Poster #146 - Secure Base Provision: A New Approach to Examining Links between Maternal Caregiving and Infant Attachment

• In Event: 3-003 - Poster Session 09
  In Poster Session: PS 09 Section - Parenting & Parent-Child Relationships

Integrative Statement

Attachment has been linked to an array of developmental outcomes (Thompson, 2016); thus, it is critical to understand precursors of infant attachment. Meta-analysis (De Wolff & van IJzendoorn, 1997) showed that caregiver sensitivity (i.e., the ability to accurately interpret infant needs and respond promptly and appropriately; Ainsworth et al., 1971) is a key predictor of attachment; yet sensitivity accounts for only 6% of the variance in attachment generally, and only 2% of the variance in families with low socioeconomic status (low-SES; De Wolff & van IJzendoorn, 1997). Many intervention programs aim to promote secure attachment in low-SES infants, yet the lack of a clear understanding of the precursors of attachment in these families reduces the likelihood of effective intervention.

We developed a new conceptualization of caregiving focused on a return to Bowlby’s secure base construct, which Bowlby viewed as central to attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988). Bowlby (1969/1982) theorized that infants use the attachment figure as a secure base from which to safely explore, and a safe haven to which the infant can return for protection or comfort when needed. We define secure base provision (SBP) as the degree to which a caregiver is ultimately able to meet an infant’s needs on both sides of the attachment-exploration continuum (even in the presence of high levels of insensitive behavior). SBP differs from sensitivity, which focuses on parental caregiving more broadly, in several key ways. For example, in contrast to measurement of sensitivity, assessment of SBP considers only caregiver responses to infant cues relevant to secure base functioning rather than responses to all infant cues; caregiver promptness and emotional attunement are not considered. We examined whether SBP explained variance in attachment beyond variance explained by sensitivity.

Method

Participants included 83 low-SES, racially/ethnically diverse (e.g., 47.7% African American/Black, 19.3% White, 14.8% Hispanic), 4.5-month-old infants (56% male) and their mothers. Dyads completed lab tasks at 4.5 m and three 30-minute home visits between 7-9m, then returned to the lab at 12m for an attachment assessment (Strange Situation; Ainsworth et al., 1978). All available video-taped interactions were coded independently for both sensitivity (NICHD, 1999; ICCs .69-.98) and SBP (ICC=.82).

Results

We controlled for infant gender because gender was associated with attachment security (r = -.23, p < .05). As shown in Table 1, maternal sensitivity did not significantly predict infant attachment security (although the effect size was similar to meta-analytic effect sizes). In contrast, SBP significantly predicted infant attachment, over and above sensitivity, with an effect size eight times larger than that of sensitivity in meta-analytic findings for low-SES families. SBP and sensitivity were positively but non-significantly correlated (r = .11, ns).

Conclusions

The current study provides initial evidence for a conceptual shift in our understanding of the precursors of infant attachment, particularly in low-SES families. The SBP approach may capture strengths present in economically stressed, low-SES parents who may ascribe to what Brody and Flor (1998) termed “no-nonsense parenting.” Interventions that focus on improving SBP may be more effective than those focused on sensitivity.
 

Authors

• Susan S. Woodhouse, Lehigh University
  Presenting Author

• Julie R. Scott, Pennsylvania State University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Allison Hepworth, University of Maryland School of Social Work
  Non-Presenting Author

• Jude Cassidy, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland-College Park
  Non-Presenting Author