Talking to Dogs: Companion Animal-Directed Speech in a Stress Test.

Companion animal-directed speech (CADS) has previously been investigated in comparison to infant-directed speech and adult-directed speech. To investigate the influence of owner caregiving, attachment pattern, and personality on CADS, we used the Ainsworth strange situation procedure. It allowed us to assess voice source parameters of CADS across different contexts. We extracted speech parameters (voicing duration, voice pitch, pitch range, and jitter) from 53 dog owners recorded during the procedure. We found that owner personality and gender but not caregiving/attachment behavior affect their voice's pitch, range, and jitter during CADS. Further, we found a differential and context-specific modification of pitch and range, consistent with the idea that pitch communicates affect, whereas range is more of an attention-getting device. This differential usage, and the increased pitch, emphasize and support the parallels described between CADS and infant-directed speech. For the first time, we also show the effect of personality on CADS and lay the basis for including jitter as a potentially useful measure in CADS.

Toward an architecture of attachment disorganization: John Bowlby's published and unpublished reflections.

This article examines the construct of disorganized attachment originally proposed by Main and Solomon, developing some new conjectures based on inspiration from a largely unknown source: John Bowlby's unpublished texts, housed at the Wellcome Trust Library Archive in London (with permission from the Bowlby family). We explore Bowlby's discussions of disorganized attachment, which he understood from the perspective of ethological theories of conflict behavior. Bowlby's reflections regarding differences among the behaviors used to code disorganized attachment will be used to explore distinctions that may underlie the structure of the current coding system. The article closes with an emphasis on the importance Bowlby placed on Popper's distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification in developmental science.

Disorganized attachment in infancy: a review of the phenomenon and its implications for clinicians and policy-makers.

Disorganized/Disoriented (D) attachment has seen widespread interest from policy makers, practitioners, and clinicians in recent years. However, some of this interest seems to have been based on some false assumptions that (1) attachment measures can be used as definitive assessments of the individual in forensic/child protection settings and that disorganized attachment (2) reliably indicates child maltreatment, (3) is a strong predictor of pathology, and (4) represents a fixed or static "trait" of the child, impervious to development or help. This paper summarizes the evidence showing that these four assumptions are false and misleading. The paper reviews what is known about disorganized infant attachment and clarifies the implications of the classification for clinical and welfare practice with children. In particular, the difference between disorganized attachment and attachment disorder is examined, and a strong case is made for the value of attachment theory for supportive work with families and for the development and evaluation of evidence-based caregiving interventions.

Infant disorganized attachment: Clarifying levels of analysis.

Lack of clarity regarding the infant disorganized attachment classification has caused confusion in the clinical, forensic, and research contexts in which it is used. This article offers distinctions to clarify the concept with the goal of increasing understanding and identifying potential misapplications. In particular, attention is drawn to the fact that there are many indices used to code "disorganized attachment," and that so far they have been validated as a set rather than individually; and it is noted that the construct validation of disorganization in naturalistic settings is partially finished. Clinicians and social workers should be cautious in their interpretations of such behavior.

The Attachment Doll Play Assessment: Predictive Validity with Concurrent Mother-Child Interaction and Maternal Caregiving Representations.

Attachment is central to the development of children's regulatory processes. It has been associated with developmental and psychiatric health across the life span, especially emotional and behavioral regulation of negative affect when stressed (Schore, 2001; Schore and Schore, 2008). Assessment of attachment patterns provides a critical frame for understanding emerging developmental competencies and formulating treatment and intervention. Play-based attachment assessments provide access to representational models of attachment, which are regarded in attachment theory as the central organizing mechanisms associated with stability or change (Bowlby, 1969/1982; Bretherton and Munholland, 2008). The Attachment Doll Play Assessment (ADPA, George and Solomon, 1990-2016; Solomon et al., 1995) is a prominent established representational attachment measure for children aged early latency through childhood. This study examines the predictive validity of the ADPA to caregiving accessibility and responsiveness assessed from mother-child interaction and maternal representation. Sixty nine mothers and their 5-7-year-old children participated in this study. Mother-child interaction was observed during a pre-separation dyadic interaction task. Caregiving representations were rated from the Caregiving Interview (George and Solomon, 1988/1993/2005/2007). Child security with mother was associated with positive dyadic interaction and flexibly integrated maternal caregiving representations. Child controlling/disorganized attachments were significantly associated with problematic dyadic interaction and dysregulated-helpless maternal caregiving representations. The clinical implications and the use of the ADPA in clinical and educational settings are discussed.

The Politics of Attachment: Lines of Flight with Bowlby, Deleuze and Guattari.

Research on attachment is widely regarded in sociology and feminist scholarship as politically conservative - oriented by a concern to police families, pathologize mothers and emphasize psychological at the expense of socio-economic factors. These critiques have presented attachment theory as constructing biological imperatives to naturalize contingent, social demands. We propose that a more effective critique of the politically conservative uses of attachment theory is offered by engaging with the 'attachment system' at the level of ontology. In developing this argument we draw on Deleuze and Guattari, making use of the common language of ethology which links their ideas to that of attachment theory. The attachment system can and has been reified into an image of the infant returning to their caregiver as an image of familial sufficiency. This has offered ammunition for discourses and institutions which isolate women from health, social and political resources. Yet Deleuze and Guattari can help attachment theory and research to be recognized as a powerful ally for progressive politics, for reflection on the movement of human individuation, and for arguing for the meaningful resourcing of those who care for someone else.

Wait Up!: Attachment and Sovereign Power.

Sociologists and feminist scholars have, over many decades, characterised attachment as a social construction that functions to support political and gender conservatism. We accept that attachment theory has seen use to these ends and consider recent deployments of attachment theory as justification for a minimal State within conservative political discourse in the UK since 2009. However, we contest that attachment is reducible to its discursive construction. We consider Judith Butler's depiction of the infant attached to an abusive caregiver as a foundation and parallel to the position of the adult citizen subjected to punitive cultural norms and political institutions. We develop and qualify Butler's account, drawing on the insights offered by the work of Lauren Berlant. We also return to Foucault's Psychiatric Power lectures, in which familial relations are situated as an island of sovereign power within the sea of modern disciplinary institutions. These reflections help advance analysis of three important issues: the social and political implications of attachment research; the relationship between disciplinary and sovereign power in the affective dynamic of subjection; and the political and ethical status of professional activity within the psy disciplines.