the origins of the embodied self: parental embodied...

The Origins of the Embodied Self: Parental Embodied Mentalising

Dana Shai, Ph.D. sdhana@idc.ac.il

Mentalisation

•  perceiving,understanding,andinterpre0ngac0ons/

behavioursintermsofinten0onalmentalstates

•  Behaviourpredictableandmeaningful

•  Affectregula0onandself‐organisa0on

•  Constructedinthea=achmentrela0onship

•  Promotessecurea=achment(Fonagy,Gergely,Jurist,&Target,2002;Fonagy,Gergely,&Target,2007)

2 2

Empirical Findings

•  Parentalmentalisinganda=achmentsecurityArno=&Meins,2007;Fonagy,Steele,&Steele,1991;Meins,Fernyhough,Fradley,&Tuckey,2001;Slade,

Bernbach,Grienenberger,WohlgemuthLevy,&Locker,2005

•  Child’sa=achmentsecurityandmentalisingFonagy,1997;Meins,Fernyhough,Russell,&Clark‐Carter,1998

•  Parentalmentalisingandchild’ssocio‐emo0onaldevelopment

Fonagyetal.,1995,2002;Katz&Windercker‐Nelson,2004;Meinsetal.,2002,2003;Sharp&

Fonagy,2008

Measuring Parental Mentalising

•  ParentalRF‐PDI(Slade,2002,2005;Slade,Bernbach,Grienenberger,Levy,&Locker,2004)

•  Insigh_ulnessAssessment(Oppenheim,Koren‐Karie,&Sagi,2001)

•  Mind‐Mindedness(Meins1997,1999)

4

Verbal Parental Mentalising

•  RFini0allyusedinterchangeablywithmentalisa0on

•  “ThetermRFreferstotheopera&onalisa&onofthepsychologicalprocessesunderlyingthecapacitytomentalise”(Fonagyetal.,2002,p.24)

•  “RFisanovertmanifesta&on,innarra&ve,ofanindividual’smentalisingcapacity”(Slade,2005,p.269)

5 5

Intermediate Summary

1. ByoneyearofagetheinfanthasestablishedanIWMofthea=achmentrela0onshipwithprimarycaregiver

2.Parentalmentalisingpredictsthisa=achmentsecurityrepresenta0onofthechildandotherdevelopmentaloutcomes

3.Parentalmentalisingismeasuredtodatesolelyviaverbalassessments

4.Wecancomfortablyassumethatveryyoungchildrencannotcomprehendthesubtle0esofthecontentofspeechofparentswhentalkingtooraboutthem

6 6

BUT…

•  Whatisthepreverbalchild’sexperienceofrela0onshipwithmother?

•  Whatisthemechanismthroughwhichparentalmentalcapaci0escometoshapethoseofinfant?

•  Evidenceforindependentneuralmechanismsforexplicitandimplicitmentalising(e.g.,Lieberman,2007)

•  Someotherformofcommunica0onwhichmakessensetotheinfant,islikelytobetakingplace:nonverbalinterac,vecommunica,on

7 7

Nonverbal Developmental Research

•  Eye‐contact/gazepa=erns(Beebe,2000;Beebe&Lachmann,1998;Fogel,1993;Jaffe&Feldstein,1970;Trevarthen,1979)

•  Vocalrhythms(Beebe,Jaffe,Lachmann,Feldstein,Crown,&Jasnow,2000;Papouŝek&Papouŝek,1987)

•  Headmovements(Beebe&Stern,1977,Beebeetal.,2010;Jaffeetal.,2001)

•  Wherewholebody–eithercategorical/discreteornotdyadic

8 8

Parental Embodied Mentalising

•  ReconceptualisingparentalmentalisingNon‐declara0ve,implicit,outofawarenessAwayofknowingthroughthebody

•  Inves0ga0onthroughthekinaesthe0clens•  Subtlemovementquali0es‐‘how’ratherthan‘what’;theshade,notthecolour

•  Inten0onalmentalstatesaswhole‐bodykinaesthe0cmanifesta0ons

9 9

Parental Embodied Mentalising (PEM): Definition

1.Thecapacitytoimplicitlyconceive,comprehend,and

extrapolatetheinfant'smentalstatesfromthe

infant’swhole‐bodykinaestheAcexpressions,and

2.Adjustone’sownkinaesthe0cpa=ernsaccordingly.

Theoretical Background of PEM

•  Thebodilyself(Freud,1923)

•  Theindwellingofthepsycheinthesoma(Winnico=,1956,1960,1962)

•  Mind=Psyche+Soma(Winnico=,1949,1988)

•  SkinegoSecondaryskin(Bick,1968;Anzieu,1989;McDougall,1989;Ogden,1989;Tus0n,1992).

•  MotoricegoCharacterArmour(Lowen,1958;Reich,1933).

11

Relational approach to PEM

“Thereisnosuchthingasabody,thereisonlyabodyinrela&onshipwithanotherbody”

(Orbach,2004,p.28)

•  Rela0onaldialec0cbodilyself(Aron,1998;White,2004;Winnico=,1962)

•  Systemstheory(e.g.,Fogel,1993;Sander,1977)

•  Thebodyasabidirec0onalpla_ormofrela0onalexperiences

•  EmbodiedA=achment

12

Vitality Affects

“ManyqualiAesoffeelingthatoccurdonotfitintoourexisAng

lexiconortaxonomyofaffects.TheseelusivequaliAesarebeGer

captured bydynamic, kine&c terms, such as ‘surging’, ‘fading

away’,‘fleeAng’...weareneverwithouttheirpresence,whether

or not we are conscious of them...the infant is immersed in

these‘feelingsofvitality’...thesocialworldexperiencedbythe

infantisprimarilyoneofvitalityaffectsbeforeitisaworldof

formalacts"(Stern,1985,pp.54‐57).

13

PEM Construct- Premises

1.  Mentalstatescan,andare,expressedbodilyandkinaesthe0cally

2.  One’sinterpreta0onofthekinaesthe0cincidentsofanotherasexpressionsofmentalstatesgeneratesachangeinthemovementoftheoneobservingorinterac0ngwiththemover

3.  Thedegreetowhichaparentcaninterprettheinfant’skinaesthe0coccurrencesasmentalis0cincidents,andasaresultrespondtothemkinesthe0cally,canserveasanassessmentofparentalmentalisa0on.

14 14

Measuring PEM

•  RootedinMovementAnalysisparadigms(e.g.Kestenberg,1967,1975;Laban&Rod,1975;Shahar‐Levi,2004)

•  Anobserva0onaldyadicmeasure

•  Focusonkinaesthe0candrhythmicexpressions

ofinten0onality

•  Embodiedcirclesofruptureandrepair(e.g.,Benjamin,1998;Greenspan&Wieder,1997;Tronick,1989)

15 15

PEM coding System

•  Observa0onal

•  Noverbalinput=‘mute’mode

•  Analysisunit–EmbodiedCircleofCommunica0on(ECC):

•  Amul0‐stepnonverbaldialogueinwhichtwoac0vepar0cipants

respondtothekinesthe0callymanifestedmentalstatesofeach

otherinareciprocalfashion(Greenspan&Wieder,1997).

•  Iden0fyingtemporalboundariesofECCs

•  ClassifyingECCaccordingtotypeandsubtype

•  ScoringaGlobalPEMscore

Kinaesthetic Qualities

•  TensionFlow(distressvs.comfort)

•  Tempo(degreeofexcita0on)

•  Direc,onality(pleasurevs.displeasure)

•  Pathways(execu0ngintent)

•  Space(selfandinterpersonalboundaries)

•  Shi:ing(managingchange)

17 17

PEM ECC Types

1.EmbodiedSupport

a.  Holding

b.  Sculp0ng

2.BodyOwnership

a.  Facilita0ngaffectregula0on

b.  Bodymanipula0on

c.  Bodys0mula0on

3.Transi,ons

4.Promo,ngExplora,on

Study Design

•  150dyadsfromtheNICHDStudy

•  Longitudinalstudy–6,15,54months

•  IV:PEM,maternalsensi0vity

•  DV:a=achmentsecurity,social,academic,and

behaviouraloutcomes

Main findings

•  GlobalPEMscorescorrelatedwithHOMEmaternal

sensi0vity(r(148)=.33***)

•  GlobalPEMscorespredictedsecureVs.insecure

a=achmentsecurity χ2(5,N=150)=4.07*

•  SpecificallysecureVs.avoidantinfantsχ2(3,N=100)=5.89**

Main findings

•  GlobalPEMScores,ECCtype,andECClengtheach

predicteda=achmentsecurityoveranabovematernal

sensi0vity

•  Maternalsensi0vitywasnolongerpredic0veof

a=achmentsecurity

Main findings

Multinomial Logistic Regression Predicting Attachment from ECC Mean Length

Avoidant (A) Resistant (C)

Model and Predictor Variable

Maternal Sensitivity Not Controlled

ECC Type 1.06*** .17

ECC Length 1.19** 1.13

Global PEM .41*** .59

Maternal Sensitivity Controlled

ECC Type .11*** .19**

ECC Length 1.18** 1.12†

Global PEM .50* .69

Maternal sensitivity .84 .87

Thank you!

24 24