attachment, correctly understood, creates a critical foundation for all professionals working with separated families.

This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the questions that comprise the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) protocol, together with its associated scoring and classification system. Familiarity with the interview and the system with which it is analyzed supplies the reader with an essential port of entree into understanding the chapters that follow. As well, it provides a background for use of the AAI in clinical contexts. The AAI scoring and classification system focuses on the patterns of speech that emerge in the individual asked to respond to a series of 20 questions that comprise the interview protocol. Many of these concern childhood experiences with primary caregivers. Other questions address individuals' thoughts and feelings about the influence of childhood experiences upon his or her adult personality, the possible reasons caregivers may have behaved as they did when the speaker was a child, and the nature of the current relationships with the caregivers/parents. Questions regarding major loss experiences, as well as any overwhelmingly frightening or traumatic experiences occurring throughout the individual's lifetime, are included. The interview ends by asking what wishes the speaker would have for his or her children's (or imagined children's) future, and what he or she hopes the children would have learned from his or her parenting. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)