Attachment and Attention Problems: A Meta-Analysis

• In Event: 1-007 - Developmental Correlates of Effortful Control Across Childhood and Adolescence

Integrative Statement

Children’s attachment status has been associated with different patterns of attention in attachment-relevant contexts (see e.g., Main, 2000; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016): (a) securely attached children (labeled B) tend to exhibit flexible attention; (b) resistant children’s (labeled C) attention is centered on attachment-related worries; (c) avoidant children (labeled A) defensively focus attention away from attachment-related emotions/thoughts; and (d) disorganized children (labeled D) exhibit the collapse of attention and disorientation. In a prior meta-analysis, Pallini et al. (2018) found that attachment status was related to dispositional measures of effortful control; children with an insecure attachment status were lower in their effortful control. However, Pallini et al. did not examine the relation of attachment status to attention problems. The goal of this meta-analysis was to determine the relation between attachment security status and attention problems (APs) in children up to 18 years of age. Children with insecure or disorganized attachments were expected to have more attention problems than secure (or organized) attachments.

Fifty-six papers (including 59 samples) met the inclusion criteria. Children with an insecure attachment were higher in APs than those with a secure attachment (r = .22). Children with A and C attachment were higher in APs than securely attached children (r = .16 and r = .20, respectively). Disorganized attachment children were higher in APs than those with organized attachments (r = .26). Children with A and C attachments did not differ significantly.

Moderators of the relation that were examined were research design (cross-sectional or longitudinal), attachment method (behavioural, representational measures, or self-report questionnaires), attachment categorization (categorical or continuous), method of assessing attention problems (parent-, teacher- or self-reported), method of assessing attachment (behavioral, representational, and self-report measures), sources of information (same rater versus different raters/methods), risk status (no risk versus at-risk clinical samples or familial risk), family socioeconomic status, publication status (published versus unpublished), ages for measurement of attachment and attention problems, time interval (time between the age of assessment of attachment status and age of assessment of attention problems), percentage of males, and year of publication. Across the various sets of analyses, most of the moderators that were significant pertained to the type of measure of attachment, the difference in the age of the children at the assessment of attachment and APs, whether the study was concurrent or longitudinal, and if the children were from a higher risk sample. Effect sizes were larger when attachment and APs were measured at the same age versus different ages (for B versus all, and D versus organized attachment), when representational versus observational measures of attachment were used (for A children versus B, and D versus organized attachment), when children were older and in recent studies (for resistant attachment only), and when D children were in a high-risk sample, or C children were in a low-risk condition. The results generally support theoretical expectations regarding an association between attachment status and APs.

Authors

• Susanna Pallini, Università degli Studi Roma Tre
  Non-Presenting Author

• Mara Morelli, Sapienza Università di Roma
  Non-Presenting Author

• Antonio Chirumbolo, University of Rome, Sapienza
  Non-Presenting Author

• Roberto Baiocco, Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome
  Non-Presenting Author

• Fiorenzo Laghi, University of Rome, Sapienza
  Non-Presenting Author

• Nancy Eisenberg, Arizona State University
  Presenting Author