Attachment & Human Development

ISSN: 1461-6734 (Print) 1469-2988 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rahd20

Dyadic interactions as precursors to attachment

security: implications for intervention and
research
Susan S. Woodhouse
To cite this article: Susan S. Woodhouse (2010) Dyadic interactions as precursors to
attachment security: implications for intervention and research, Attachment & Human
Development, 12:1-2, 151-157, DOI: 10.1080/14616730903381514
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616730903381514

Published online: 03 Mar 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 237

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rahd20
Download by: [University of Birmingham]

Date: 15 November 2015, At: 07:58

Attachment & Human Development

Vol. 12, Nos. 12, JanuaryMarch 2010, 151157

COMMENTARY
Dyadic interactions as precursors to attachment security: implications
for intervention and research
Susan S. Woodhouse*

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 07:58 15 November 2015

Department of Counselor Education, Counseling Psychology, and Rehabilitation Services,

Pennsylvania State University, PA, USA
(Received 3 March 2009; nal version received 20 September 2009)
This commentary focuses on the important contributions of the Beebe et al.
(present issue) study to understanding precursors to attachment, including the
addition of a particular focus on infant contributions to the dyadic interactions
related to attachment outcomes, as well as a better understanding of the
precursors specic to insecure-ambivalent attachment and attachment disorganization. In addition, limitations of the time series methodology for interpreting the
meaning of maternal interactive contingency ndings from an attachment
perspective are discussed. Finally, implications of the present study for both
clinical work and research are highlighted throughout.
Keywords: attachment; attachment precursors; infant behaviour; insecure/
ambivalent attachment; disorganized attachment; maternal contingency

Beebe et al. (2010, p. 3141, current issue) present a very exciting and innovative
study that has a number of important implications for understanding the precursors
to attachment. Beebe et al. provide a creative and powerful micro-analytic approach
to questions about the link between maternal sensitive responding and infant
attachment. A better understanding of the precursors to attachment would allow us
to design more targeted, eective interventions that focus on the most salient aspects
of motherinfant interactions related to later attachment outcomes. Eective
attachment interventions are important given the wide variety of negative
consequences associated with insecurity of attachment (for reviews see DeKlyen &
Greenberg, 2008; Kobak, Cassidy, Lyons-Ruth, & Ziv, 2006).
One of the central ideas of attachment theory is that a mothers sensitively
responsive behavior is a key contributor to the quality of the infants attachment to
her (Ainsworth, 1982; Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978), and meta-analytic
ndings provide empirical support for this link (De Wol & van IJzendoorn, 1997).
The eect size of the relation between maternal sensitivity and infant attachment,
however, is not large. Specically, the De Wol and van IJzendoorn (1997) metaanalysis found eect sizes for the link between parental behavior and infant
attachment that varied between .17 and .24, depending on how sensitivity and
attachment were measured. Thus, although Ainsworths fundamental proposition

*Email: ssw10@psu.edu
ISSN 1461-6734 print/ISSN 1469-2988 online
2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14616730903381514
http://www.informaworld.com

152

S.S. Woodhouse

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 07:58 15 November 2015

linking maternal sensitivity with infant attachment has been supported, the vexing
question remains: Why is the link between parental responsiveness and infant
attachment outcomes not as high as theoretically expected?
The importance of including infant behavior
The results of the study by Beebe et al. have important implications for improving
measurement of maternal responsiveness and for expanding understanding of the
crucial variables that should be considered when examining maternal responsiveness.
Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, Beebe et al. provide compelling evidence
that perhaps we should more carefully examine the meaning of infant behaviors in
motherinfant dyadic interactions if we would like to understand the origins of
infant attachment. Although Ainsworth, Bell, and Stayton (1971) considered
maternal behaviors within the context of infant cues that give the maternal
behaviors their meaning, the Beebe et al. study actually statistically examines the
links between attachment outcomes and two ways of looking at infant behavior (i.e.,
examination of the ways that infant behavior is contingent on mother behavior and
the ways in which infant behavior is consistent with previous infant behavior), in
addition to examining how maternal behaviors relate to later infant attachment. This
represents an important shift because the focus is not simply on the mother as
responding to infant cues, but rather on the mother and infant as they respond to
one another in the dyadic interaction and the degree to which each individuals
behavior can be predicted on the basis of (a) the others behavior and (b) his or her
own behavior. Time series analysis allows one to see how much of the mothers
behavior is predicted by the babys behavior and how much is predicted by the
stability of the mothers own behavior. Likewise, it permits one to examine the
degree to which the babys behavior is predicted by the mothers behavior and
the degree to which it is predicted by the stability of the babys own behavior. This
method partitions out the amount of variance that is due to each of these sources.
This novel approach allows an examination of dyadic patterns of responding as
precursors to attachment instead of simply thinking about the mothers behavior (in
the context of infant cues), as is typically done. This is an advance in how we can
look at precursors to attachment that provides new information about how mothers
and infants interact, and what infants might be learning from these interactions that
are linked to later attachment.
Throughout the monograph Beebe et al. present ndings on two dierent kinds
of analyses: an extreme behaviors analysis and a contingency analysis. This dual
approach was extremely helpful because contingency analyses alone would be
dicult to interpret without examination of extreme behaviors. The reason for this is
that because contingencies (i.e., instances of consistency in ones own behavior or in
the predictability of behavior between mother and infant) are in and of themselves
neutral. Contingent responding here is not dened as responding that appropriately
matches what the infant needs, but rather is dened in the very technical sense of
being predictable. Thus, we need some way of making sense of whether particular
types of contingency (i.e., predictability) are good or bad. It is easy to imagine that
some forms of contingency could be positive (e.g., baby smiles, mother smiles)
whereas other forms could be detrimental (e.g., mother consistently looks away
regardless of infant behavior; very predictable, but not helpful to the baby). Thus, we
need some way to try to make sense of the contingencies that are by denition

Attachment & Human Development

153

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 07:58 15 November 2015

neutral. One important strength of the study was that the authors examined
contingencies in the context of rare/extreme behaviors, which aided in the
interpretation the meaning of the contingencies.
Understanding precursors to insecure/ambivalent attachment
Two of the most exciting contributions of the Beebe et al. study included the
opportunity to better understand precursors of insecure/ambivalent attachment and
disorganized attachment. Infants classied as insecure/ambivalent (C) are the least
understood infant attachment group (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994). Moreover, as Cassidy
and Berlin noted, this is a dicult group to study because samples typically contain
few insecure/ambivalent infants. In fact, the eld has advanced relatively little in its
understanding of insecure/ambivalent attachment since the 1994 review of the
literature by Cassidy and Berlin. As Beebe et al. note, most samples include more
babies classied as insecure/avoidant (A) than babies classied as insecure/
ambivalent (C); thus the Beebe et al. study presented a unique opportunity to learn
more about the precursors to insecure/ambivalent attachment.
Some of the results regarding future C infants were perhaps surprising. First,
consider the results from the extreme behaviors analysis. There were few measurable
dierences between dyads involving future secure (B) and future ambivalent (C)
infants on most behaviors. Only one extreme behavior was signicantly dierent
between future B and future C dyads: dyadic chase and dodge, with future C
dyads exhibiting the chase and dodge pattern twice as frequently as the future B
dyads. Perhaps one particularly surprising nding showed there was no dierence
between future B and future C dyads on mother interruptive touch. These results
suggested that mother interruptive touch may not be as important a precursor to C
as previously thought (e.g., Cassidy & Berlin, 1994). Similarly, excessive use of
intrusive touch was not signicantly dierent between future B and future C dyads
(although there appeared to be a nonsignicant trend). These results mirror
qualitative results of a study by Cassidy, Woodhouse, Cooper, Homan, Powell, and
Rodenberg (2005), who found that maternal intrusion/interruption during play was
surprisingly common, at least in a diverse, low-income sample, and that intrusion/
interruption during play did not seem to predict attachment insecurity. Rather,
Cassidy et al. found that only mothers who intruded in ways that activated the
attachment system or communicated a discomfort with allowing the baby to go out
and explore apart from her later had infants who were insecurely attached. In other
words, infants seemed to be relatively forgiving of intrusion unless the mother
activated the attachment system while the infant was exploring or if the mother
managed to communicate that she found it intolerable for the baby to focus
outward, rather than on her. The chase and dodge sequence noted by Beebe et al.
would appear to fall into this category of intrusions that do not allow the baby to
focus on exploration outside the sphere of the mother. This is an important nding
that helps to shed light on the interpersonal quality of interactions between future C
infants and their mothers. Further research could focus on naturally-occurring
events similar to the chase and dodge sequence found in the laboratory. It is possible
that such interactive sequences, like those that activate the infants attachment
system, should be a clinical focus in motherinfant dyads when they occur. Perhaps
more simple interruption and intrusion could be safely ignored in favor of incidents
that resemble a chase and dodge pattern. Future research could clarify whether such

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 07:58 15 November 2015

154

S.S. Woodhouse

a distinction between simple forms of interruption/intrusion and incidents in which

the mother appears to communicate discomfort just when the infant is turning away
from her would be clinically benecial.
Results from the contingency analyses likewise showed few dierences between
future B and future C dyads across a number of modalities, but the few dierences
that emerged served to further characterize the specic quality of these infants
interactions with their mothers. A pattern emerged that suggests that the future C
infants closely track an intrusive mother, while at the same time making eorts to
ignore intrusion. Specically, future C infants (vs. B) showed lower self-contingency
(i.e., predictable, internal patterns of engagement based on their own personal
rhythms) but higher engagement coordination with mother engagement (suggesting
a vigilant attention to the mothers patterns of engagement). Thus, future C infants
do not seem to engage based on their own internal needs, but instead seem to be
trying vigilantly to match a mother whose needs seem to take greater precedence in
the dyad than the infants. In addition, future C (vs. B) infants showed lower
engagement coordination with maternal touch and lower vocal coordination with
maternal touch, such that future C babies were not matching their responses to their
mothers (increasingly intrusive touch). Clinicians may nd it useful to look at such
patterns of infant responding. Perhaps future research can track the development of
these infant behaviors.
Understanding disorganized attachment
As mentioned earlier, a second important contribution was a better understanding of
the development of disorganization of attachment. Disorganization of attachment is
crucially important because of its links to later psychopathology (see DeKlyen &
Greenberg, 2008, for a review). Again, it was notable that there were few dierences
between future D and future B dyads. This lack of dierences was consistent with
research showing that mothers of future D infants can be as sensitive as mothers of
future B infants (Fonagy, 2001; Lyons-Ruth & Jacobvitz, 2008). Nevertheless, there
were some crucial dierences that emerged both in the analyses of extreme behaviors
and the contingency analyses for future D dyads. Most notably, mothers of future D
infants engaged in extreme behaviors such as excessive time looking away and
excessive looming; moreover, contingency analyses showed that they did so in ways
that involved less predictable (i.e., less self-contingent) patterns of gaze and spatial
orientation than did mothers of future B infants. On the other hand, mothers of
future D infants showed higher facial self-contingency, resulting in an overly stable
closed up face. It would be very interesting for future research to try to identify
what internal or external cues mothers of future D infants may be responding to
when they over-control their faces, look away, or loom. Perhaps research can
identify whether there are particular aectively charged internal or external events
that these mothers are trying to regulate through these behaviors. If so, this could be
clinically useful. One of the limitations of the Beebe et al. methods is that these
methods do not allow for the tracking of such triggers or of maternal physiological
reactions that could help to explain these behaviors. Nevertheless, the results are
evocative.
Further, one of the strengths of methodology used by Beebe et al. is that they
were able to examine both maternal behavior and infant behavior, so as to better
understand what is happening in future D dyads. For example, future D infants

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 07:58 15 November 2015

Attachment & Human Development

155

spent less time in self-touch (presumably losing the benets of self-regulation

through self-touch) and showed greater levels of discrepant aect (positive aect in
one modality with simultaneous negative aect in another modality). Future D
dyads showed unique patterns of engagement. Future D infant engagement patterns
were less self-contingent (i.e., less based on predictable internal rhythms) than future
B infants in the context of maternal engagement of maternal touch. Overall, the
picture created by the ndings is one in which the future D infant is less emotionally
regulated; is less attuned to his or her own inner rhythms; and shows greater degrees
of complex, discrepant aect in the context of a mother who is unpredictably
engaging in extreme behaviors such as excessive looking away, excessive looming,
and presenting an excessively stable, closed-up face. As noted by Beebe et al., these
results are quite consistent with previous research on disorganized attachment (e.g.,
Lyons-Ruth, Bronfman, & Parsons, 1999; Tomlinson, Cooper, & Murray, 2005). In
addition, results for future C and future D dyads illustrate the dierences between
insecure dyad types and highlight the importance of doing research that keeps the
insecure attachment groups separate, rather than collapsed together as insecure
versus secure.
Trying to understand maternal interactive contingency
One intriguing result Beebe et al. emphasized was the nding that maternal
interactive contingency was the least predictive of attachment as compared to
mother self-contingency, infant self-contingency, and infant interactive contingency.
In other words, Beebe et al. found that stability of the infant behaviors (i.e., the
degree to which one can predict the infants behavior from the preceding infant
behavior), the stability of mothers behaviors (i.e., the degree to which one can
predict the mothers behavior from the preceding maternal behavior), and the ways
in which infants coordinated their behaviors with their mothers told us more about
future attachment than the ways in which mothers coordinated their behaviors with
their infants. It is dicult to know how to interpret this result from an attachment
perspective. Beebe et al. challenge conventional theory in the literature on mother
infant contingency in face-to-face interaction by arguing that more contingency is
not necessarily better, as Jae, Beebe, Feldstein, Crown, and Jasnow (2001) also
pointed out earlier. I think it is important to be very clear that the Beebe et al.
challenge makes tremendous logical sense in a context in which contingency is
dened in neutral terms, as it was in their study. It is logical to believe that perfect
prediction of mother behavior from infant behavior would not necessarily lead to
greater security of attachment. For example, strong maternal contingent responding
could reect an extreme form of maternal vigilant over-attending to the infant. Also,
given that matching negative maternal behavior with negative infant behavior would
not be particularly helpful to the infant, it makes sense that more contingency, as
dened in the Beebe et al. study, should not be better. However, I think that it is very
important to note that attachment researchers typically do not dene contingency in
terms of statistical predictability from previous behavior (whether positive or
negative), but rather tend to dene contingent responding in terms of appropriate
responding to infant cues. In contrast, contingency in the Beebe et al. study is used in
a very specic, neutral way, which should not be confused with appropriate maternal
matching of behavior to the infants cues. Thus, from an attachment perspective, the
fact that maternal contingency (dened neutrally as any kind of maternal matching

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 07:58 15 November 2015

156

S.S. Woodhouse

to the infant, whether positive or negative) is less predictive than other forms of
contingency is a dicult nding to interpret. It is not clear whether the positive and
negative forms of matching might be canceling each other out, or whether there
might be something else beyond mothers moment-by-moment matching to the
infant that is important. For example, Cassidy et al. (2005) present qualitative
evidence supporting the idea of secure base provision as an alternative to maternal
sensitivity. They argued that rather than taking the average level of sensitivity
observed, that instead sensitive and insensitive behaviors should be examined
through an organizing lter that examines patterns of maternal responding. The
Cassidy et al. notion of secure base provision helped to explain their nding that
infants could be securely attached even when a great deal of insensitive behavior was
present as long as, in the end, their mothers relented and met the infants attachment
needs. In other words, as long as mothers were comfortable enough with infant
exploration and willing to support it, and comfortable enough with attachment bids
and willing to support them, the infant would experience the mother as a secure base,
even in the context of a fair bit of maternal insensitivity (as long as certain extremely
negative behaviors were not present, such as frightening behavior). Thus, secure base
provision is another way of understanding how security of attachment can occur in
the context of either high or low levels of maternal contingent responding, as
typically dened in attachment research. However, further research will be needed to
elucidate the meaning for attachment theory of the current nding of relatively low
importance of maternal contingent responding to the infant in the study by Beebe
et al. In order to answer the questions raised by the present ndings for attachment
theory we will need new statistical methods that go beyond the time series analysis
used by Beebe et al., so as to be able to incorporate more context into micro-analytic
research.
Nevertheless, the Beebe et al. study represents a signicant contribution to the
attachment literature. The study provides important insights into salient aspects of
motherinfant interactions that are linked to later attachment. These intriguing
ndings are sure to be relevant to clinicians and researchers alike, and will likely
stimulate a great deal of research.
References
Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1982). Attachment: retrospect and prospect. In C.M. Parkes & J.
Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in human behavior (pp. 330). New York:
Basic Books.
Ainsworth, M.D.S., Bell, S.M., & Stayton, D.J. (1971). Individual dierences in StrangeSituation behaviour of one-year-olds. In H.R. Schaer (Ed.), Origins of human social
relations. Oxford: Academic Press.
Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A
psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Beebe, B., Jae, J., Markese, S., Buck, K., Chen, H., Cohen, P., et al. (2010). The origins of 12month attachment: A microanalysis of 4-month motherinfant interaction [Monograph].
Attachment & Human Development, 12(12), 3141.
Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. (1994). The insecure/ambivalent pattern of attachment: Theory and
research. Child Development, 65, 971991.
Cassidy, J., Woodhouse, S.S., Cooper, G., Homan, K., Powell, B., & Rodenberg, M. (2005).
Examination of the precursors of infant attachment security: Implications for early
intervention and intervention research. In L.J. Berlin, Y. Ziv, L.M. Amaya-Jackson, &
M.T. Greenberg (Eds.), Enhancing early attachments: Theory, research, intervention, and
policy. New York: Guilford Press.

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 07:58 15 November 2015

Attachment & Human Development

157

De Wol, M.S., & Van IJzendoorn, M.H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-analysis
on parental antecedents of infant attachment. Child Development, 68, 571591.
DeKlyen, M., & Greenberg, M.T. (2008). Attachment and psychopathology in childhood. In
J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical
applications (2nd ed., pp. 637665). New York: Guilford Press.
Fonagy, P. (2001). Attachment theory and psychoanalysis. New York: Other Press.
Jae, J., Beebe, B., Feldstein, S., Crown, C., & Jasnow, M. (2001). Rhythms of dialogue in
infancy: Coordinated timing in development. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 66(2, Serial No. 264), 1131.
Kobak, R., Cassidy, J., Lyons-Ruth, K., & Ziv, Y. (2006). Attachment, stress, and
psychopathology: A developmental pathways model. In D. Cicchetti & D.J. Cohen
(Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 1. Theory and method (2nd ed., pp. 333369).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lyons-Ruth, K., Bronfman, E., & Parsons, E. (1999). Maternal disrupted aective
communication, maternal frightened or frightening behavior, and disorganized infant
attachment strategies. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 64(3,
Serial No. 258).
Lyons-Ruth, K., & Jacobvitz, D. (2008). Disorganized attachment: Genetic factors, parenting
contexts, and developmental transformation from infancy to adulthood. In J. Cassidy & P.
Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications (2nd ed.,
pp. 666697). New York: Guilford Press.
Tomlinson, M., Cooper, P., & Murray, L. (2005). The motherinfant relationship and infant
attachment in a South African peri-urban settlement. Child Development, 76, 10441054.