Download - Meaning of The Child Interview CCPP - Cambridge Centre for ... · of Winnicott: The mother gazes at the baby in her arms ... The Meaning of The Child Interview (MotC) – A new method

TheMeaningofTheChildInterview(MotC)–Anewmethodofassessingandunderstandingparent-childrelationshipsof‘atrisk’families

AcceptedforpublicationbyClinicalChildPsychologyandPsychiatry,Pre-publicationversion

BenGrey,PhD,CambridgeCentreforAttachment,andSteveFarnfield,PhD,UniversityofRoehamptonCorrespondence:[email protected]

RederandDuncan’swellknown1990’sstudiesoffatalchildabusedrewattentiontohowparentalscriptsregardingtheirchildrencoulddangerouslydistortrelationshipsinwaysthatweresometimesfataltochildren(Reder,Duncan,&Gray,1993;Reder&Duncan1999).Thispaperreportsonanewsystemforassessingthe‘meaningofthechildtotheparent’,calledtheMeaningoftheChildInterview(MotC).ParentsareinterviewedusingtheestablishedParentDevelopmentInterview(Aber,Slade,Berger,Bresgi,&Kaplan,1985),orequivalent,andthetranscriptoftheinterviewisthenanalysedaccordingtoparentalsensitivityandlikelyrisktothechild.TheMotCconstructsweredevelopedfromthoseusedinobservedparent-childinteraction(specifically,theCARE-Index:Crittenden2010,CrittendenandBonvillian1984)andtheformofdiscourseanalysisusedintheDynamicMaturationalModel–AdultAttachmentInterview(CrittendenandLandini2011),allowingamoresystemicandintersubjectiveunderstandingofparentingrepresentationsthanoftenputforward.ThepaperdiscussesthetheoreticalbackgroundtotheMotC,givesabriefreviewofsimilarmeasures,andthenintroducesthecodingsystemandpatternsofcaregiving.ThevalidityoftheMotCisaddressedelsewhere(Grey2014a&b;GreyandFarnfieldsubmitted).

Introduction

Intheirclassicstudiesofchilddeathenquiries,Rederandhiscolleaguesdrewattentiontothewaysinwhichthemeaningparentsgavetoaparticularchildcouldbecomesodistortedthat,inextremecases,itledtofatalabuse(Reder,Duncan,&Gray,1993;Reder&Duncan,1999).Whilstallchildrenholdapsychologicalmeaningtotheirparents,inthesesituations,thechildren’sownidentityhadbecomesubmergedintheirparent’sblueprintfortherelationship;theybecame‘actorsinsomeoneelse’splay’(Reder&Duncan1999,p.71).Whilethemeaningchildrenhavetotheirparentscanbeseenasacoredimensionofallparenting(Farnfield2008),itisofparticularrelevancetosituationsofchildabuseandneglect.Thispaperdescribesanewsystemforanalysingthemeaningofthechildtotheparent,whichcanbeusedbychildprotectionandotherhealthandsocialcareprofessionals.

WhatistheMeaningoftheChild?

Themeaninganadultinvestsintheirchild,andthewayinwhichitshapestheparent-childrelationship,hasalonghistorygoingbackatleasttopsychoanalyticmodelsofthe

TheMeaningofTheChildInterview(MotC)–Anewmethodofassessingandunderstandingparent-childrelationshipsof‘atrisk’families––CCPPPre-publicationversion

2

developmentofidentityininfantdevelopment,(Winnicott,1967).InMiller’sparaphrasingofWinnicott:

Themothergazesatthebabyinherarms,andthebabygazesathismother'sfaceandfindshimselftherein...providedthatthemotherisreallylookingattheunique,small,helplessbeingandnotprojectingherownexpectations,fears,andplansforthechild.Inthatcase,thechildwouldfindnothimselfinhismother'sface,butratherthemother'sownprojections.Thischildwouldremainwithoutamirror,andfortherestofhislifewouldbeseekingthismirrorinvain.(Miller,1979pp.61-62)

Inaliteraturebasedtheoreticalmodeloftheassessmentofparenting,themeaningofthechildisseenasacoredimensionofparenting(Farnfield2008).Thetaskforassessmentiswhethertheparentalscript,ordominantstoryaboutachild,canbemadevisibleinawaythatsupportsinformedinterventioninthatrelationship.TheMeaningoftheChildInterview(MotC)offersameansofdoingthis.

The‘MeaningoftheChild’inAttachmentTheory:TheSelf-ProtectiveTransformationofMeaning

Putrathercrudely,theassessmentofparentingcanbereducedtoobservingwhatparentsdowiththeirchildren,andaskingthemquestionsabouttheirchildandparentingtoelicithowtheythinkaboutwhattheydo.Intheoreticalterms,theseareparentalsensitivityandtheparent’srepresentationsofaparticularchild,orthemeaningthechildholdsfortheparent(Farnfield2014).Riskincreaseswhenparentsactinselfprotectiveratherthanchildprotectiveways(Crittenden2008)leadingtochronicwithdrawal(neglect)orhostilecontrol(physicalabuse).

Intheattachmentfield,pioneeringworkonadultrepresentationofattachmentwasbegunbytheMainandGoldwynsystemofdiscourseanalysis(patternsofspeech),(Main&Goldwyn,1994),foranalysingtheAdultAttachmentInterview(AAI:George,Kaplan,&Main,1985).ThebasicpremiseoftheAAIisthatcoherenceofspeechaboutearlyexperienceisadirectwindowontocoherenceofmindregardingthesametopics,acoherencethathasfoundtoberelatedtosecurityinwiderrelationshipsandinparenting(Hesse,2008).Forexample,aground-breakingstudyfoundthatsecurityofadultsontheAAIbeforetheirbabywasbornactuallypredictedattachmentsecurityoftheinfantat11-months-old(Fonagy,Steele&Steele1991).

ThemechanismsbywhichattachmentsecurityispassedonfromparenttochildisimperfectlyunderstoodleadingVanIJzendoorn(1995)topointouta‘transmissiongap’.Inparticular,parentalsensitivity(whatparentsdo)isonlyweaklylinkedtoattachmentsecurityintheirchild(Madiganetal.2006),suggestingastrongmediatingfactorishowparentsthinkaboutthechildandhowtheyprocessinformationconcerningcomfortanddanger(Slade,2005;Grienenberger,Kelly,&Slade,2005;Crittenden,2008).Other


3

confoundinginfluencesmaybegeneexpression(Fearon,Shmueli-Goetz,Viding,Fonagy,&Plomin)andtheimpactofthewiderfamilysystem(Crittenden,Dallos,Landini,&Kozlowska,2014).

Tounderstandthisfurther,interviewsweredevelopedthatspecificallyelicitedparentalrepresentationoftheirchild,ratherthanoftheirchildhoodrelationships(thefocusoftheAAI).AnearlyattemptsimplytoapplyAAIdiscourseanalysistoaparentinginterviewfound,perhapsnotunsurprisingly,thatAAIpatternsofattachmentcouldbeidentifiedinaparentinginterview,butnotasclearlyasintheAAIitself(Crittenden,Partridge,&Claussen,1991),suggestingthatfurtherthoughtneededtobedoneinrelationtotheunderstandingthedifferencesbetweenthementalrepresentationsparentsholdoftheirchildrencomparedwiththoseoftheirownchildhood.

Aber,Slade,andcolleaguesdevelopedtheParentDevelopmentInterview(PDI:Aber,Slade,Berger,Bresgi,&Kaplan,1985)forsuchapurpose.TheirbreakthroughcamewhenSladeandhercolleaguesadaptedtheReflectiveFunctioning(RF)Scale,originallydevelopedfortheAAIbyFonagyandhiscolleages,tocodethePDI(Fonagy,Target,Steele,&Steele,1998;Slade,Bernbach,Grienenberger,Levy,&Locker,2005).Shiftingthefocusawayfromattachmentpatterns,tolookingatthecapacityofamothertorepresentherchildashavingthoughtsandfeelingsandintentions,andabilitytomakeuseofthisinunderstandingherownrelationshipwithherchild(alsocalledmentalising)openedarichveinofresearch(e.g.Slade,Grienenberger,Bernbach,Levy,&Locker,2005a;Suchman,DeCoste,Leigh,&Borelli,2010).Otherapproachesassessedessentiallythesameconceptinadifferentway,forexample,Meinsandhercolleagues(Meinsetal.,2003)examinedthe‘mindmindedness’ofparents,throughanalysingtheirmentalisingspeechinfreeplayinteractionswiththeirchild.OppenheimandKohen-Karie,usedaninterviewtoexamineamother’s‘insight’intothementalstatesofbothherselfandherchild,uponwatchingavideooffree-playinteractionbetweenthem(InsightfulnessInterview:Oppenheim&Koren-Karie,2009).

Theweaknessofthesemeasuresistheydonotadequatelyidentifythedifferencesthatexistbetweenparticularparent-childrelationships,especiallythosethoughttobe‘atrisk’.Bymeasuringthecapacityoftheparenttomentalise,theRFscaleinthePDIhasbeenusefulinidentifyingwhereparentsmaystruggletoparentthroughlackofmentalising,butislessusefulinidentifyingandunderstandingdifferencesbetweenparentswithalowmentalisingcapacity,orthedifferenceinrelationshipswithdifferentchildrenthataparentwhostrugglestomentalisemighthave.Forexample,whilstlowRFintheparentwasfoundtobepredictiveofinsecureattachmentinthechildgenerally,childdisorganisedattachment(themost‘atrisk’pattern)andavoidantattachment(wherechildreninhibitattachmentresponses)wasfoundhardtoidentify(Sladeetal.,2005a).

Otherresearchers,perhapsmindfulofthis,tookadifferenttackintryingtopreservealinkintheirunderstandingofparentingrepresentationswiththeattachmentclassificationsand


4

patterns.SolomonandGeorge,forexample,adaptedthePDIintotheirCaregivingInterview,andwithitdevelopedfourpatternsofcaregivingtheoretically(andintheirresearch,empirically)linkedtothefourbasicattachmentpatternsidentifiedinMainandGoldwyn’ssystemofclassifyingtheAAI(George&Solomon,2008;Solomon&George,2011).However,byvirtueoffocussingonoverallpatternsofcaregivinglinkedtooridentifiedwithadultpatternsofattachment,theircodingsystemisequallyunableabletoshedlightondifferencesintherelationshipsaparentmighthavewithdifferentchildren.Inaddition,byhavingonlyone‘atrisk’category(‘helpless’parents,whoabdicateparentalresponsibility,linkedtoattachmentdisorganisation),GeorgeandSolomon’sconstructssimilarlycannotbeusedtosystematicallydistinguishdifferentkindsof‘atrisk’relationships.

Thesedifficultiesraisethewiderquestionofwhetherconstructsusedtounderstandparentingrepresentationsthatarelinkedeithertoadultattachmentdirectly,ortoacapacityoftheparent(suchastheirreflectivecapacity),cansufficientlycapturethedynamicanddevelopingwayaparentandchildinteract.Theparentissimultaneouslyrespondingtooutsidedanger,andherownmaturingchild,andthechildisrespondingtoherparentwithcontinuallynewpossibilitiesopenedupbyherowndevelopment.Forexample,pregnancyandmaternityitselfhasbeenseentohavethepotentialtoleadtoreorganisationandchange(Slade,Cohen,Sadler,&Miller,2009).Inotherwords,theparent’scurrentrelationshipwiththechildandthemeaningshe(orhe)derivesfromitstandsatthefulcrumofatwo-wayprocess.Notonlydoesaparent’spastexperienceinfluenceinteractionwiththechild,butthatsameinteractioniscapableofchangingtheparent’srepresentationofthepast:“Thepastisfixed,butitsmeaningisre-writteneverytimeitisrecalled”(Crittenden,2003p.357).

Thepointisnowwellknownandacknowledgedbytheresearchersdiscussedabove,butdoesnotyetappeartobefullyintegratedintoasystemofclassifyingparentinginterviews.EventheWorkingModeloftheChildInterview(WMCI:Zeanah,Benoit,Hirshberg,&Barton,1986;Benoit,Zeanah,Parker,Nicholson,&Coolbear,1997)whichmakesexplicituseoftheideainitsbasicunderstandingofparent-childrelationships,doesnotquitecapturethisdynamicanddyadicqualityinitscodingsystem,andalsoencounterssomeoftheproblemsalreadyoutlinedinbothdeliniatingriskyrelationshipsanddifferentiatingbetweenthem.SomeofthemostfruitfulworkwiththeWMCIhasbeeninclinicalstudies(Zeanah,2007)thatdonotmakeexplicituseofthecodingsystem,perhapssuggestingthatthereismoretothe‘captured’fromthisinterviewthantheexisitingcodingsystemidentifies.

TheMotCSystemofClassifyingParentingInterviews

TheMeaningoftheChildisanattempttotakethissamedyadicfocusandmakeitcentraltoitsunderstandingoftheparent-childrelationship.Itcombinesconstructsdrawnfromanassessmentofface-to-faceparent-childinteraction(theCARE-Index:Crittenden2010;CrittendenandBonvillian1984),withthemethodofdiscourseanalysisusedtoclassifythe


5

AdultAttachmentInterview(CrittendenandLandini2011).Tounderstandhowparentalrepresentationsoftheirchildandtheirownparentingactuallytranslateintobehaviourandrelationshipwiththechild,asystemisneededthatisdyadicandrelationalinfocus,concentratingonaspectsthatconnectwithwhatisspecifictoaparticularparentandchild,ratherthanwhatissharedbyallchildreninthesamefamily.ThepatternsofCrittenden’sCARE-Index(classifiedfromshortvideosoffree-playinteraction)arederivedfromhowtheparentisassumedtoexperiencetheparticularchild(andvice-versa);howtheoneconnectstotheother.Byusingthesamepatterns,theMotCisabletounderstandaparent’srepresentationsoftheirchildinawaythatdirectlyreflectsthisconnection(seealsobelow).

Atthesametime,theintegrationofdiscourseanalysisderivedfromtheAAIpreservesthelinkbetweencoherenceofspeechandcoherenceofmindthatwasthepremiseuponwhichtheAAI’ssuccessinpredictinginfantsecuritywasbuilt.Inparticular,theMotCcodingsystemmakesuseofCrittenden’sapproachtotheAdultAttachmentInterviewofferedbyherDynamicMaturationalModelofAttachment(DMM:Crittenden2008,CrittendenandLandini2011).Crittenden’sDMMexpandsAinsworth’soriginalpatternsofAttachment(Ainsworthetal.1978)toincludemodificationsofthebasicpatternsofavoidance(TypeA)andambivalence(TypeC)underconditionsofextremethreat.Indoingso,theDMMavoidsrelianceuponthecannotclassifyorDisorganisedcategory(TypeD)usedbythemorecommonlyused,andmoreextensivelyresearched,MainandGoldwynsystemofclassifyingtheAAI.ThereisnonethelessadevelopingbodyofresearchsurroundingtheDMM-AAI,aswellasahistoryofclinicaluse(Farnfield,Hautamäki,Nørbech,&Sahhar,2010;Sahhar,2014).

WhilsttheMotCmakesuseoftheDMM-AAIinitsmethodology,itdoesnotseektoreplicateCrittenden’s(oranyother)patternsofadultattachment(seealsothediscussionofFigure1below).ItisCrittenden’sunderstandingofconsciousandunconsciousdefensiveinformationprocessingunderconditionsofthreat,andherintegrationofthiswithMemorySystemstheory(SchacterandTulving1994),thattheMotCmakesparticularuseof.Thedifferentiationofdifferent‘MemorySystems’orpathwaysbywhichthebrain‘re-presents’(reinterprets)experience,andtheelucidationofhowtheseprocessesmaybetransformedinconditionsofdangerdescribedbyCrittenden’stheory,haveopeneduppotentialtounderstandparent-childdiscourseinwaysthathadnotpreviouslyreceivedattention.Inmanyways,theworkindevelopingtheMotCcodingsystemechoedSolomonandGeorge’suseofBowlby’sunderstandingofdefensiveinformationprocessingintheirworkoncaregiving(George&Solomon,2008;Solomon&George,2011),butwithanexplicitefforttoachieveamoredyadicfocus,aswellasmakeuseofthedevelopmentsofferedbyCrittenden’sthinkingontheAAI.

Morerecentworkonreflectivefunctioning(e.g.LuytenandFonagy2014)hasextendedtheconcepttoinclude‘dimensionsofmentalising’namely:‘automatic/controlled’mentalising(looselytranslatedasconscious/unconsciousreflection),‘selfvs.other’(thesubjectof


6

mentalising),‘internalvs.external’(derivedfrominternalknowledgeofownmentalstates,orinferredfromexternalbehaviour),and‘cognitive/affective’(understoodorfelt).ThesedimensionsarenothowevermadeuseofintheparentalReflectiveFunctioningScaleitself,butaspectsofthem,ifnotall,areintegraltoCrittenden’smethodofanalysingdiscoursebymemorysystems.Inparticular,themethodenablesconsciousandunconsciousprocessestobedifferentiated,andexamineshowaffectandcognitionaretransformedinthewayparentsspeak.Makinguseofthesetheoreticaldevelopmentshasofferedapracticalmethodologyfordevelopingasystemofclassifyingthemeaningaparentgivestotheirchildandtheparentingrelationship.Atthesametime,thesehavebeenrelatedtoconstructsderivedfromaprocedureusedtounderstandobservedparent-childinteractioninordertomoreeasily‘capture’theinterrelatednatureoftheparent-childrelationship.

Whilstithasbeencalled‘theMeaningoftheChildInterview’,soastomakeclearthemeansusedtoassessparent-childrelationships,theMotCisasystemofanalysingparentinginterviewsratherthantheinterviewprocedureitself.Forthemostpart,theMotChasemployedamodifiedversionofthePDI,butthesystemofanalysishasbeenusedclinicallywithotherinterviews,asithasnotheoreticalorpracticalrelianceonanyparticularinterviewprotocol.Similarly,whilstthefocusoftheMotC’svalidationstudy(Grey2014a&b;GreyandFarnfieldsubmitted)wasparents(mothersandfathers)ofchildrenaged0-3years,becauseofthemethod’soriginallinkwiththeCARE-Index,theinterviewhasbeenusedwithparentsofchildrenofallages,includinggrandparentsinrelationtoboththeiradultchildrenandtheirgrandchildren.Whilstfurtherworkaroundvalidityoftheseotherusesisneeded,inindividualclinicalcaseswherethereissupportfromestablishedprocedures,theuseoftheinterviewhasprovedfruitful.

TheMotCPatternsofCaregivingTheheartoftheMotChasbeentoseethedevelopmentofchildattachmentinamoredynamicway,onethatrecognisesthatthechildisanactiveparticipantintherelationship(eveniftheparenthassignificantlymorepower),andtomakethisinsightcentraltoasystemofclassifyingparent-childinterviews.Themeaningsthatboththechildandtheparenthaveinrelationtoeachother,arebothderivedfromthenatureoftheinteractionsbetweenthem,whichatthesametimeshapethatinteraction.Whilstalltheparentandchild‘see’ofeachotheristheother’sbehaviour,thisbehaviouristheoutworkingofaninternalprocess,wherebothparentandchildareconstantlygivingmeaningtoeachother’sactions.Hence,the‘meeting’ofparentandchildcanbeseenasacollaborative(ornon-collaborative)dialogue,aseriesofconversationsbetweenparentandchild(Lyons-Ruth,1999)inwhichthemeaningthateachhasoftheotherisconstructed;whatBeebeandhercolleagues(Beebe,Lachmann,Markese,Buck,etal.,2012;Beebe,Lachmann,Markese,&Bahrick,2012)callthe‘inter-subjective’space.

Ofcourse,thispicturedoesnotacknowledgethedevelopmentaldifferencesbetweenparentandchild.Theparentgivesmeaningtothechildpriortobirth(andfromawider


7

socialcontextthatthechildisnotimmediatelyawareof).Asthechildgetsolders/hebecomesamoreactive,intentionalparticipantinthedialogue.Attachmenttherefore,isbetterseenas‘co-constructed’ratherthan‘transmitted’fromparenttochild(Beebe,etal.,2012;Beebe,etal.2012).

Withthisinmind,theMotCpatternsarebaseduponacontinuumbetweendistanced,psychologicallyunavailablecaregivingononeside(calledUnresponsive),andintrusive,overlyclose,psychologicallyenmeshedcaregivingontheother(calledControlling),withSensitivecaregivingbeingacooperative,mutualdialoguethatoccupiesthebalancebetweenthesetwoextremes.ThesepatternshavebeenderivedfromCrittenden’sCARE-Index,buthavebeengivenameaningherethatlinksmorecloselytohowparentsthinkabouttheirchild(seealsoFigure1).

SensitiveCaregivingThe‘Sensitive’parentenablesthedevelopment,protectionandnurtureofthechildthroughfacilitatingacollaborative‘inter-subjectivity’betweenthem.Suchparentswaitforthechild’sresponses,andinvestpositiveandappropriatemeaningstothechild’sinitiatives.Asinanycollaborativeconversation,eachpartyofferssomethingofthemselves,whilstlisteningandeagerlyattendingtoboththeresponsesandinitiativesoftheother.Such‘dialogues’areapleasuretolistento,asthereisebbandflow,morethanoneperspective,andafullrangeofmoderate(non-coercive)emotionalexpression.Thisistrueofallcollaborativerelationships,notjustparent-childones,buttheparentfacilitatesthiswiththeirchild,byactinginthechild’sZoneofProximalDevelopment(ZPD:Vygotsky,1967).Thiscanonlybedoneiftheparenttrulyknowstheirchild;generalisedknowledgeofchilddevelopmentisnotenough,asitmayobscureormisleadtheintentionsandunderstandingofthespecificchild.However,thechild’sinvolvementintheconversationisnotfearedbytheparent,sotheparentfeelsfreetoletthechildcontributetotheinter-subjectivedialogue,whilstalsobeingpresentherself.

Sensitiveparentsareabletousetheparentinginterviewtoexploreopenlyandhonestlytheirrelationshipwiththeirchild.Theoveralltoneofsuchinterviewsislikelytobeaffectionateandpositive,buttheparentisalsoopentodiscussingandthinkingaboutfrustrationsandproblems.Theseinterviewsarepersonalandlively–theycontainincidents,andimagesthatarepersonaltotherelationship,andcouldn’tbeborrowedfromTV,socialclichésorprofessionalprescriptionsofhowthings‘ought’tobe.Theparentisabletoconveytheirknowledgeofthechild.Theiraccountofthechildandtheirownparentingiscredible,andtheexpressionofaffectisappropriatetowhatisbeingdiscussed.Inthisway,Sensitiveinterviewstellastorythatisbuilttogetherbyparentandchildcooperatively,ratherthanimposedbyoneontheother,andwithoutbeingsomethingofafantasytoavoidlookingatwhatisreallygoingon.


8

ControllingCaregiving

Forparentingclassifiedas‘Controlling’,theinter-subjectivespaceinthe‘dialogue’betweenparentandchild,canbere-envisagedasparentaldominanceofthemeaningmakingprocessThechildisrequiredtotakeonameaningtothedialoguethatechoestheparent’sown.Theintrusiveparentperceivesthechild’sautonomy,andabilitytomakemeaningoftherelationshipasathreat,andso‘movesinto’thespacethatisotherwisejointlyconstructedinhealthyrelationships.Thecontrollingparentrespondstothethreattheyperceivefromthechildbyattemptingtomaketherelationshipwhattheywantorneedittobe,ratherthanfeelingsecureenoughtoallowtherelationshiptodevelopinawaythatrespectsthechild’ssubjectivityandpersonality.Theparentneedstocontrolthedialogue(havethe‘firstandthelastword’)becausetoletthechildshapeitistoothreatening,asthechildwillineffectbeshapingthemalso.Theparentconstructsthemeaningofthechildinsuchawayastonecessitatedirectingthechildontoadifferentpathfromthatwhichheorshemightchooseonhisorherown.

Thecontrollingparent(mis)perceivesthechild’sZPDsuchastonecessitatetheparent’sconstantintervention.Inthemindoftheparent,problemsintherelationshiparetheresultofthechild’sattemptstocontributesomethingdifferentandpotentiallydamagingtothedialogue(whichiswhycontrollingparentscommonlyperceivetheirchildrenascontrolling).Theparent’sfearofthechildcontrollingthem,leadsthemtotryandcontrolthechild.

Someoftheseinterviewsshowapatternofcovertoroverthostility(seeFigure1below,andforallpatternshighlighted):thechildpresentsaproblem,ordifficultyfortheparent,andthechildistoblameforthenegativeexperiencesoftheparent(andthemselves).Sometimessomepositivesemantic(generalised)conclusionsaboutthechildortheparent’srelationshipwiththechildaregiven.However,theseareunderminedormadevacuousbynegativeimagesofthechild(orthechild’sfeelings)andbyrelatingepisodesthatemphasisethedifficultiesinvolvedinparentingthischild,.Thelanguageusedaboutthechildandtheirrelationshipoftenevokesnegativefeelingsaboutthechildinthelistener,andsoengenderingsympathytowardstheparent.Oftenthereisasubtleundercurrentofhostility,expressedinhumourthattrivialisesthechildorhisorherneeds,belittlesthem,orexaggeratestheirangerandaggression.Inextremecasesthehostilitymaybeovertinactivelyderogatorystatementsandlanguage,althoughthisisrare.Whatismorecommonlyseen,aredescriptionsofthechild’smentalising(thinking,feeling,believingetc.)thatmakethechildouttobemorehostileorrejectingthaniseitherlikelyordevelopmentallycredible.Theinterviewjustifiesaggressivethinking,feelingandsometimesevenactionstowardsthechild(andexoneratestheparent’snegativebehaviourtowardsthechild).

Enmeshedinterviewsmistakethechild’sperspectivefortheparent’s.Theyaremorepositiveintonethanthemorehostileinterviews,buttheparent’sneedsanddesiresarereadintothechild.Theyareoftenmistakenlyperceivedassensitive,becausetheyare


9

generallypositive,andhighlyimaged.However,unlikesensitiveinterviews,theseinterviewshaveahighlyarousedtonethroughout,tothepointofdesperation.Ultimatelytheparentisdescribingtheirownneeds,andthechildremainsunseen(andunvalued)asapersoninher(orhis)ownright.Thetranscriptsarethereforecharacterisedbyaconfusionoftheparent’sperspectivewiththatofthechild.Atthesametimethereremainsanunacknowledgedundercurrentofhostilityintheseinterviews,reflectingtheparent’sangerat(orfearof)thechildmakingameaningfulcontributiontotherelationship,andthefactthatultimatelythechildcannotliveuptotheburdenofexpectationplaceduponhimorher.Inlessseriouscases(suchasthosecharacterisedasFrustratedorNeedy),controllingthinkingservestohighlightanddrawattentiontoproblemsintherelationship,andtoelicitsupportfortheparentinresolvingthem.Ultimately,theparentstillrecognisestheirparentalroleandissearchingforasolution.Also,keepingtheproblemalivemayfunctiontokeepothersinvolvedinsupportingtheparent,andenabletheparenttofeelbetterabouttheirroledespitethedifficulties.

UnresponsiveCaregiving

Thedefenceofparentsclassifiedas‘Unresponsive’totheperceivedthreatofthechild’sabilitytoshapethemistowithdrawfromthedialogue.Theunresponsiveparentconstructsameaningofthechildthatjustifiestheirownlackofgenuineparticipationintheconversation.Usuallythechildisidealised,theparentunderstandingthechild’sZPDinsuchawaythatunderestimatestheinvolvementthechildneeds,andfacilitatesparentalabsence.Inthecaseofdepressedparents,theirowninvolvementispathologisedandseenasineffectiveorunhelpful;soexoneratingpsychologicalandoftenphysicalwithdrawal.However,assumingthattheunresponsivenessstopsshortofactualphysicalabandonment,thechildisstillphysicallythere,andsothereis,bynecessity,somekindofdialogue.Thechildmustfillthevacuumforhisorherownsurvival,andbecomethedrivingforceinthe‘conversation’.Thefearoftheunresponsiveandwithdrawingparentappearstobenotsomuchwhatthechildwilldoifgivenautonomyintherelationship,butwhattheparentwillfeeliffully‘present’.Whatisparticularlystrikingintheseinterviews,istheemotionalabsenceoftheparents,asmuchastheirlackofknowledgeofthechild.

TheidealisationofinterviewsclassifiedasUnresponsiveisseenintheparent’sinabilitytodescribegenuineexperiencethatmightgivetheirstatementspersonalrelevance.Thereisanabsenceofimages,descriptionsofmentalising,and‘fresh’livelydiscourse.SuchAbsentparentsstruggletogivemeaningtothechild’ssignalsandbehaviour,sotheyareunabletorepresentitinaninterviewinameaningfulway.ThisalsocharacteriseswhatareheretermedDepressedparents,notasaproxydiagnosis,butrathertoidentifyparentswhohaveinsomewaygivenupontherelationshipandperceiveitasinsomeway‘lost’orhopeless.


10

Somepsychologicallydistancingparentsappeartobedoingmore,butwhattheydoislargelyunrelatedtothechildinfrontofthem.Theseparentsaremorelikelytodescribeafantasychildandafantasisedrelationship.Oftenthechildisidolised–placedonapedestaltobeadmired,ratherthanparented.Suchchildrenarepresentedas‘morethan’children,whichbyextensionmeansthattheyrequiresomething‘lessthan’parentingfromtheircaregiver.Theparentspeaksasiftheyaresomethingofaspectator(asiftheywereinaweofthechild)ratherthanactivelyinvolvedinrelatingtothem.Lackingagenuineconnectiontothechild,inextremecasesthisisimagined;analmostmagicalcommunicationisdescribed,orthechildisattributedwithmentalisingthatheorsheisdevelopmentallyincapableof.

Inlessthreatenedrelationships,theparentmayoverlookthechild’slesscriticalneeds,throughamildlyidealisedaccountoftheirexperiences(whichminimisethechild’sneedforcomfortandreassurancewhennotseriouslythreatened).Similarly,somewhatbusiness-likeparentstendtofocusonthetasksinvolvedinparenting,attheexpenseoffullybeing‘present’totheirchildasaperson;theirefficiencyandundoubteddedicationmakingupforalackofjoyintherelationship.

UnresponsiveandControllingCaregiving

Someparentsbothintrudeonthechildanddistancethemselvesatdifferenttimesandinrelationtodifferentdangers,orlevelofthreat.Thisiseasiesttounderstandinrelationtothedifferentformsittakes.ItismostclassicallyseeninRole-Reversedrelationships:these,unlikepurelyUnresponsiveorpurelyControllingpatternsarereciprocal(insomewaymutual),butunlikeSensitiverelationships,functiontoprotectandevennurturetheparent,ratherthanthechild.ThedepictionthereforemirrorsthatoftheSensitiveparent,butthenatureofthecooperationinvolveddoesnotsupportthechild’sdevelopment.

TheUnresponsivenesscomesfromthewayinwhichRolereversingtranscriptsidealisethechild,inordertofacilitatewithdrawalfromtheparentalrole.Suchadistortiontherefore,functionstosupporttheparent’sleaninguponthechild,whose‘childlikeness’isignoredorminimisedtoemphasisethechildasasourceofsupporttothem.However,mostRoleReversingrelationshipsalsohaveastrongcontrollingelementtothem.Thisislikelytheresultoftheburdenofexpectationuponthechildtobecomewhattheparentneedsthemtobe.Therole-reversedparentcannotaffordtotruly‘see’thechild’sneedinessandvulnerability,whichisoftendismissed,feared,orpathologised.Thereisonlyroomfortheparenttobetheneedyoneintherelationship.Bothrejectionandidealisationarepresentinthetranscripttherefore,butnotintegratedorreflectedupon.

Some,moretrulyunresponsiveparents(inthesenseofwantingdistancefromthechild)findthatthechild’snegativeaffectthreatenstheirequilibrium,andthefantasisedoridealised,‘safe’worldtheyseektoinhabitpsychologically.Thechild’snegativeaffectin


11

theserelationshipsthreatensthefantasy,andsotheparentmustsuppressitordismissitintrusively.ThesetranscriptsareseenasUnresponsive-Rejecting,astheparent’sphysicallyintrusivebehaviourandoccasionalelementsofrejectingthought,ultimatelyservestomaintainthedistanceintherelationshipratherthankeepthechildclose.Oftenthesetranscriptscombineastronglyidealisedviewoftheparent-childrelationshipandthechildherorhimself,withanundercurrentoffearofthechild’snegativeaffect(andtheparent’sownabilitytomanageit).Anger,fearorsadnesscantakeonthequalityof‘theelephantintheroom’.

Ontheotherhand,insomeseeminglyControllingrelationships,hostilitytowardsthechildfunctionstoexoneratetheparentwithdrawingfromthechild,abdicatingtheparentingrole(becausethechildisperceivedasimpossibletohelporcareforinsomeway).ThiscategoryislabelledControlling-Withdrawal,asinthesecasestheparentisattemptingtointrudeandchangethechild,buttheirdisappointmentandfrustrationattheirinabilitytodosoissogreatthattheyhavetosomedegree‘givenup’onthechild.Theirbehaviourmaybeneglectingratherovertlypunitivetowardsthechild,butanintensestrugglewiththechildisstillgoingintheparent’smind.

Figure1:TheMeaningoftheChild–DyadicPatternsofCaregiving

Sensi&ve(

Frustrated(/(Needy(

Hos&le(/(Enmeshed(

Controlling(Withdrawal(

Role=Reversal(

Unresponsive(Rejec&ng(

Absent((Depressed)(/(Fantasised(

Business=like(/(Idealising(

Unresponsive(PaKerns(–((Psychological(Withdrawal(

Controlling(PaKerns(–(Psychological(Intrusion(

Sensi&ve(PaKerns((Co=constructed(rela&onship(with(Adult(as(Psychological(Parent(

Unresponsive(and(Controlling(PaKerns(Co=constructed(Rela&onship(with(Child(as(Psychological(Parent(

Meaning'of'the'Child'(Dyadic(PaKerns(of(Paren&ng(


12

Thesedifferentpatternscanbevisualisedasacircle,withthehorizontalaxisdepictingthereciprocityandmutualityoftherelationship:theabsentparentontheleft(Unresponsive),andthedominatingparentontheright(Controlling).Inthemiddle,arethemutuallynegotiatedrelationships(Sensitive,andRole-reversed):thesearedifferentiatedvertically,accordingtothedegreeinwhichtheparentisabletoactastheprotectiveandnurturingoneintherelationship(the‘Psychologicalparent’).TheconceptualisationoftheMeaningoftheChildpatternsintheformofacircleowesmuchtoCrittenden’spresentationofherDMMpatternsofattachmentinadulthood(CrittendenandLandini2011),buttheMotCpatternsdonotcorrespondwithCrittenden’s,whicharearrangedinrespecttoinformationprocessingaxesofcognition/affect,andfalsityofinformation,ratherthanthedyadiconesofintrusion/absence,andparent/childroledepictedhere.ThisreflectstheMeaningoftheChild’sconceptualisationasinter-subjectiveandultimatelymoresystemicwayoflookingatattachmentrelationships(inthesensethatthepatternsareorganisedbythe‘position’and‘role’thattheparticipantsinarelationshiptaketoeachother).

LeanneandJohn:CaseStudies

ThediscourseofLeanne(motherofLizzie,whoisaged22months),amotherwhoseMeaningoftheChildwasclassifiedsensitive,isfullofwarmandaffectionateimages,andrichdiscourseaboutherchild’sexperiencethatshowthepositiveimpactshehasuponhermother.Lizziewasverymuch‘there’intheinteractiondescribed;herpersonalityandlikesanddislikeswerevividlydescribed.Leannewasbeingassessedaspartofcourtproceedingsfollowingtheremovalofherdaughteroverayearpreviously.Leannecamefromasociallyandmateriallywell-offfamily,andmarriedamanwithawell-respectedjob,whowaswellregardedbyherfamily.Somemonthsaftertheyweremarriedandtheir(only)childwasborn,Leannehadagreedtoreturntoworkafterhermaternityleave,butonanearlyvisittoherworkplace,Lizziewasthrownbyherfatherwhowaslookingafterher,andseriouslyinjured.Leanneinitiallysupportedherhusbandandcoveredforhim,whichresultedinherseparationfromLizzie.However,bythetimeoftheassessment,LeannehadseparatedfromLizzie’sfatherandwasdoingallshecouldtohaveherdaughterreturnedtohercare.

Leanne’sseparationfromLizzieisintenselyfelt,butthisisnotexaggeratedorcoerciveoftheinterviewer;itishergenuineexperience:

WhatdoyoulikemostaboutLizzie?

Um...that’squiteadifficultquestiontoanswer(softlaugh).

Itisadifficultquestion,haveago,haveashot.

(7-8secondssilence-thinking)


13

Wellit’sdifficulttoputmyfingerononething,there’sacoupleofthingsthatIreallyloveaboutLizzie...um(pause)oneofthemisum(pause)Ireallylovehersmile,she’sgot,shesmilesateverybodybutshe’sgotaparticularsmilethatsheturnsaroundandgrinsforyou,forsomebodyspecialinherlifeumm(pause)she’sgotaveryinfectiouslaugh,shelovestolaughumm(pause),reallylikethataboutherumm(pause)Sorryit’sverystrange,thewayshesmellscosshe’smychildandit’safunnyparentthingIknow,maybeonlyI’vegotbutthere’sthesmellofLizzieandIcanstillgointoherroomandeventhoughshe’snotbeenthereforavery,verylongtime,itsmellslikeLizzieinthatroom(pause)it’saverystrangething.

It’snotastrangething.

Andeventhoughshe’sbeenwithherfostermother,shestillsmellslikeLizzie(pause)umsothat’squiteimportanttomeum(pause)andum(pause)butwhenshecallsmummyevenifshe’supsetorshe’s(pause)umhappyoryouknowwhenshecallsformethatreallymeltsmyheartevenifit’s,evenifshe’sannoyedwithme(laughs)....

Thisisapowerfullyemotivepassage,butitissobecauseofthesadnessofthesituation,notbecausethelisteneriscoercedthroughdistortedinformationorone-sidedpresentation.ItisLeanne’sintimateandpersonalknowledgeofandconnectionwithherdaughterthatmakesthepassagesoaffecting.Smellisamongthemostintimateofsenses,anditsappearanceininterviewstendstoevidenceeitherthemostpositiveorthemostnegative(oftentraumatised)affectiveresponses.ItisclearthatLizzieasapersonhashadaspowerfuleffectuponLeanne,ashermotherhasuponher,buttheinfluenceismutuallypleasurableandaffirming(evenifitalsoentailsloss,giventherealityoftheirsituation).

InSensitiveinterviews,the‘co-constructed’inter-subjectivityisshownintheinterviewitselfaswellastheparent’srelationshipwiththeirchild.Withoutlosingawarenessofherownfeelingsandpointofview,Leannealsotooktheinterviewer’sperspective,andwasopenandcooperativeinherdiscussionofherdaughter.Attimesshemoderatedtheintensityofherfeelingsbydistancinglanguage,butfarfromdistancingherselffromthechild,orbeingoverlyintense,shewasinfactregulatingherself(andprotectingtheinterviewer)inthefaceofherverystrongemotions.TheinterviewerhasaccesstoLeanne’sfeelingsaboutherchildandherloss,buttheyarenotpusheduponher.

Thisabilitytoallowthelistenertoformherownconclusions,tomaketheinterviewajointprocesswherebothparticipantsareactiveinderivingmeaningfromit,wasabsentintheinterviewsofmoreendangeredparents.Theseeitherretreatedfromtheinterviewprocess,


14

contributingjustenoughto‘getthrough’,orsoughttocontroltheinterview,desperatetoensurethattheoneandonlymeaningacceptabletotheparentisallowedtodominate.ForJohn,afathertryingtoreformhimselfafteraperiodinprison,his15-month-oldsonTommywaspresentedasthesolemotivationandsourceofJohn’sreformationfromhisviolentpast,andhisreasonforliving:

If[Tommyisnotreturnedtomycare],IdreadtothinkwhatI’mgoingtodo,honestly,Ithink,IthinkI’mgonnaget–‘bout15year’sjailorsomethingstupidhonestlyifIdon’tgetmyboy,Idreadtothinkcos–likeIsaidtoyou,that’smylife–inthatlittleboy’shands.Heholdsthekeytomyheart.

TheproblemiswhatJohnseesinTommy,andhimselfasaparent,islargelywhatheneedstosee.Tommywascastintotheroleof‘saviour’,whichbothplacedanunfairburdenona1-year-oldchild,andnecessarilydistortedJohn’sdiscussionoftheirrelationship.JohncouldnotaffordtotrustTommytocontributefreelyinhisownrighttotheinter-subjectivespacebetweenthem,becausethiswouldhaveriskedhimgivingadifferentmeaningtotherelationshipthantheonethatJohnsodesperatelyneedstobelievein.

Therefore,John’sdescriptionsoftheirrelationshipwereextremelyexaggeratedandintense.Manyofhisimagesweresimplynotcredible.Johnregularlyconfusedhimselfwithhischild,andtheirperspectivewasenmeshedandnotdistinguished.ItwasclearthatwhetherTommy’sbehaviourisaffectionateordistancing,Johngivesameaningtoitthatfitshispredeterminedscript:

Thelove,theuniquenessofmysonandourrelationship,cosit’soneofakind,youwon’tgetonelikemeandmysonhasgot,Idon’tcarewhoyougot,whatevertheythink.….

...canyoutellmeaboutjustaparticularmoment,describeatimewithhimwhere,where,thathasshowedthelovethereisbetweenyou..

EverytimeIopenthatdoortowalkin,toseehim,everytime,youcanjustfeeltheloveintheroom.Its,Idon’tknowifthatsoundsstrangebut,youjustcan,Iwalkinandassoonashisarmscomeup,andhejustwrapshimselfandsqueezessotightthat,thatjustshowsmehelovesmeandthatIdothesameback,IshowhimIlovehim,butwhenIputhiminthecar,hewon’tkissme,hewon’twavegoodbye–nothing,ithurts,butIthinkIknowwhy,coshe’shavingtogoback,whichhedoesn’twanttodo,youcanseeit,hedoesn’twannadoit,butthat’smyopinion,otherpeoplemighthavetheirownoutlookonthatwhentheyseeit,andseehowheis,butthat’smypersonalopinionashisfather.


15

ThereappearsnothingthatTommycandotoinfluencethemeaningthatJohnconstructsaroundtheirrelationship,andJohn’sneedtoinsistonthisinthefaceofwhatheperceivesashostileattemptsbyotherssoseethingsdifferently,isbothpalpableanddesperate.

Conclusion:TheParticularContributionoftheMeaningoftheChild

Itisthemoresystemic,inter-subjectiveapproachtoclassifyingparentingrepresentationsthatrepresentsthemostsignificantcontributionoftheMeaningoftheChildInterview.ThisapproachallowstheMeaningoftheChildtobealivetothewayinwhichoutsiderelationships,suchascouple,familyandwidersocialrelationshipshelpshapethemeaningoftherelationshipforbothparentandchild,inadditiontotheinfluenceoftheparent’schildhoodattachmentexperiences.ItalsoenablestheMotCtoexplaindifferencesinchildrenwhosharethesamecarer,givingattentiontothewayinwhichmeaningis‘co-constructed’inaspecificrelationship.Finally,theMeaningoftheChildInterviewavoidslumpingall‘atrisk’relationshipswithina‘catch-all’category(usuallyrelatinginsomewayto‘disorganised’attachment),orsimplyscoringthelevelofrisk,andsocanmakemeaningfuldistinctionsbetweendifferentlyfunctioningstrugglingrelationships.Thisextendsitsclinicalandforensicpotential,throughitsabilitytoidentifydyadsandfamilieswhoserelationshipsworkverydifferentlyfromeachother,resultingdifferingdevelopmentalpathwaysforthechild.Wehopethatbydifferentiatingdifferentpatternsofthinkingassociatedwithproblematicandattimesdangerouscaregiving,theMotCcanmakeafruitfulcontributiontobothpracticeandfutureresearch.

References

Aber,J.,Slade,A.,Berger,B.,Bresgi,I.,&Kaplan,M.(1985).TheParentDevelopment

Interview:Interviewprotocol.Unpublishedmanuscript:BarnardCollege,Columbia

University,NewYork.

Ainsworth,M.D.S.,Blehar,M.C.,Waters,E.,&Wall,S.(1978)Patternsofattachment.A

psychologicalstudyoftheStrangeSituation,Hillsdale:LawrenceErlbaum.

Beebe,B.,Lachmann,F.,Markese,S.,&Bahrick,L.(2012).Ontheoriginsofdisorganized

attachmentandinternalworkingmodels:PaperI.Adyadicsystemsapproach.

PsychoanalyticDialogues,22(2),253–272.

Beebe,B.,Lachmann,F.M.,Markese,S.,Buck,K.A.,Bahrick,L.E.,Chen,H.,…Jaffe,J.

(2012).Ontheoriginsofdisorganizedattachmentandinternalworkingmodels:

PaperII.Anempiricalmicroanalysisof4-monthmother–infantinteraction.

PsychoanalyticDialogues,22(3),352–374.


16

Benoit,D.,Zeanah,C.H.,Parker,K.C.,Nicholson,E.,&Coolbear,J.(1997).“Workingmodel

ofthechildinterview”:Infantclinicalstatusrelatedtomaternalperceptions.Infant

MentalHealthJournal,18(1),107–121.

Crittenden,P.M.(2003).ADynamicMaturationalApproachtoContinuityandChangein

PatternsofAttachment(Chapter18).InP.M.Crittenden&A.Claussen(Eds.),The

OrganisationofAttachmentRelationships:Maturation,Culture,andContext(Vol.

Paperback,pp.343–357).NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Crittenden,P.M.(2008).Raisingparents.Devon,UK:WillanPublishing.

Crittenden,P.M.(2010)CARE-Index.Infants.CodingManual,unpublishedmanuscript,

Miami,FL,USA.

Crittenden,P.M.&Bonvillian,J.D.(1984)`Theeffectofmaternalriskstatusonmaternal

sensitivitytoinfantcues´,AmericanJournalofOrthopsychiatry,54:250-262.

Crittenden,P.M.,Partridge,M.F.,&Claussen,A.H.(1991).Familypatternsofrelationship

innormativeanddysfunctionalfamilies.DevelopmentandPsychopathology,3(4),

491–512.

Crittenden,P.M.,&Landini,A.(2011).AssessingAdultAttachment:ADynamic-

MaturationalApproachtoDiscourseAnalysis.NewYorkandLondon:WWNorton&

Company.

Crittenden,P.M.,Dallos,R.,Landini,A.,&Kozlowska,K.(2014).AttachmentandSystemic

FamilyTherapy.McGraw-HillEducation(UK).

Farnfield,S.(2008).ATheoreticalModelfortheComprehensiveAssessmentofParenting.

BritishJournalofSocialWork,38(6),1076–1099.

Farnfield,S(2014)Theassessmentofattachmentandparenting.InS.Farnfield&P.Holmes

(Eds)TheRoutledgeHandbookofAttachment:AssessmentLondon&NewYork:

Routledge,17-36.

Farnfield,S.,A.Hautamäki,P.Nørbech&N.Sahhar,(2010)'DMMAssessmentsof

AttachmentandAdaptation:Procedures,ValidityandUtility',ClinicalChild

PsychologyandPsychiatry,15(3)pp.313-328

Fearon,P.,Shmueli-Goetz,Y.,Viding,E.,Fonagy,P.,&Plomin,R.(2014).Geneticand

environmentalinfluencesonadolescentattachment.JournalofChildPsychologyand

Psychiatry,55(9),pp1033–1041


17

Fonagy,P.,Steele,H.,&Steele,M.(1991).Maternalrepresentationsofattachmentduring

pregnancypredicttheorganizationofinfant-motherattachmentatoneyearofage.

ChildDevelopment,62(5),891–905.

Fonagy,P.,Target,M.,Steele,H.,&Steele,M.(1998).Reflective-functioningmanual,version

5.0,forapplicationtoAdultAttachmentInterviews.Unpublishedmanual.

UniversityCollegeLondon,London

George,C.,Kaplan,N.,&Main,M.(1985).TheBerkeleyAdultAttachmentInterview.

Interviewprotocol.DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley

George,C.,&Solomon,J.(2008).TheCaregivingSystem:Abehavioralsystemsapproachto

parenting.InJ.Cassidy&P.Shaver(Eds.),Handbookofattachment:Theory,research,

andclinicalapplications(Vol.2nd,pp.833–856).NewYork:GuilfordPress.

GreyB.(2014a)‘TheMeaningoftheChildtotheParent:TheDevelopmentandValidationof

anewmethodofclassifyingparentinginterviewsforthenatureoftheparent-child

relationship’,PhDthesis,London:UniversityofRoehampton

Grey,B(2014b),‘TheMeaningoftheChildtotheParent–AnInter-subjectiveApproachto

AssessingRepresentationsofCaregiving’,PosterpresentedattheWAIMH

Conference,Edinburgh,June2014,Abstract:InfantMentalHealthJournal,Vol:35

(3)Supplement,P.227

GreyandFarnfieldsubmitted

Grienenberger,J.,Kelly,K.,&Slade,A.(2005).Maternalreflectivefunctioning,mother–

infantaffectivecommunication,andinfantattachment:Exploringthelinkbetween

mentalstatesandobservedcaregivingbehaviorintheintergenerational

transmissionofattachment.Attachment&HumanDevelopment,7(3),299–311.

Hesse,E.(2008).TheAdultAttachmentInterview:Protocol,methodofanalysis,and

empiricalstudies.InJ.Cassidy&P.Shaver(Eds.),Handbookofattachment:Theory,

research,andclinicalapplications(Vol.2nd,pp.552–598).NewYork:GuilfordPress.

Luyten,P.andFonagy,P.(2014)‘Assessingmentalizinginattachmentcontexts’,in(Eds)S.

FarnfieldandP.Holmes,TheRoutledgeHandbookofAttachment:Assessment,(pp.

210–216)London:Routlege.


18

Lyons-Ruth,K.(1999).Thetwo-personunconscious:Intersubjectivedialogue,enactive

relationalrepresentation,andtheemergenceofnewformsofrelational

organization.PsychoanalyticInquiry,19(4),576–617.

Madigan,S.,Bakermans-Kranenburg,M.,VanIJzendoorn,M.,Moran,G.,Pederson,D.and

Benoit,D.(2006)‘Unresolvedstatesofmind,anomalousparentalbehaviour,and

disorganisedattachment:Areviewandmeta-analysisofatransmissiongap’,

AttachmentandHumanDevelopment,8(2),pp.89-111.

Main,M.&R.Goldwyn,(1994)AdultAttachmentInterviewScoringandClassification

Manual,Unpublishedmanuscript:UniversityofCaliforniaatBerkeley

Meins,E.,Fernyhough,C.,Wainwright,R.,Clark-Carter,D.,DasGupta,M.,Fradley,E.,&

Tuckey,M.(2003).Pathwaystounderstandingmind:constructvalidityand

predictivevalidityofmaternalmind-mindedness.ChildDevelopment,74(4),1194–

1211.

Miller,A.(1979).Depressionandgrandiosityasrelatedformsofnarcissisticdisturbances.

InternationalReviewofPsycho-Analysis,6,61–76.

Oppenheim,D.,&Koren-Karie,N.(2009).Parents’insightfulnessregardingtheirchildren’s

internalworlds:Assessment,research,andclinicalimplications.InC.H.Zeanah(Ed.),

Handbookofinfantmentalhealth(Vol.3,pp.266–280).NewYork:GuilfordPress.

Reder,P.,&Duncan,S.(1999).Lostinnocents:afollow-upstudyoffatalchildabuse.

London:Routledge.

Reder,P.,Duncan,S.,&Gray,M.(1993).Beyondblame:Childabusetragediesrevisited.

London:Routledge.

Sahhar,N.(2014).AnexpandedapproachtotheAdultAttachmentInterview.The

RoutledgeHandbookofAttachment:Assessment,156.

Schacter,D.L.,&Tulving,E.(1994).Whatarethememorysystemsof1994?InD.L.Schacter

&E.Tulving(Ed.),Memorysystems(pp.1-38).Cambridge,MA:Bradford.

Slade,A.(2005).Parentalreflectivefunctioning:Anintroduction.Attachment&Human

Development,7(3),269–281


19

Slade,A.,Grienenberger,J.,Bernbach,E.,Levy,D.,&Locker,A.(2005).Maternalreflective

functioning,attachment,andthetransmissiongap:Apreliminarystudy.Attachment

&HumanDevlopment,7(3),283–298.

Slade,A.,E.Bernbach,J.Grienenberger,D.Levy&A.Locker,(2005a)Addendumto

ReflectiveFunctioningScoringManual,Unpublishedmanuscript:ThePsychological

Center,TheCityCollegeofNewYork,NewYork.

Slade,A.,Cohen,L.J.,Sadler,L.S.,&Miller,M.(2009).Thepsychologyandpsychopathology

ofpregnancy.HandbookofInfantMentalHealth,22–39.

Solomon,J.,&George,C.(2011).TheDisorganizedAttachment-CaregivingSystem.InJ.

Solomon&C.George(Eds.),Disorganizedattachmentandcaregiving(Vols.1–Book,

1–Section,pp.3–24).NewYork:GuilfordPress.

Suchman,N.E.,DeCoste,C.,Leigh,D.,&Borelli,J.(2010).Reflectivefunctioninginmothers

withdrugusedisorders:Implicationsfordyadicinteractionswithinfantsand

toddlers.Attachment&HumanDevelopment,12(6),567–585.

VanIJzendoorn,M.(1995).Adultattachmentrepresentations,parentalresponsiveness,and

infantattachment:ameta-analysisonthepredictivevalidityoftheAdultAttachment

Interview.PsychologicalBulletin,117(3),387–403.

Vygotsky,L.S.(1967).Playanditsroleinthementaldevelopmentofthechild.Journalof

RussianandEastEuropeanPsychology,5(3),6–18.

Winnicott,D.(1967).TheMirror-roleofthemotherandfamilyinchilddevelopment.InP.

Logan(Ed.),ThePredicamentoftheFamily:APsycho-AnalyticalSymposium(Vols.1–

Book,1–Section,pp.26–33).London:HogarthPress.

Zeanah,C.(2007).Constructingarelationshipformulationformotherandchild:Clinical

applicationoftheworkingmodelofthechildinterview.InD.Oppenheim,S.Dolev,N.

Koren-Karie,&E.Sher-Censor(Eds.),AttachmentTheoryinClinicalWorkwith

Children:BridgingtheGapbetweenResearchandPractice(Vol.Paperback,pp.3–30).

Zeanah,C.,Benoit,D.,Hirshberg,L.,&Barton,M.(1986).Workingmodelofthechild

interview:Ratingscalesandclassifications.Unpublishedmanual, NewOrleans,

LouisianaStateUniversitySchoolofMedicine.

Download - Meaning of The Child Interview CCPP - Cambridge Centre for ... · of Winnicott: The mother gazes at the baby in her arms ... The Meaning of The Child Interview (MotC) – A new method

Top Related