Towards Assessing Attachment on an Emotional Security Continuum

Developmental Psychology (2003, in press). Towards Assessing Attachment on an Emotional Security Continuum

E. Mark Cummings University of Notre Dame

Abstract The report by Fraley and Spieker serves to remind the discipline of the possible virtues of assessing attachments on continua, a practice that has a long history in attachment research. This commentary further develops the potential contributions of this approach to assessment and advocates for renewed efforts towards assessment attachments on a single continuum of emotional security. A contention is that theory is essential as a guide for new direction in attachment assessment and that Bowlby’s notion of secure base and emotional security provides the needed conceptual foundation for these further developments (Waters & Cummings, 2000). Moreover, challenges that have been made historically to scoring attachment on a security continuum are addressed. New means to continuously score attachment are advocated as a supplement to the primary direction of categorically assessing attachment patterns.

Although attachment is typically scored in terms of The notion of scoring attachment on continua categorical patterns of attachment, the practice of subsequently seems to have lost momentum for sev- rating patterns of attachment on continua also has a eral reasons, including questions about whether long history. In the decade or so following publica- scoring attachments on continua could ever truly tion of Patterns of Attachment by Ainworth, Blehar, capture patterns of attachment (e.g., Ainsworth, Waters and Wall (1978) many investigators scored 1990) and the more mundane problem that cogent attachment on security continua as well as scoring scales for scoring attachments on continua of secu- patterns of attachment (e.g., Main, Kaplan, & rity were not forthcoming. Fraley’s and Spieker’s Cassidy, 1985). In addition, some studies in effect conceptually elegant and statistically sophisticated used security continua by collapsing attachment report serves to remind the discipline of the virtues groups into comparisons of secure versus insecure. of scoring attachments on continua. They also make Increasing evidence of patterns that did not fit Ains- a startling new proposition based on their analyses worth three-group system lead Cummings (1990) to of strange situation data from the NICHD Study of argue for the development of a security continuum Early Child Care: Attachment are fundamentally that could encompass attachments that could and ordered along continua of the indicators of attach- could not be classified by Ainsworth’s system onto a ment rather than categorically in terms of three single scale, thereby allowing comparisons among qualitatively distinct organizations of attachment. all organizations of attachment and avoiding the Additionally, they challenge the long-held proposi- practice of forcing attachments into groups to which tion that categories can reflect organizations of at- they did not seem to truly belong. About the same tachment behavior but continua of attachment are time Main and colleagues (Main & Hesse, 1990; inherently inappropriate to such sophisticated as- Main & Solomon, 1990) proposed the existence of a sessments of children’s responses. That is, they D category of disorganized/ disoriented attachments make the case that there is no necessary reason why for classifying many attachments that did not fit the one cannot integrate complex assessments of attach- traditional three-group system. Notably, the original ment behavior on continua and they further argue conceptualization of the D category also included that the ratings scales for indicators of attachment the recommendation that D categories should be outlined by Ainsworth et al. (1978) did just that. scored on a continuum pertinent to the degree to Towards Ordering Attachment on a Continuum of which children’s responses in the strange situation Emotional Security reflected responses characteristic of that category. Emotional Security Cummings

The statistical and logical case made by ratings of disorganized/disoriented strategies, which Fraley and Spieker for continua underlying attach- are not included in the present analyses, apparently ment patterns is impressive. However, the report for technical statistical reasons. Notably, some does not show how ratings of attachment can be or- years ago Cummings (1990) proposed a template for dered on a single continuum of attachment security, integrating multiple sources of information about which historically was the goal of many efforts to attachment onto a single security continuum and rate attachment security (e.g., Waters & Deane, also made a case for several additional rating scales 1985). Rating attachment on a security dimension for indicators of attachment: Conflicted, difficulty has advantages in terms of fostering comparisons comforting, depressed affect, and disconnectedness. among patterns of attachment on a single metric. The extant literature (Crittenden, 1985; Radke- The report also falls short of suggesting new direc- Yarrow, Cummings, Kuczynski, & Chapman, 1985) tions for scoring attachment on continua. Indeed, also suggested that simultaneous avoidance and re- this was inevitable since the statistical treatment was sistance in infants’ reunion with the parent in the limited to Ainsworth et al.’s (1978) original scales strange situation might also be considered as an infor scoring responses of infants in the strange situa- dex of attachment at the very insecure end of a secu- tion, which was a pragmatic result of the fact that rity continuum. only these scales were scored in the large-scale (n = Challenges and Potential Contributions 1139 infant-mother dyads) NICHD Study of Early Child Care. There are challenges and potential pitfalls in attempting to extend the highly-successful enterprise Important new evidence was reported for of coding attachments into categories to include con- proximity seeking versus avoidant, and angry and tinuum scoring as a companion direction in assess- resistant, strategies, respectively, as reflecting con- ment. Our contention is that theory is essential as a tinua underlying classifications of infants as A, B, or guide for new directions in attachment assessment C in the strange situation based on the techniques (Waters & Cummings, 2000), including integrating developed by Meehl and colleagues for testing behaviors onto a single continuum of attachment taxonic hypotheses. However, it is difficult to see security and for adding any new indicators of attach- how scores on two different scales can be as infor- ment into an organizational analysis of individual mative for hypothesis testing in attachment research differences in attachment. Otherwise, in the absence as comparisons among the several attachment cate- of theory as a guide, the danger of confusing attach- gories, or ratings of attachment on a single security ment indicators and correlates of attachment is a po- continuum. That is, one cannot interpret a high score tentially serious problem (Ainsworth, 1990). My on proximity seeking as meaningful in itself because colleagues and I have elsewhere contended that such scores can reflect either secure or resistant at- Bowlby’s notion of secure base and emotional secu- tachments, as is illustrated by their data in Table 2 of rity provides the needed conceptual foundation for their report. Similarly, one cannot interpret low re- further developments in the assessment of attach- sistance and anger scores in themselves for purposes ment, including the move towards family-wide mod- of hypothesis testing about attachment organization els for the influences on children’s emotional secu- because such ratings can reflect either secure or rity (Davies & Cummings, 1994; Waters & Cum- avoidant categories or subcategories (see Tables 2 mings, 2000). Although it is not as often discussed and 3). Thus, the report does not provide what may as Bowlby’s other contributions, he espoused a fam- be most essential for the re-emergence of continua ily-wide as well as life-span model for the origins of ratings as an adjunct to category scoring, that is, a an individuals’ sense of emotional security basis for comparing organizations of attachment on (Ainsworth, 1985; Ainsworth, 1990; Marvin & a single security continuum. Stewart, 1990; Waters & Cummings, 2000). Thus, The challenge thus is to take an organiza- ideally a goal for attachment assessment is to de- tional analysis of patterns of attachment another step velop scoring criteria that can be extended to addi- further and integrate Fraley’s and Spieker’s prox- tional age periods, other family contexts (e.g., the imity seeking versus avoidance, and resistance and intersection of the marital and child subsystem), and anger, scales onto a single security continuum. other contexts of assessment (e.g., other stressful Moreover, as Fraley and Spieker note in their report, contexts of everyday family life pertinent to chil- there may well be other scales of behavioral indica- dren’s sense of emotional security). tors that might be integrated in forming a single se- Before further addressing the requirements curity continuum, including Main and colleagues’ for scoring attachment security on a continua, which

2 Emotional Security Cummings

is also pertinent to the additional question of scoring made to clarify that emotional security is properly emotional security from broader family functioning inferred according to this approach by multi-method than the parent-child relationship, it is worthwhile to and multi-response assessments (Cummings & Da- consider some of the possible virtues of such an en- vies, 1996; Davies & Forman, 2001). Accordingly, terprise. Rating attachments on continua improves an individual may report that they feel secure in a the specificity of assessment of attachment, even stressful context, but their overt emotional, behav- when attachments fit the requirements for scoring in ioral, or physiological responses may belie this rep- the traditional three-group system. Fraley’s and resentation, meriting an assessment of insecure re- Spieker’s demonstration that continuous rather than sponding (Davies & Forman, 2001; El-Sheik, Cum- categorical distributions underlie the traditional pat- mings, & Goetsch, 1989). Given that the operation terns of attachment reinforces this point. Relatedly, of possibly unconscious processes (i.e., defensive an individual’s true attachment organization may be processes) must be based on some assessment of on the borderline between distinct categories. For responding, this approach in this sense does not dif- example, an individual’s attachment may be on the fer from other approaches to attachment assessment border between A versus B, or between B versus C, in this regard (Ainsworth, 1990). That is, defensive respectively. Rating attachment on well-delineated processes, whether inferred from interviews, obser- security continua reduces potential errors in meas- vation, or multi-response assessments, must always urement that are associated with such decisions and be based on some assessment of indicators. While also provides a representation of the relative secu- the term “felt-security” was advanced to avoid the rity of attachment organization. Rating attachments certain vagueness and implication of untestability on a continuum can also encompass very deviant implied by the term “emotional security”, perhaps and normative attachment patterns on the same the latter term, in the final analysis is more appropri- scale, thereby fostering quantitative and statistical ate. comparisons. In particular, some of the most prob- Additional objections to this theoretical basis lematic patterns of attachment potentially linked for attachment assessments are claims that proximity with later developmental problems (Cummings & seeking is better viewed as the set-goal of attach- Cicchetti, 1990), for example, attachments reported ment and that emotions do not serve a motivational among maltreated children and children of de- function in directing behavior. In these instances it pressed parents (e.g., Crittenden, 1985; Spieker & may be stated that we are proposing further evolu- Booth, 1985), may include attachment disturbances tion of emphases in attachment theory, in the interest that are not readily captured by categorical analysis of promoting further advances in the application and and that therefore may not be adequately considered utility of core notions of that theory. Emotional se- in these assessments of attachment (Cummings, curity can be readily seen as a set-goal for an indi- 1990). Finally, the statistical power to detect ef- vidual’s functioning in stressful contexts, especially fects may be increased substantially by scoring re- beyond infancy and in family-wide contexts, such as sponses continuously. Fraley and Spieker cogently children’s emotional security about interparental demonstrated this point based both on statistical relationships. For example, when faced with high model testing and analyses of the NICHD attach- marital conflict children evidence distress and chil- ment data. dren from families in which marital conflict poses Theoretical Considerations particular threat to their sense of emotional security may seek to reduce emotional insecurity by leaving The notion of attachment as a control system the room to avoid stressful exposure to marital dis- with felt-security as its set-goal provides a dynamic cord (i.e., avoidance) or seeking to intervene in in- model for the operation of attachment in terms of terparental conflicts to effect a resolution of differ- emotional security conceptualization (Sroufe & Wa- ences (Davies & Cummings, 1994). Moreover, one ters, 1977). In important respects this view is con- can see how multi- method and multi-response as- sistent with Bowlby’s original formulation, espe- sessments can be applied to the assessment of emo- cially secure base concepts and the control systems tional security as a set-goal of an individuals func- model. However, it is important to realize that felt- tioning in multiple everyday family and extra- security does not mean that the individual is always familial contexts of functioning (e.g., Davies & consciously aware of their true level of emotional Cummings, 1998; Davies, Forman, Rasi, & Stevens, security in a situation, which has been an objection in press). Such an approach can also be extended to sometimes articulated to this approach (Ainsworth, categorical assessment. For example, Davies and 1990). In recent formulations efforts have been Forman (2001) have used observational and inter-

3 Emotional Security Cummings

view methods to identify three profiles with regard Consistent with the authors’ position, in the to strategies children use to preserve their emotional final analysis the use of both categorical and con- security about the interparental relationship: secure, tinuous scoring for attachment and attachment- insecure-preoccupied and insecure-dismissing. The related processes can be seen as worthwhile goals notion of emotional security as a set-goal expands for assessment. Clearly, the success of attachment the range of contexts and ages in which attachments categories in advancing understanding of early can be assessed, while still including traditional no- socio-emotional developing speaks for itself and tions of proximity-seeking and the availability of will remain the primary direction for assessment of attachment figures as elements of assessment. attachment patterns. Nonetheless, as this report in- dicates, improvements may be provided by scoring With regard to the role of emotions, Bowlby on continua. The evidence presented by Fraley and placed considerable emphasis on emotionality in the Spieker that individual differences in indicators of experience of attachment relationships (Ainsworth, attachment are distributed in this way adds strength 1990). In recent years the operation of emotional to the argument for this approach to assessment. systems has been extended to include a motivational Moreover, continua and categories provide two dif- function (Bretherton, Fritz, Zahn-Waxler, & Ridge- ferent levels of analysis of organizations of individ- way, 1986; Sroufe & Waters, 1977), consistent with ual differences, with different strengths and weak- a functionalist perspective on emotions that ascribes nesses for advancing understanding, so that it seems a motivational component to emotions in children’s likely that such a direction for future efforts for the responding to everyday events (Saarni, Mumme, & development of coding systems can only add to con- Campos, 1998). Moreover, various directions in tribution of attachment research. The suite of tech- theory and research further advance the notion of niques developed by Meehl and colleagues may in- emotions as serving a central motivational and or- deed continue to prove useful in future research for ganizational function in children’s responses to eve- uncovering the latent structure of attachment indica- ryday family stressors (Crockenberg & Langrock, tors and rigorously testing taxonic conjectures. 2001; Davies & Cummings, 1995; Stein & Liwag, Nonetheless, the recommendation for future re- 1997). search must not be to attempt to choose between Improving Assessment in the Future them. A debate limited to this question does not seem likely to be especially productive. Thus, in answer to Fraley’s and Spieker’s question about new behavioral indicators for attach- Rather, the goal should be to proceed to ad- ment and attachment-related processes, the sugges- vance the cogency and value of both categorical and tion is that additional behavioral indicators consis- continuous levels of analysis, ideally used together tent with the proximity-seeking but also the emo- in assessment when appropriate, that is, given that tional security provision of attachment be sought. the evidence supports the adequate validity and ap- These indicators may result in small but significant plicability of the procedures, since each approach to improvements in the assessment of attachment or- assessment offers its own potential for significant ganizations in the strange situation in infancy. As advances in understanding and hypothesis testing. these authors note, room for further advance in that References context is limited given the efficacy of Ainsworth et al.’s original scales. A more pertinent application in Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1985). Attachments across the terms of making a difference for future assessment lifespan. Bulletin of the New York Academy of strategies is to develop effective strategies to score Medicine, 61, 792-812. attachments on a continuum in other contexts than Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1990). Some considerations the strange situation, based on an organizational regarding theory and assessment relevant to at- analysis of behavioral indicators, with emotional tachments beyond infancy. In M. T. Greenberg, security suggested as the basis for this continuum, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attach- consistent with historical and ongoing trends in this ment in the preschool years. (Pp. 463-488). Chi- discipline. This direction is likely to be even more cago: University of Chicago Press. pertinent for developing continua for assessing attachment in the preschool years and beyond than in Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & infancy, which is a period of development that is Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psy- especially amendable to the assessment of attach- chological study of the strange situation. Hills- ment in the context of the strange situation dale, NJ: Erlbaum. (Cicchetti, Cummings, Greenberg, & Marvin, 1990).

4 Emotional Security Cummings

Bretherton, I., Fritz, J., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Ridge- El-Sheikh, M., Cummings, E. M., & Goetsch, V. way, D. (1986). Learning to talk about emotion: (1989). Coping with adults’ angry behavior: A functionalist perspective. Child Development, Behavioral, physiological, and self-reported re- 57, 529-548. sponding in preschoolers. Developmental Psy- chology, 25, 490-498. Cicchetti, D., Cummings, E. M., Greenberg, M. T., & Marvin, R. S. (1990). In M. T. Greenberg, D. Main, M., & Hesse, E. (1990). Parents’ unresolved Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attach- traumatic experiences are related to infant disor- ment in the preschool years. (Pp. 3-50). Chi- ganized attachment status: Is frightened and/or cago: University of Chicago Press. frigthening parental behavior the linking mecha- nism? In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. Crittenden, P. (1985). Maltreated infants: Vulner- M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the pre- ability and resilience. Journal of Child Psy- school years. (Pp. 161-184). Chicago: Univer- chology and Psychiatry, 26, 85-96. sity of Chicago Press. Crockenberg, S., & Langrock, A. (2001). The role Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Secu- of specific emotions in children’s responses to rity in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A interparental conflict: A test of the model. move to the level of representation. In I. Bre- Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 163-182. therton, & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points in Cummings, E. M. (1990). Classification of attach- attachment theory and research. Monographs ment on a continuum of felt security: Illustra- of the Society for Research in Child Develop- tions from the study of children of depressed ment 50 (1-2, Serial No. 209), 66-104. parents. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. Main, M, & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the pre- identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented school years. (Pp. 311-338). Chicago: Univer- during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M. sity of Chicago Press. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings Cummings, E. M., & Cicchetti, D. (1990). Toward (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years. (Pp. a transactional model of relations between at- 121-160). Chicago: University of Chicago tachment and depression. In M. T. Greenberg, Press. D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attach- Marvin, R. S., & Stewart, R. B. (1990). A family ment in the preschool years. (Pp. 339-374). Chi- systems framework for the study of attachment. cago: University of Chicago Press. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool conflict and child adjustment: An emotional years. (Pp. 51-86). Chicago: University of Chi- security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, cago Press. 116, 387-411. Radke-Yarrow, M., Cummings, E. M., Kuczynski, Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1995). Chil- L., & Chapman, M. (1985). Patterns of attach- dren’s emotions as organizers of their reaction ment in two- and three-year olds in normal to interparental anger: A functionalist perspec- families and families with parental depression. tive. Developmental Psychology, 31, 677-684. Child Development, 56, 884-893. Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1998). Explor- Saarni, C., Mumme, D. L., & Campos, J. J. (1998). ing children’s emotional security as a mediator Emotional development: Action, communica- of the link between marital relations and child tion, and understanding. In N. Eisenberg (ed.), adjustment. Child Development, 69, 124-139. Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3, Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. Davies, P. T., Forman, E. M., Rasi, J. A., & Stevens, 237-309). New York: Wiley. K. I. (In press). Assessing children’s emotional security in the interparental subsystem: The Se- Spieker, S. J., & Booth, C. L. (1985). Family risk curity in Interparental Subsystems (SIS) scales. typologies and patterns of insecure attachment. Child Development. In J. O. Osofsky (Chair), Intervention with infants at risk: Patterns of attachment. Sympo- Davies, P. T., Forman, E. M. (2001). Children’s sium conducted at the biennial meeting of the patterns of preserving emotional security in the Society for Research in Child Development, interparental subsystem. Manuscript submitted Toronto. for publication.

5 Emotional Security Cummings

Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child Development, 48, 1184-1199. Stein, N. L., & Liwag, M. D. (1997). A goal- appraisal process approach to understanding and remembering emotional events. In P. van den Broek, P. Bauer, & T. Bourg (Eds.), Devel- opmental spans in event comprehension and representation (pp. 199-236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl- baum. Waters, E., & Cummings, E. M. (2000). A secure base from which to explore close relationships. Child Development, 71, 164-172. Waters, E., & Deane, K. E. (1985). Defining and assessing individual differences in attachment relationships: Q-sort methodology and the organization of behavior in infancy and early childhood. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points in attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Re- search in Child Development 50 (1-2, Serial No. 209), 41-65.