Attachment and resilience in early-deprived children REACH Seminar, October 19, 2010
Lucy Le MareSimon Fraser University
Outline
Attachment What is it? Its importance in development
Attachment in IC adoptees Meta-analytic evidence Longitudinal evidence Evidence from case studies
What is Attachment?
“To say of a child that he has an attachment to someone means that he is strongly disposed to seek proximity to and contact with a specific figure and to do so in certain situations, notably when he is frightened, tired, or ill.”
John Bowlby, 1982
The Development of Attachment
The tendency to form an attachment is innate and universal
Under “normal” rearing circumstances, by 6 or 7 months of age, babies have identified a primary attachment figure
All babies form attachments but the quality of those attachments vary
Quality of Attachment and Internal Working Models
Secure Insecure avoidant Insecure resistant Insecure
Disorganized
Internal Working Model
Importance of attachment
Development of a secure attachment has long-term benefits for childrenDevelopment of emotion regulationBasic trust in their parents & others and in
their own abilities to influence the worldAbility to function autonomously and with
confidence
Attachment and Intercountry Adoption
Risks for IC adoptees
Experience of institutional deprivation and neglect
What does the research show?
Meta-analytic studiesE.g., Van den Dries, Juffer, van IJzendoorn, &
Bakermans-Kranenburg (2009) Longitudinal studies
E.g., Audet & Le Mare (in press) Case studies
E.g., Kurytnik & Le Mare (in prep.)
Meta-analysis of attachment in adopted children
Van den Dries, Juffer, van IJzendoorn, & Bakermans-Kranenburg (2009) 17 studies; N = 772 adopted children Moderator variables:
Age at placement Time spent in the new family Continent of origin Type of placement (international or domestic) Age of attachment assessment
Secure Attachment (Van den Dries et al., 2009)
Summary of Meta-analysis – Attachment SecurityIC adoptees have similar rates of
attachment security as domestic adoptees Adopted children have lower rates of
security than non-adopted children ONLY if they are adopted after 12 months of age
IC adoptees have HIGHER rates of attachment security than children in institutions
Romanian Adoption Study- Participants Romanian Orphan Group (RO)
On average spent 18 months (since birth) in an institution before adoption
Early Adopted Group (EA) Adopted from Romania prior to 4 months of age.
Canadian Born Group (CB) Non-adopted, raised in birth families Matched to ROs and EA’s on sex, age, and family
demographic variables.
Romanian Adoption Study Design
Phase 1 – 11 months post adoption Age range = 18 to 76 months
Phase 2 – 4.5 years old
Phase 3 – 10.5 years old
Phase 4 – 17 years old
Romanian Adoption Project:Security 11 mos. post-adoption (Ames, 1997)
Romanian Adoption Project:Attachment at age 4.5 years (Chisholm, 1998)
Romanian Adoption Project:Attachment at age 10.5 years
(Fernyhough, Audet, & Le Mare, 2002)
Summary of longitudinal findings Two groups of IC adoptees (RO & EA)
differed in attachment security across time At all 3 times, the late adopted RO group
showed higher rates of insecurity and lower rates of security than the CB and EA groups.
At all 3 times the EA group did not differ from the CB group in rates of security
Qualitative case studies (Kurytnik & Le Mare, in prep)
9 RO (adopted > 9 months) participants
5 demonstrated “resilience” at age 17
4 demonstrated “non-resilience” at 17
Selection Criteria
Parent reports on the Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach 1991)
Parents open-ended written comments on strengths and challenges
Researchers’ overall impression of functioning based on many written comments
Examples of resilient and non-resilient participants Mitch (R4) had a total CBCL score of 2, indicating very few behavioural
difficulties. Parent reported strengths included being hard working, musical, a good listener, focused on school, and devoted to his family. He excelled in sports, music and school. He planned to go to medical school. He worked part-time as a lifeguard, volunteered as a referee, and was on the student
executive at school. Regarding challenges, his parents had no concerns. Cory (NR3) had a total CBCL score of 74, indicating behavioural difficulties
in the clinical range, He was failing all school subjects and repeating 9th grade. His parents were most concerned about his very low self-esteem and social immaturity. He enjoyed soccer, but had no other hobbies or interests, and no employment. He was living with foster parents who commented, “he frequently engages in impulsive behaviour leading to poor choices”.
Data sources
Multiple informants at each assessment (teachers, parents, peers, researchers)
Quantitative and qualitative data
Data Sources cont….
11 mos. Post adoption
4.5 years 10.5 years 17 years
Intellectual X X X X
Behaviour X X X X
Parent-child relationship
X X X X
Peer relations X X X
Self-concept X X X
Family functioning
X X X X
Findings
R1 R2 R3 R4* R5 NR1 NR2 NR3* NR4
Age @ adoption
17 22 22 24 16 15 12 14 10
# Dev delays
4 1 3 1 0 3 2 1 0
Gesell delays
N/A 3 4 1 1 N/A 3 1 0
IQ 115 85 84 99 116 86 73 93 89
Income $75K $35K $35K $100K $85K $50K $75K $55K $55K
Parents ages
36, 37
33, 38
3338
4647
4348
3640
2930
3335
3838
Parents educ
1 1 1 3 2 1 1 3 1
Caregiving in Early Childhood
Resilient participants all cared for by their mothers.
Non-resilient participants all cared for by non-familial babysitters, nannies, or daycare providers.
Family Structure
Amount of individual attention available
Number of siblings
Closeness in age of siblings
Parenting styles
“Mitch’s (R4) family is very sensitive to his needs and provides him with experiences to encourage development in a natural and loving manner. His mother recognizes that using isolation as a discipline technique was inappropriate for this child” (IDP specialist)
“Allison’s (NR1) mother doesn’t seem harsh, but not nurturing either. There is far too much talking about the kids in front of them” (Researcher notes)
Parental outlook
“Mitch (R4) is often immature, but so are all 10-year-old boys”
“I know something is going to happen but it’s not my fault. I’m fully prepared that Cory (NR3) will be arrested someday…he’s not changing…he’ll never change”
Parenting stress
“This strikes me as a very happy and well-adjusted family despite the fact that the parents are divorced” (Researcher describing Liam’s (R1) family)
“My parents disowned me for what I had done” (Allison’s (NR1) mother referring to the adoptions of her two daughters)
Attachment
“Heather (R3) is managing well in her new household, and is becoming increasingly more outgoing and secure. She appears to have bonded well with her adoptive mother” (age 2.5 years)
“I enrolled her (Allison – NR1) twice in a stranger program and it may have helped a little but I still don’t trust her” (age 10.5)
Conclusions
IC adoptees adopted < 12 months are at no increased risk of attachment insecurity
IC adoptees adopted > 12 months are at elevated risk for attachment insecurity
BUT, IC adoptees with lengthy and extreme early deprivation can form secure attachments and develop positively into healthy, happy, and productive teens.
Implications
Pre-adoption education for families Post-adoption support for families
Top Related