DOCSLIB.ORG

Child Protection and Custody Issues

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Attachment & Human Development ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rahd20 Attachment goes to court: child protection and custody issues Tommie Forslund , Pehr Granqvist , Marinus H. van IJzendoorn , Avi Sagi- Schwartz , Danya Glaser , Miriam Steele , Mårten Hammarlund , Carlo Schuengel , Marian J. Bakermans-Kranenburg , Howard Steele , Phillip R. Shaver , Ulrike Lux , John Simmonds , Deborah Jacobvitz , Ashley M. Groh , Kristin Bernard , Chantal Cyr , Nancy L. Hazen , Sarah Foster , Elia Psouni , Philip A. Cowan , Carolyn Pape Cowan , Anne Rifkin-Graboi , David Wilkins , Blaise Pierrehumbert , George M. Tarabulsy , Rodrigo A. Carcamo , Zhengyan Wang , Xi Liang , Maria Kázmierczak , Paulina Pawlicka , Lilian Ayiro , Tamara Chansa , Francis Sichimba , Haatembo Mooya , Loyola McLean , Manuela Verissimo , Sonia Gojman-de-Millán , Marlene M. Moretti , Fabien Bacro , Mikko J. Peltola , Megan Galbally , Kiyomi Kondo-Ikemura , Kazuko Y. Behrens , Stephen Scott , Andrés Fresno Rodriguez , Rosario Spencer , Germán Posada , Rosalinda Cassibba , Neus Barrantes-Vidal , Jesus Palacios , Lavinia Barone , Sheri Madigan , Karen Mason-Jones , Sophie Reijman , Femmie Juffer , R. Pasco Fearon , Annie Bernier , Dante Cicchetti , Glenn I. Roisman , Jude Cassidy , Heinz Kindler , Peter Zimmerman , Ruth Feldman , Gottfried Spangler , Charles H. Zeanah , Mary Dozier , Jay Belsky , Michael E. Lamb & Robbie Duschinsky To cite this article: Tommie Forslund , Pehr Granqvist , Marinus H. van IJzendoorn , Avi Sagi- Schwartz , Danya Glaser , Miriam Steele , Mårten Hammarlund , Carlo Schuengel , Marian J. Bakermans-Kranenburg , Howard Steele , Phillip R. Shaver , Ulrike Lux , John Simmonds , Deborah Jacobvitz , Ashley M. Groh , Kristin Bernard , Chantal Cyr , Nancy L. Hazen , Sarah Foster , Elia Psouni , Philip A. Cowan , Carolyn Pape Cowan , Anne Rifkin-Graboi , David Wilkins , Blaise Pierrehumbert , George M. Tarabulsy , Rodrigo A. Carcamo , Zhengyan Wang , Xi Liang , Maria Kázmierczak , Paulina Pawlicka , Lilian Ayiro , Tamara Chansa , Francis Sichimba , Haatembo Mooya , Loyola McLean , Manuela Verissimo , Sonia Gojman-de-Millán , Marlene M. Moretti , Fabien Bacro , Mikko J. Peltola , Megan Galbally , Kiyomi Kondo-Ikemura , Kazuko Y. Behrens , Stephen Scott , Andrés Fresno Rodriguez , Rosario Spencer , Germán Posada , Rosalinda Cassibba , Neus Barrantes-Vidal , Jesus Palacios , Lavinia Barone , Sheri Madigan , Karen Mason-Jones , Sophie Reijman , Femmie Juffer , R. Pasco Fearon , Annie Bernier , Dante Cicchetti , Glenn I. Roisman , Jude Cassidy , Heinz Kindler , Peter Zimmerman , Ruth Feldman , Gottfried Spangler , Charles H. Zeanah , Mary Dozier , Jay Belsky , Michael E. Lamb & Robbie Duschinsky (2021): Attachment goes to court: child protection and custody issues, Attachment & Human Development To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2020.1840762 © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published online: 11 Jan 2021. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rahd20 ATTACHMENT & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2020.1840762 ARTICLE Attachment goes to court: child protection and custody issues Tommie Forslund a,b, Pehr Granqvist a, Marinus H. van IJzendoorn c, Avi Sagi-Schwartz d, Danya Glasere,f, Miriam Steele g, Mårten Hammarlund a, Carlo Schuengel h, Marian J. Bakermans-Kranenburg h, Howard Steele g, Phillip R. Shaveri, Ulrike Lux j, John Simmonds k, Deborah Jacobvitz l, Ashley M. Groh m, Kristin Bernard n, Chantal Cyr o, Nancy L. Hazen l, Sarah Foster p, Elia Psouni q, Philip A. Cowanr, Carolyn Pape Cowanr, Anne Rifkin- Graboi s, David Wilkins t, Blaise Pierrehumbert u, George M. Tarabulsyv, Rodrigo A. Carcamo w, Zhengyan Wang x, Xi Liang x, Maria Kázmierczak y, Paulina Pawlicka y, Lilian Ayiro z, Tamara Chansa aa, Francis Sichimba aa, Haatembo Mooya aa, Loyola McLean bb, Manuela Verissimo cc, Sonia Gojman-de- Millándd, Marlene M. Moretti ee, Fabien Bacro ff, Mikko J. Peltola gg, Megan Galbally hh,ii,jj, Kiyomi Kondo-Ikemurakk, Kazuko Y. Behrensll, Stephen Scott mm, Andrés Fresno Rodriguez nn, Rosario Spencer nn, Germán Posadaoo, Rosalinda Cassibba pp, Neus Barrantes-Vidal qq,rr,ss, Jesus Palacios tt, Lavinia Barone uu, Sheri Madigan vv,ww, Karen Mason-Jonesxx, Sophie Reijman yy, Femmie Juffer zz, R. Pasco Fearonaaa, Annie Bernier bbb, Dante Cicchetticcc, Glenn I. Roisman ddd, Jude Cassidyeee, Heinz Kindlerfff, Peter Zimmermanggg, Ruth Feldman hhh, Gottfried Spangleriii, Charles H. Zeanah jjj, Mary Dozierkkk, Jay Belsky lll, Michael E. Lamb mmm and Robbie Duschinsky yy aDepartment of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden; bSUF Resource Center, Region Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden; cDepartment of Psychology, Education and Child Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; dSchool of Psychological Sciences and Center for the Study of Child Development, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel; eGreat Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK; fDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK; gPsychology Department, The New School, New York, NY, USA; hFaculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Clinical Child and Family Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; iUniversity of California, Davis, CA, USA; jDepartment Families and Family Policies, German Youth Institute, Munich, Germany; kBritish Association for Adoption and Fostering at Coram (Corambaaf), London, UK; lDepartment of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA; mDepartment of Psychology, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO, USA; nDepartment of Psychology, Stony Brook University, New York, NY, USA; oDépartement de Psychologie, Université du Québec à Montréal, Québec, Canada; pDepartment of Social Work, Education and Community Wellbeing, Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK; qDepartment of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; rDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA; sSingapore Institute for Clinical Sciences (SICS, Agency for Science and Technology (A*STAR), Singapore, Singapore; tSchool of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK; uUniversity of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland; vSchool of Psychology, Laval University, Québec City, Canada; wDepartment of Psychology, University of Magallanes, Punta Arenas, Chile; xResearch Centre for Child Development, Beijing Key Laboratory of Learning and Cognition, School of Psychology, Capital Normal University, Beijing, China; yInstitute of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland; zDepartment of Educational Psychology, Maseno University, Kisumu, Kenya; aaDepartment of Psychology, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia; bbBrain and Mind Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; ccWilliam James Center for Research, ISPA – Instituto Universitário, Lisboa, Portugal; ddResearch Center of the Seminario de Sociopsicoanálisis, Mexico City, Mexico; eeDepartment of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada; ffFaculté de Psychologie, CONTACT Tommie Forslund [email protected] Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 2 T. FORSLUND ET AL. Université de Nantes, Nantes, France; ggHuman Information Processing Laboratory, Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland; hhCollege of Science, Health, Education and Engineering, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Australia; iiSchool of Medicine, University of Notre Dame, Fremantle, Australia; jjKing Edward Memorial Hospital, Subiaco, Australia; kkDepartment of Psychology, Teikyo University, Tokyo, Japan; llDepartment of Social & Behavioral Sciences, State University of New York Polytechnic Institute, Utica, NY, USA; mmInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Kings’s College London, London, UK; nnDepartment of Psychology, University of Talca, Chile; ooDepartment of Human Development and Family Studies, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA; ppDepartment of Educational Sciences, Psychology, Communication, University of Bari, Bari, Italy; qqDepartament de Psicologia Clínica i de la Salut, Universitat Autònoma De Barcelona, Spain; rrSant Pere Claver – Fundació Sanitària, Barcelona, Spain; ssCentre for Biomedical Research Network on Mental Health (CIBERSAM), Barcelona, Spain; ttDepartment of Developmental and Educational Psychology, University of Seville, Seville, Spain; uuDepartment of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, Lab of Attachment and Parenting - LAG, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy; vvDepartment of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada; wwAlberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Calgary, AB, Canada; xxCenter for Health & Community, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA; yyDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; zzCentre for Child and Family Studies,
Recommended publications
  • EAZA Best Practice Guidelines Bonobo (Pan Paniscus)

    EAZA Best Practice Guidelines Bonobo (Pan Paniscus)

    EAZA Best Practice Guidelines Bonobo (Pan paniscus) Editors: Dr Jeroen Stevens Contact information: Royal Zoological Society of Antwerp – K. Astridplein 26 – B 2018 Antwerp, Belgium Email: [email protected] Name of TAG: Great Ape TAG TAG Chair: Dr. María Teresa Abelló Poveda – Barcelona Zoo [email protected] Edition: First edition - 2020 1 2 EAZA Best Practice Guidelines disclaimer Copyright (February 2020) by EAZA Executive Office, Amsterdam. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in hard copy, machine-readable or other forms without advance written permission from the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA). Members of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) may copy this information for their own use as needed. The information contained in these EAZA Best Practice Guidelines has been obtained from numerous sources believed to be reliable. EAZA and the EAZA APE TAG make a diligent effort to provide a complete and accurate representation of the data in its reports, publications, and services. However, EAZA does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, or completeness of any information. EAZA disclaims all liability for errors or omissions that may exist and shall not be liable for any incidental, consequential, or other damages (whether resulting from negligence or otherwise) including, without limitation, exemplary damages or lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use of this publication. Because the technical information provided in the EAZA Best Practice Guidelines can easily be misread or misinterpreted unless properly analysed, EAZA strongly recommends that users of this information consult with the editors in all matters related to data analysis and interpretation.
  • The Stability of Attachment Security from Infancy to Adolescence and Early Adulthood: General Introduction

    The Stability of Attachment Security from Infancy to Adolescence and Early Adulthood: General Introduction

    Child Development, May /June 2000, Volume 71, Number 3, Pages 678-683 The Stability of Attachment Security from Infancy to Adolescence and Early Adulthood: General Introduction Everett Waters, Claire E. Hamilton, and Nancy S. Weinfield Current attachment theory hypothesizes that attachment security during infancy influences individual differences in adult representations of attachment. We present three long-term longitudinal studies using three different samples relevant to this hypothesis. Each study assesses infant attachment by using the Ainsworth Strange Situation and adult attachment by using the Berkeley Adult Attachment Interview (AAI). Attachment security was significantly stable in the first two studies. Discontinuity in all three studies was related to negative life events and circumstances. Comparison of the results across these complementary studies affords a degree of replication and sheds light on alternative interpretations. Various mechanisms underlying the stability and instability of attachment security are discussed. INTRODUCTION to context and, although available across a wide range The role of early experience in later development is an of situations and across age, its operating characteristics enduring issue in developmental psychology. This issue remain open to revision in light of significant new is of theoretical and clinical interest and, in important experiences (Bowlby, 1969; Waters, Kondo-Ikemura, respects, defines the relation of developmental Posada, & Richters, 1991). Bowlby (1969, 1973) psychology to the social, personality, and clinical hypothesized that early relationship experience with the psychology of adulthood. Developmentalists today primary caregiver leads eventually to generalized generally agree that infants can meaningfully engage, expectations about the self, others, and the world. experience, influence, and represent their environments Cognitive representations of these expectations are (e.g., Mehler & Dupoux, 1993; Sroufe, 1997).
  • Reproductive Suppression and Alloparenting in Laboratory Mice

    Reproductive Suppression and Alloparenting in Laboratory Mice

    Two of a Kind or a Full House? Reproductive Suppression and Alloparenting in Laboratory Mice The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Garner, Joseph P., Brianna N. Gaskill, and Kathleen R. Pritchett- Corning. 2016. “Two of a Kind or a Full House? Reproductive Suppression and Alloparenting in Laboratory Mice.” PLoS ONE 11 (5): e0154966. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0154966. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154966. Published Version doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0154966 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:27320428 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA RESEARCH ARTICLE Two of a Kind or a Full House? Reproductive Suppression and Alloparenting in Laboratory Mice Joseph P. Garner1, Brianna N. Gaskill2,3, Kathleen R. Pritchett-Corning2,4* 1 Stanford University, Department of Comparative Medicine, and by courtesy, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, California, United States of America, 2 Charles River, Wilmington, Massachusetts, United States of America, 3 Purdue University Department of Comparative Pathobiology, West Lafayette, Indiana, United States of America, 4 Harvard University Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Office of Animal Resources, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America a11111 * [email protected] Abstract Alloparenting, a behavior in which individuals other than the actual parents act in a parental role, is seen in many mammals, including house mice.
  • POLICY BRIEF Translating Early Childhood Research Evidence to Inform Policy and Practice Caring for Young Children: What Children Need

    POLICY BRIEF Translating Early Childhood Research Evidence to Inform Policy and Practice Caring for Young Children: What Children Need

    No 15 2009 POLICY BRIEF Translating early childhood research evidence to inform policy and practice Caring for Young Children: What Children Need Caring for young children, and getting the caring right, is becoming recognised as one of the most significant challenges facing parents, communities and societies. Young children who develop secure attachments through positive caregiving are more likely to experience lower levels of stress and other associated benefits. In turn, they are more able to contribute positively to society and care for future generations. This Policy Brief summarises what is known about what young children need from parents and caregivers, and explores the implications for policy and practice. Why is this issue import ant? The care children receive in their first years of life have lifelong problems with emotional regulation, has a lifelong impact and may even influence self concept, social skills and learning. This can future generations. Parenting styles impact lead to decreased academic achievement, early children’s development (Aunola & Nurmi, 2005); school drop-out, delinquency, drug and alcohol the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children has problems and mental health problems (Anda, et shown that even subtle variations in parenting al., 2006; Perry, 2000). styles can have significant effects on child outcomes (Australian Institute of Family Studies, What does the research tell us? 2006). ‘Nature versus nurture’ has been debated for “… the conflicting advice widely available decades, but it has not been until recently that in the public domain can be stressful for we have been able to explain how ‘nurture’ in the external world (families, communities and parents, particularly for sensitive topics society) combines with ‘nature’, or the internal such as sleep problems and discipline.” world (biological and neurological), to influence outcomes in children.
  • Earned Secure Attachment: Connection

    Earned Secure Attachment: Connection

    4/28/2018 What is Attachment Theory? Human beings are born wired for Earned Secure Attachment: connection. At the very beginning of our Helping Clients Rewire their Brains lives, we form attachments to our primary through Creating a Coherent Narrative caretakers as a survival mechanism. with Dr. Lisa Firestone Our attachment pattern forms as a result of the adaptations we made in infancy to get our needs met. Children make the best adaptations they can to their family. April 27 th , 2018 California Psychological Association Annual Conference – La Jolla, CA What is Attachment Theory? Attachment Theory Developmental Created by John Bowlby, a British psychoanalyst, based partly on primate ethology, to explain why “maternal deprivation” leads to anxiety, anger, delinquency, and depression From 1969-1988, he published five books about the theory, including one on psychotherapy. 1 4/28/2018 Attachment Theory and Research Attachment Theory Distilled Bowlby contended that internal working models of attachment help to explain: ▷ Humans, especially young • children, rely on attachment Emotional distress figures for protection, • Personality disturbance support, and emotion • Emotional detachment regulation “Attachment underlies later capacity to make effectual ▷ The attachment behavioral bonds as well as a whole range of adult dysfunctions,” system is an evolved, innate particularly with marital bonds and trouble parenting. regulator of proximity (hence of safety and safe exploration) From “Attachment Theory and Research: Implications for Psychodynamic Psychotherapy” http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-60761-792-1_24#page-1 Attachment Theory Distilled Attachment Theory Distilled ▷ When threats abate, behavioral systems other than attachment (e.g., ▷ Our attachment system is activated when we are distressed.
  • Attachment Theory and Research: Overview with Suggested Applications to Child Custody

    Attachment Theory and Research: Overview with Suggested Applications to Child Custody

    INVITED MONOGRAPH ATTACHMENT THEORY AND RESEARCH: OVERVIEW WITH SUGGESTED APPLICATIONS TO CHILD CUSTODY Mary Main, Erik Hesse, and Siegfried Hesse* 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 theAdultAttachment 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.
  • Durham E-Theses

    Durham E-Theses

    Durham E-Theses Dimensions of the heterosexual bond: Culture, personality and cycle eects SHIMODA, REI How to cite: SHIMODA, REI (2014) Dimensions of the heterosexual bond: Culture, personality and cycle eects, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/11066/ Use policy This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-SA) Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk Dimensions of the heterosexual bond: Culture, personality and cycle effects Rei Shimoda Abstract Romantic love, sexual desire, and adult attachment mechanisms were proposed to be universal adaptations which initiate and maintain a pair-bond relationship with a selected partner. The main goal of the thesis was to explore the functions of the pair-bond mechanisms from an evolutionary perspective and to test whether these proposed mechanisms showed the characteristics expected of psychological systems designed to initiate and maintain a pair-bond. The life history theory assumes that, as the available resources and lifespan are limited, decisions regarding resource allocation (e.g., energy) involve trade-offs among life history tasks (e.g., reproduction, parenting). The theory implies that individuals in different circumstances should deal with trade-offs differently, and this may be reflected in the experiences of pair-bond relationships. I first selected prospective items in order to construct self-report measurements of pair-bond relationships (Chapter Two). These items were administered to Occidental and Japanese participants.
  • Attachment Histories and Futures: Reply to Vicedo’S ‘Putting Attachment in Its Place’

    Attachment Histories and Futures: Reply to Vicedo’S ‘Putting Attachment in Its Place’

    European Journal of Developmental Psychology ISSN: 1740-5629 (Print) 1740-5610 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pedp20 Attachment histories and futures: reply to Vicedo’s ‘Putting attachment in its place’ Robbie Duschinsky, Marinus Van Ijzendoorn, Sarah Foster, Sophie Reijman & Francesca Lionetti To cite this article: Robbie Duschinsky, Marinus Van Ijzendoorn, Sarah Foster, Sophie Reijman & Francesca Lionetti (2018): Attachment histories and futures: reply to Vicedo’s ‘Putting attachment in its place’, European Journal of Developmental Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/17405629.2018.1502916 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2018.1502916 Published online: 02 Aug 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 62 View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pedp20 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2018.1502916 Attachment histories and futures: reply to Vicedo’s ‘Putting attachment in its place’ Robbie Duschinskya, Marinus Van Ijzendoornb,c, Sarah Fosterd, Sophie Reijmana and Francesca Lionettie aThe Primary Care Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge School of Clinical, Cambridge, UK; bGraduate School Social and Behavioural Sciences, Leiden University, The Netherlands; cDepartment of Psychology, Education, and Child Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; dSocial Work, Education & Community Wellbeing, Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK; eSchool of Biological and Chemical Sciences Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK ARTICLE HISTORY Received 25 November 2017; Accepted 1 December 2017; Published online 31 July 2018 For Vicedo, ‘putting attachment in its place’ seems to entail two aspects.
  • Daly Perry 2020 Substitute Parenting Chapter Final.Pdf

    Daly Perry 2020 Substitute Parenting Chapter Final.Pdf

    1 Substitute Parenting in L. Workman, W. Reader & J. Barkow, eds., (2020) The Cambridge handbook of evolutionary perspectives on human behavior. Cambridge University Press. Substitute Parenting Martin Daly & Gretchen Perry Substitute parenting presents a puzzle for evolutionists Evolutionary theory has straightforward relevance to parental behavior. The behavioral inclinations that natural selection favors are those that contribute to Darwinian fitness, that is, to one's expected genetic posterity (in the statistical, not the psychological, sense of "expected"). The primary avenue by which people and other creatures promote their fitness is by producing viable young who will eventually reproduce. Parental motives, emotions, and actions are therefore prime targets of selection. "Parental investment" (Trivers, 1972) is a limited resource that parents have evolved to allocate in ways that can be expected to maximize the eventual reproductive success of one's total progeny (Clutton-Brock, 1991; Royle, Smiseth & Kolliker, 2012). This means investing preferentially in young whose individual attributes predict that the investment will be most helpful, but above all, it means investing preferentially in one's own young (Daly & Wilson, 1980). Why a Darwinian would predict that parents will avoid squandering their limited resources on unrelated young should be obvious: Selection favors those genes and traits that enhance their carriers' fitness relative to the fitness of conspecific rivals. As theory would lead us to expect, parents of many animal species indeed care discriminatively for their own young, while spurning others, using a variety of complex psychophysiological adaptations to make the distinction (Daly & Wilson, 1988, 1995). And yet, despite abundant evidence that animal parents indeed care selectively for their own offspring, our own species is one in which non-parents often serve as children's primary caregivers, sometimes temporarily ("fosterage"), and sometimes indefinitely or permanently ("adoption").
  • Cultural and Historical Diversity in Early Relationship Formation

    Cultural and Historical Diversity in Early Relationship Formation

    Universals and cultural diversity Cultural and Historical Diversity in Early Relationship Formation Heidi Keller Institute of Psychology Osnabrück University Osnabrück, Germany European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2017, 14(6), 700-713 Universals and cultural diversity Abstract Attachment theory has been challenged as representing exclusively Western middle class child care philosophy. In particular, the conception of a single, primary adult caregiver does not correspond with the reality of many early child care patterns worldwide. Different models of care that have been identified and described by cultural anthropologists, cultural and cross-cultural psychologists over the last decades are presented. It is apparent that in many cultural communities children and grandparents are significant caretakers and attachment figures. The particular arrangements of different caregiving systems need further systematic study. Caregiving is adapted to the sociocultural environments in which children are born and raised to become competent adults. Sociocultural environments also change over historical time, especially with respect to the amount of formal schooling and, as a corollary, maternal age at first birth, the number of children in the household, and household composition. In the second part of the paper, sociodemographic changes in different cultural environments are documented. Concomitant changes in socialization goals and socialization strategies involving babies are presented; these involve comparing different generations (mothers
  • Chimpanzees Spontaneously Take Turns in a Shared Serial Ordering Task

    Chimpanzees Spontaneously Take Turns in a Shared Serial Ordering Task

    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Chimpanzees spontaneously take turns in a shared serial ordering task Received: 3 March 2017 Christopher Flynn Martin1, Dora Biro2 & Tetsuro Matsuzawa3 Accepted: 3 October 2017 Social coordination can provide optimal solutions to many kinds of group dilemmas, and non-human Published: xx xx xxxx subjects have been shown to perform single actions successively or simultaneously with partners to maximize food rewards in a variety of experimental settings. Less attention has been given to showing how animals are able to produce multiple (rather than single) intermixed and co-regulated actions, even though many species’ signal transmissions and social interactions rely on extended bouts of coordinated turn-taking. Here we report on coordination behaviour in three pairs of chimpanzees (mother/ofspring dyads) during an experimentally induced turn-taking scenario. Participants were given a “shared” version of a computer-based serial ordering task that they had previously mastered individually. We found that minimal trial-and-error learning was necessary for the participants to solve the new social version of the task, and that information fow was more pronounced from mothers toward ofspring than the reverse, mirroring characteristics of social learning in wild chimpanzees. Our experiment introduces a novel paradigm for studying behavioural coordination in non-humans, able to yield insights into the evolution of turn-taking which underlies a range of social interactions, including communication and language. If “two heads are better than one”, it is primarily because those heads are capable of efectively coordinating their behaviour to achieve a common goal. Coordination between humans is known to be the optimal solution to many kinds of social dilemmas1,2, and conversational exchanges are central to cooperative problem solving3.
  • Cultural Differences in Adult Attachment and Facial Emotion Recognition

    Cultural Differences in Adult Attachment and Facial Emotion Recognition

    University of Ulm Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy Director: Prof. Dr. Harald Gündel Section Medical Psychology Head: Prof. Dr. Harald C. Traue Cultural Differences in Adult Attachment and Facial Emotion Recognition Dissertation to obtain the Doctoral Degree of Human Biology (Dr. biol. hum.) at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Ulm by Hang Li born in Huolinguole, Inner Mongolia, P.R. China 2013 Amtierender Dekan: Prof. Dr. Thomas Wirth 1. Berichterstatter: Prof. Dr. Harald C. Traue 2. Berichterstatter: Prof. Dr. phil. Ute Ziegenhain Tag der Promotion: 18. 10. 2013 CONTENTS Contents Contents ..................................................................................................................................................... I Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................................... III 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Issues ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Attachment and facial emotion recognition .......................................................................................... 3 1.3 Individualism and collectivism ............................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Cultural differences