I'~ihijat. dim. /2005/37!2/257-}.70/H.uJu)cri<' AI. Prm(l{olne prcdSlavc cx:em 0 pr,,·";enosti...

257

lstraiivack; rad

UDK: /59.9: /7.023.32

PRENATALNE PREDSTAVE OCEVA 0 PRIVRZENOSTISU PREDIKTIVNE ZA VEZU OCA I DETETA OD

PETNAEST MESECI, AUSTRALIJSKO ISKUSTVO

Marija Radojevic

Sluiba za zastitu decc, mladih i porodice, Bolnica Homzbi i Ku-ring-gaj,Sidnej i Grem Rasel Fakultet bihejvioralnih nauka, Univerzitct Makvari

Apstrakt: Ovo istra;l:ivanjc i7.Vc~tava 0 moei prcdvidanJa Imervjua 0 privrtenosti od­raslih (Adult Altachmcmlntcrvicw) D2ordla, Kaplana i Mcjnovc 1121 0 priHzcno:>1i oca i detc­ta u australijskom uzorku mu~karacu koji ce prvi put poslati otcvi (N = 44). TCSlirana su dvamodda: onaj od tri kategorije (siguran, omaiO\·aiavojuci. prevife ::ookupljen odrasli; sigurno.i::begmmjuce, odb~i"o dete) i od teliri kalegorijc (siguran, omalovalmlGjuCi, previ!ie zookup­!jell, neodluCl/ll odrash; sigllmo, Izbegavajuce, OObojl1o, dezorgallizovano dele); svaki u svurnbinamom (siguran/nesiguran) i potpuno ukr~tenorn obHku. Dba modcla pokazala su 7.Jlatajanuspeh u prcdvidanju ovog adnosa. Najtatnije predvidanjc poslignulo je kada su klasifikacije ro­ditc1ja i dece bile pudcljcne na suprulnusli sigumofnesigurno {50.9% smanjenja greSke(Percent Reduction in Error - PRE)]. Binarni obJik modela sa tri kategorije imao jc 45.1 %~manj.;nja gre~kc. Model unakrsnc klasifikacijc 4 x 4 imao jc 40.4% smanjcnja grdkc, i istov.r.:rncllo satuvao najvc~u spedfitnost time se iSlitc prcdiktivna kOriSl katcgorije neodiucQIl ro­ditclj.

Kljui'ne reci: privrienosl owe-dele. predviaanje. AAI

258 PMI"Jul, dun,120Q5!J7121257·1701Rodojevii M. Prena/olne predsrm:e o~e>'a Q privrte1WSn. ..

Teorija privrzenosti, i kasnija istraZivanja koja jc ona podstakla, re­zultirala je lokom poslednjih dvadesct godina jcdnom od najboljih metodolo­gija kako za prosirenje leorijc taka i za razumevanje drustvenog i osccajnograzYoja deteta. U oblasti istrazivanja privrzenosti radovi koje su pokrcnuliMajkl Lemb i saradnici [1,2,3,4] bili su znacajni jcr su pokazali i postojanjcodnosa privrl.cnosti oca i deteta i njihovu raznovrsnast. Mcdutim, i povrsnoispitivanje tekstova 0 ovoj lemi otkriva da je, jos od znacajnih Lcmhovih ra­dova luz neke izuzetke, 5,6,7] u iSlrazivanjima privricnosti uocljiv stalanmanjak usredsredenosti na oceve. Tekuca istrazivanja 0 ulozi oceva u ovomodnostJ mnogo su produktivnija s obzirom na sirinu paradigme razvojnog ipsihoanalitickog pristupa 1.8,9,10,111.

Stvaranje Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) (Intervjua 0 privrienos­ti odraslih) i sistema za obradu rezultata ovog instrumenta pokrenulo je pro­gram istrazivanja privrl.enosti odraslih [12,13]. Od nastanka ovog instrumen­ta jedno od sredisnjih pitanja bilo jc odredjvanje razvojnih pokazatelja kodroditelja koji doprinose tome da oni budu dobri roditelji i, na taj naein, uticuna adnos privricnosti izmcdu odraslog i deteta. U tom smislu sve je vi~e do­kaza koji govore u prilog kontilluitctu izmcdu nacilla na koji majka mClltalnopredslavlja i verbal no izrazava sopstveno iskustva odgajanja i nacina na kojiDna kasnije postupa sa svojim detetom [6,14,7,15]. Smatra se da je za preno~

senje mehanizma kontinuiteta kljucan stepen u kojem je majka prijemCiva zasigna Ie deteta da mu je potrebna uteha i sigumost.

Cilj ovog istrai:ivanja je da ispita do kojc mere sigurnost mcntalncpredstave buduCih occva 0 privrZcnosti moze da uticc na kasniji kvalitct si­gurnc privri:cnosti oea i detcta u nerizicnom, neklinickom uzorku. U jednojncdavnoj metaallalizi prcdiktivne vrednosti AAl [16] izbor je pao na osam­nacst istrai:ivanja 0 odnosu izmedu AAI klasifikacija i klasifikacija privri:e­Ilosti dece. Od ovih osamnaest istrazivanja u sarno cetiri (ukljucujuCi i avoistrazivanjc) bili su ukljueeni i ocevi. Relativno zanemarivanje oceva u teku­tim istrazivanjima privrZcnosti ukazuje na to da u njima i dalje postoji pret­postavka primata dijade majka-detc. Ovo jc zbunjujuca pretpostavka, iz nc­koliko razloga. Prvo, i teorija privri.enosti i istra~ivanja u toj oblasti ukazujuna to da ce sigurna privrzenost oca i deteta verovatno imati za~tilno dejstvoukoliko je privri.enost majkc i deteta nesigurna [17,5]. Takode, ukoliko jeprivrz.enost oca i deteta takode nesiguma, manji je broj mogucnosti za inter­akciju koja ce za~tititi dete od osecajne i dru~tvene neprilagodenosti [17,18].Taka priroda afektivnc veze izmedu oca i deteta ima mogucnost da funkcio­ni~e iii kao za~titni iii kao cinilac ranjivosti u razvoju deteta. Na primer, is­trazivanja 0 uspesnosnosti dece iz razvedenih brakova konzistentno pokazujulosiji psihosocijalni razvoj kod porodica bez oca i u porodicama u kojima jeolae deci skora nedostupan [19,20].

Drugo, razmere dru~tvenjh promena II zapadnim industrijskim drus­tvima, narocito U smislu sve edceg raspada porod ice i izmenjenih uslovarada, prcdstavljaju znacajan izazov za mnoge pretpostavke koje se tieu priro-

I'sill/jm, cUm, /100SlJ7/2/257-170/RadQj"I'ic M. Pr"natal"'l pr"d$IOVe otem 0 priw:enO$Ii..

259

de i organizacije porodicnog iivota i, narocito, roditeljstva. Ove pretpostav­ke, na primer, obuhvumjll prvenstvo dijade majka-dete i sekundamu uloguoea kao pru:boca nege, za koga se smatra da ima manji llticaj na razvoj dete­tao U Australiji je II ovom trenlltku zaposleno 53% zena, a njih 48% ima naj­mlade dete staro deset godina [21]. Ova brojka verovatno ne odrazava pravusliku dnl~tva jer se stalno povecava broj majki male dece koje se vracaju naposao. Osim toga, u junu 1996. godine bilo je 672,000 porodiea sa sarno jed­nim roditeljem, od cega je Ll 85% slucajeva taj jedan raditelj bila zena. Tako,llzimajuci Ll obzir razmere i znacaj druslvenih promena, vaZno je bolje razu­mevanje prirade privrienosti deteta i oca (za koju se, kao i za privrienostizmedu majkc i deteta, pretpastavlja da je promenljiva, kao funkcija prijem­civosti roditeJja za dete). Osim toga, morama da razumemo prirodu i rancpakazatelje atektivne spone oca sa detetom, naracito zato sto se ani ispolja­vajll 1I razmisljanjima oceva 0 privrienosti, kao i u njihovom roditeljskomponasanju.

Instrument AAI napravljen je radi predvidanja kvaliteta privdenostiroditelja i deteta koji se procenjuju u nepoznatoj situaciji [221. Nameraje dase nizam pitanja i testava utvrdi stav adraslag u pogledu privrZenasti, naroci­10 - kako su ovu privrzenost doziveli u detinjstvu. Klasifikacija se vise osla­nja na koherentnast iskazanih misli i asecanja nego na njihoY vidljivi sadrfaj.lnlcrvjui su doslovce zapisani, a primenjenajejedna od cetiri glavne klasifi­kacijc priv.Lcnosti: aulonomna (F), odbacujui:a (Os), prelerana zaokuplje­nosl (E) i neodlucna (U).

Sigurni (autonomni) odrasli pru2.aju relativno koherenlan, konzisten­tan i ncodbrambeni izvestaj 0 svojim iskustvima u vezi sa priv.1.enoscu, bezobzira na to da Ii su ta iskustva bila pazilivna iii negativna. Posto se relativnaugodno osecaju sa vecim delam svojih arektivnih iskustava, smatra se da au­tanomni rodilelji imaju vise slabode od nesigurnih radilelja da saasecajnoreaguju nn znake uznemirenosti deteta [23,24]. Taka dcca occkuju brzu, ose­cajnu paznju roditelja.

Najznacajnija osobina nesigurnihlodbacujuCih odraslih je njihov im~

plicitan iii cksplicitan odbrambeni stav. Ociglcdna odbojnost odbacujucihodraslih da priznaju sopstvene potrebe za privdenoscu cini ih manje osellji­vim i prijemcivim na potrebe za privrienoscu sopstvcnc dcec [24]. U takvimllslovima dete brzo nauci da odvrati paznju od sopstvenih potreba za privrLc­noscu, i laka izgleda (cesto prerano) samodovoljno.

Nesigllrnilprelerano zaokllpljeni odrasli izgledaju kaa da su jos uvekljuti i preterano usredsredeni na zamisljene mane jednog iii drugog roditelja.Reagujuci na potrebu deteta za utehom i/ili privricnoscu preterano zaokup­Ijeni adrasli cc vcrovatno biti ncdoslcdan; ponckad namctljivo dastupan, po­nekad zancmarujuci. Ova strategija odgoja stvara kako naglaseno apreznotaka i priguseno ponasanje privdcnosti kod deteta, verovatno zato sto detenije sigurno kako ce negovatelj reagavati.

260 I's,hijal, dan. 12005137111257.2701Radojn·ii: M. PrelWlalne preds1a~·e "eHa Q pri~";e"usll...

Konacno, odrasli klasifikovani kao nesigurni/neodlucni pokazujuznakove nerazrcscnih traumatskih iskustava, koja obuhvataju iii gubitak zbogsmrti iIi ncku zloupotrcbu od strane figure privrLcnosti. Tvrdi se da ce se ne­odlucni roditclj vcrovatno ncnamemo ponasati prema detetu na nacine kojimogu da stvore prolaznu strasljivosr i sukobe u detetu [25].

Ipak, treba naglasiti da AAI nije jedini instrument kojim se meri pri­vcicnost odraslih ~ija jc teorijska osnova u leoriji privr.lenosti. Rad Hejzena iScjvcra (1990, 1994) svakako je nadahnuo niz istrazivanja 0 privrlenosti od­raslih, zasnovanih na merenju samoprocene [26,27,28]. lako razmatranjeovog znacajnog i paralelnog istrazivanja nije predmet ovog clanka, ° njemuelegantno diskutuju Fini i Noler (1996).

Smatra se da su klasifikacije A.-\I sistematski povezane sa raznim ob­licima privrzenosti kod dccc, a utvrduju se testorn nepoznate situacije [22]:sigllran (B), izbegavajuci (A), odbojan (C) i dezorganizovanldezorijentisan(D) [29]. Sustina jc u tome da dcca pounlltre obrasce ponasanja negovateljatokom ponavljanih intcrakcija sa roditeljima. Ova pounutrenja zatim postajudeo predstavnih modela odnosa kod deteta. Ovi, pak, modeli, oblikuju i po­nasanjc dctcta i njegova ocek.ivanja u vezi sa ponasanjem drugih Ijudi. Smat­ra se da ispoljavanjc de~jih obrazaca privrZenosti u ponasanju predstavljastratcgijc iii za rnobilisanje iIi za ogranicavanje svesti 0 afektima i saznanji­rna povezanim sa privr.Zcnoscu. Ukratko, to izglcda ovako:

I. deca koja nisu ambivalcnta u rrazenju bliskosti, interakcije iii kon­lakta sa majkom koja ulazi u sobu k1asiflkovana su kao siguma(grup. B).

2. dcca koja oklcvaju iii izbegavaju majku prilikom ponovnog sus­reta i koja pokazuju malo iii nirnalo znakova da im je nedostajaladok su bili odvojeni odredena su kao nesigurna/izbegavajuca(grup. A).

3. deca koja ispoljavaju Ijutnju i ambivalenciju prema majci koja scvraca kuci klasifikovana su kao nesigurnalambivalentna (C).Ona plaeu i izgledaju kao da :iele kontakt, ali ne mogu da se sYr­te i veate igri.

Oblikujuci kategoriju nesiguranldezorijentisan (D), Mejnova i Solo-mon [29] su uoCili da " deca koja se ne mogu svrstati u okviru sistema A,B, C ne izgledaju kao da podsecaju jedna na drugu na koherentan, organi-zovan nacin. Ovoj deci su zajcdnieki naleti ponasanja kojirna naizgled nedos­taje vidljivi eilj, namera iii objasnjenje" (str. 122). Nase istra.i:ivanje je jednood malog broja koje, do sada, ukljucuje i kategoriju nesiguran (D).

Od tri istrazivanja [6,7,30] koja su procenjivala privrZcnost i kodmajki i kod oceva. i ispitala slaganje jednih, odnosno, drugih sa pri\'rZeno~cu

majke i deteta i oca i deteta, Mejnova i saradnici [6] iVan Ijzcndom i sarad­niei [7J nasli so snainiju povezanost izmedu majki i dece nego izrncdu occvai dece. Stil i saradnici PO], koristeci dihotomiju siguran/nesiguran odrasli,nasli su da je za sigurnu privcienost deteta sigumost oca isto toliko prcdiktiv-

Psil1ijat. dan I]OOJ/J71]I]J7.17()1Radol':"'c M. J'rCJlQ!alnc prCdSlln'C otcm 0 prn·rf""O$/i..

261

na koliko i sigurnost majke. Nesigurnost oca, pak, znacajno je manjc od nc­sigurnosti majke poveeavala ~anse da ee privricnost oca i deteta biti ncsigur­nu. S obzirom da Sll ova istrazivanja obavljcna II razlicitim zcmljama (SAD,Holandija, Engleska), moze se smatrati da obezbedllju ukdtene podatke zarazlicitc nacije. Pokazalo se da Sll ovi podaci povezani sa razliCitim kultural­nim pristllpima II podizanjll dece i, shodno tome, sa drugacijim raspodelamakategorija privrz.enosti otae-dete. llprkos cinjeniei da su u veCini zemaljamajke primarni negovatclji [31]. Sarno su Stil i saradniei [30] koristili pros­pcktivni metod. Oak se moe predvidanja jcdnog istrazivanja smatra najbo­ljim naucnim pristupom. Van Ijzendornova [16] metaanaliza pokazalaje da uosamnaest istrazivanja upravo nac11 istrazivanja (objasnjenje unazad, objas­njcnje trenutl10g stanja, predvidanje) ne objasnjava razlicitosti u rezultatima.Mada su iz teorijskih, iskustvenih i klinickih razloga znacajne. U ovim istra­ziv,mjima nisll koriseene ni kategorija neodlucna privrzenost odraslog oi de­zorganizovanoldezorijentisano privrZcno dete, koju ovakva privdcnost pred­vida. [32,33J, niti sc 0 njima izvestava. Sva tri istraiivanja ukljllcivala su ne­klinicki llzorak, solidno obrazovanje, srednju klasu. gde je majka bila (takose smatralo) primarni negovatelj.

Ukratko. s obzirorn na mane istrazivanja koja su ispitivala odnos iz­medu privrZcnosti oca i privrZenosti oea i deteta, zakljucci nisll moguCi. Ovatri istraiivanja su ipak pokrenula neka pitanja. Prvo. da Ii, tokom prvihosamnacst mcseei dctcta, u domaeinstvima u kojimajc majka primarni ncgo­vatclj. occva iskllstva privdenosti mogu da budu manjc uticajna od razvija­nja odnosa privricnosti oea i dcteta. Drugo. da Ii AAI (nczavisno od prena­talne primcnc) pouzdano mobilise i odrazava dusevno stanjc oca u pogleduiskustava bitnih za privrZenost. Trcec. da Ii ee cctvorostruki !latin sistemaklasifikacije poboljsati moe prcdvidanja povccavanjem spccificnosti klasifi­kacije privrZenosti odraslih i deee. Preduzeli smo ovo prospektivno istraiiva­nje II Australiji kako bismo ispitali OdllOS izmedu sigumosti predstava budu­cih oceva 0 privrZcllosti i sigurnosti oca i dctcta od petnaest mcscei, koristeciklasifikacioni sistem od cetiri kategorijc. Predvidcli smo, na osnovu tcorijeprivrzcnosti. da postoji veza izmedu sigurnog iii ncsigumog mcmalnog mo­deb privrzcnosti budueeg oea s jedne strane i sigurne iii ncsigurne privrze­nosti pctnaestomcsecnog dctcta oeu.

MetodPrvobitni lIzorak sastojao se od 66 parova II poslednjem tromesecju

trlldnoee. gde su oba roditclja cckala svojc prvo dete. Celiri para Sll odustalaposle prikupljanja prcnatalnih podataka zbog selidbe (tri para) i prekida od­nosa (poslednji par). Njihovi demografski podaci ipak Sll lIzeti U obzir kakoSt= ne bi smanjio llzorak, zbog demografskih razloga. Tako je u ukupnomuzorku bilo 62 para. Detaljan opis llzorka moze se videti na drugom mestuf34J. !)rosecna starost muskaraea bilajc tridcset godina (od 22 do 43).lspita­niei Sll bili iz srednje klase, i vccina jc bila solidno obrazovana. 85% mllska-

262 PJrhyol. dun,/lU05/37/1/151-2701Radojnoic M. Prenatufne prcdsla~e DenU 0 prrl'T!eIlOSII...

raca zavrWo je najmanje srednju ~kolu Gcdanaesta i dvanaesta godina u Aus­traliji), dok je 50% imnla neki oblik tercijarnog obrazovanja. Na skali pres­tiznosti posln [36}, rangiranoj od 1 do 7, srednja Deena ocevaje bila 4.1 (l =

najvisc - sudija - 1.2; 7 = najnize - grabnr - 6.8). U vreme formiranja uzorka94% parova bilo je u beaku, ostatakje bio u stabilnim zajednicama koje uva­zava obicajno peavo. Zbog nov~anih teskoca istrazivanje predvidanja Obll­hvatilo je poduzorak od 44 OC3. Obavljena su i uporedna demografska istra­zivanja prcdvidanja poduzorka aceV3 (N ::= 44), kao i ostatka uzorka oceva.Nijc bila znacajnih razlika medu gnlpama u pogledu starosli, nivoa obraza­vanja iii radnag statusa. Medutim, cetrdeset celvora budut':ih oceva u istrazi­vanju predvidanja bili su ozenjenilu zajedniei sa partnerkom duze od ostalihoceva, 5.83 godine, odnosno, 3.54 godine. (kombinovano t = 2.90, d.f. = 63,P < .002). Poduzorak istrazivanja predvidanja cinio je 21 decak i 23 devojCice.

Formiranje llzorkaParovi su izabrani iz dye vel ike driavne klinike u Sidneju, jedne ve­

like privatne klinike i dve privatne organizacije za pripremu za porodaj. Pa­rovima je receno da ce istrazivanje ispitivati proees prelaska na roditeljslvo ida ce jedan aspekt istrazivanja poku~ati da pojasni kako iskustvo roditelja izlljihovog detinjstva moze kasnije da mice na njihova roditeljstvo.

U ovom longitudinalnom istrazivanju bilo je pet stadijuma: prenatal­no ispitivanje i ispitivanje sa 6,11,12 i 15 meseci. Prilikom svakag testiranjai atae i majka su, nezavisno jedno od drugog, popunjavali niz instrumenatasamoprocene (neki su se ponavljali). U poslednjem tromesecju intervjuisanisu odvojeno, u svom domu, koriscenjem AAI [12]. U sestom i jedanaestammesecu napravljeni su video zapisi majke, oca i deteta, i oca i deleta u igri,kod kuce. Sa dvanaest meseci sva deea su procenjena s rnajkom u nepoznatojsituaeiji, a sa petnaest meseci isto je llcinjeno s aeem. Ovde se govori sarno 0

podaeima iz prenatalnog AAl oceva i podacirna 0 privrl:enosti olae-dele (upetnaestom mesecu). Dalje istrazivanje nije bilo moguce zbog nedostatkasredstava.

Instrllmen/iIntcrvju za ispltlvanje privrieoosti odraslih (Adult Attachment

Interview, AAl) [12] je polustrukturisani intervju snimljen na audio traku, ko­jim se procenjuje i klasifikuje "stav odraslog 0 privrl:enosti" [13]. Instrumentje opisan u u uvodu.

Pomocno osoblje u istrazivanju napravilo je anonimne transkriptetonskih zapisa i dalo im nove brojeve kako bi se osiguralo da ce kasnije kodi­ranjc dece u nepoznatoj situaciji biti nasumicno. Sva kodiranja obavio jeautor. Pouzdanost za nase AAI kategorije bila je 80% (Kapa =.72, P < .00 I)oa dvadeset nasumicno izabranih transkripata, sto je predstavljalo 32% odukupnog uzorka (N = 62). Autor je prosla obuku u primeni AAI kod MeriMejn, Meri Ejnzvort i Erika Hesea.

Psihijol. dan.1200J/J7IZIZH·Z701H.odoj~'ii: M. Pren(llolne prlUl51U11e oc;'el"O f} pr...rlenoll,...

263

Test nepoznatc situacijc (Strange Situation Procedure, SS) [22]. Ovajdvadesetominutni, standardizovani laboratorijski test ima dobro utvrdenupouzdanosl i valjanosl. Deca su posmatrana kako reaguju na dva kratka od·vajanja od roditelja i na njihov povratak. Deea su razvrstana u kategorijeprema svom ponasanju u nepoznatoj situaciji, uz narocit naglasak na ponasa­nje pri ponovnom susretu.

Pouzdanost je utvrdio nezavisni ispitivac. Dogovorcno je da jc za cc·tiri primame podele k = .86 (p < .00 I). Dba ispitivaca prosla su obuku u sko·rovanju nepoznate situacije A, B i C kategorijc kod Alena Srufa. Osim toga,autor je ustanovila sa Alenom Srufom interlaboratorijsku pouzdanost za ka·tegorije A, B i C. Oba ispitivaca bila su ukljucena u jcdnonedeljni programobuke za kodiranje kategorije 0 kod Mejnove i Hcsea [25]. Autor je prove1atri ncdelje 1993. godine radeci sa Mejnovom i Hcscom kako bi se obezbedilapouzdanost kodiranja za kategoriju D.

RezultatiOvde predstavljeni podaci II skladu su sa hipotezom da modeli privr·

zenosti buducih oceva mogu da pomognu u predvidanju prirode privrZenostideteta oell petnaest do osamnaest meseci kasnije.

Prospektivni modeli privrienosti oceva fwo najava privrienosti dete­ta ocu sa peowest meseci

Postoji nekoliko merenja povezanosti koja dopustaju tumacenje sma­njenja greske u procentima (PRE) prilikom predvidanja zavisne varijable uzpoznavanja nezavisne varijable. To je, u stvari, slicno pojmu varijanse. DeltaPRE statistika [37] prcdstavlja najpreciznije merenje [38]. Pocetna hipoteza­da u prcdvidanju nema smanjcnja gre~ke (kocficijent = 0) testirana je u odno·su na suprotnu hipotezu - da smanjcnje gre~ke postoji (koeficijent > 0). Uovom istraiivanjll to znaci da poznavanje AAI kategorije buduceg oca sma·njuje gre~ku II predvidanju kategorije privrienosti u kojoj ce biti njegovo de­te iznad bilo kog smanjenja gre~ke u predvidanju koje bi se dobilo da nijebila poznata AAI kalegorija buduceg oea. Izneti su i standardni stepeni kon­kordanse.

Napravljena je dihotomija siguran/nesiguran i za unakrsni klasifika­cioni model sa cetiri kategorije AAl/SS i za tradicionalni model klasifikaeijeAAl/SS sa tri kategorije. Tako su obradene cetiri Del PRE analize; u svakojjc primcnjcn razlicit nivo speeificnosti predvidanja.

Model unakrsne klasifikacije 4x4 (kategorije privrienosti za odrasle:DIE/FlU; dete: AleIBID)

Su~tina ovog istrazivanja je utvrdivanje moci predvidanja potpunogmodcla unakrsnc 4 x 4 klasifikacije. S obzirom da koristi kategoriju nesigu­ranlneodlucan odrasli kao prediktor stanja dcteta kao nesigurnogldezorga­l1izovanog, ovo je najslozeniji model.

264 PJlhyat, dan.ll00J/J7/1/1j7-2701RadaJH'c J/. Prenulul"e pred1tuI'e OeHU 0 pfll'r!enQ$II...

Cclijske frckvencijc, osim ceJija predvidanja i greske, u potpunommodelu 4 x. 4 unakrsnc tabuJacije (40.4 PRE, p < .0001, konkordansa 56.8%)prikazane su u Tabcli I. GreSka u predvid,mju kategorije privrZcnosti kaddeleta (od cctiri mogute) smanjcna je za 40.4% kada je predvidanje pravlje­no na asnovu poznavanja katcgorije privrfcnosti (od cetiri) buduceg oca. Ce­lije sa sabranim skorom su celije predvidanja. Celije koje nisu sabrane pred­stavljaju cclijc grdkc.

Tabela I. Tabela unakrsne 4 x 4 klasifikacije sigume privrienosti deteta i Dca(N ~ 44)

Siguma prhT2:enost delelaA B C 0

Siguffi:l privr2enosl odraslog 0 , I 1 I 8F I 11 3 I 16E 3 I 1 1 7U 1 3 1 8 13

10 16 6 12 44

Konkordunsa izmedu kategorije E kad odraslog i kategorije C kaddeteta bila je veoma niska, 14.3%, 5tO ukazuje da kategorija E kad {)draslog(nesigllran/previse zaokupljen) ne predskazuje dobra stanje dctcta C (nesi­gurnolodbojno). S druge strane, u skladu s predvidanjem. buduti aeeyi kojisu klasiCikovani kao nesigurni/neodlucni (U) imali Sll decu koja su pOkaziva­la nesigurnuldezorganizovanu (D) privricnost otevima.

Grdka u prcdvidanju sigurnosti, odnosno, nesigumosti dece smanjc­oa jc za 50.9% karla jc prcdvidanjc pravljeno oa osnovu znaoja da Ii je privr­2:cnost buduteg oca bila sigurna iii ncsigurna (dihotomija od cctiri kategori­je). Tabela 2. pokazuje cclijskc frckvcncijc izmcdu prediktivnih i cclija sagrdkom U ovim uslovima (50.9 PRE, P < .0003, konkordansa 77.2%).

Tabela 2. Tabela dihotomnc unakrsne klasifikaeije sigume privrfenosti ocevai dcce (svcdena iz cetiri kategorije) (N = 44)

Siguma privrfenost odraslog SiguranNesiguran

Siguma privr1:enosli deletaSigumo Ncsigumo

11 ,

5 2316 28

162844

l\!odel 3 x 3 unakrsne tabulacije (Odrasli D/EIF i dele AlC/B katego-rije)

Kada je predvidanje pravljeno na osnovu znanja 0 tome koja je kate­gorija privrienosti dodeljena buducem oeu (od tri moguce), greska u predvi­danju kategorije u koju ce spadati privrfenost deteta (od moguce tri) pala jena skromnih 29.7%. Tabela 3. pokazuje celije frekveneije izmedu celija pre­dvidanja i greilke u modelu 3 x 3 unakrsne klasifikaeije (29.7 PRE, P < .007,konkordansa 54.5%).

I'sihijOI. don 12005117111257.2701Rudojcnl: M. PrCn{J1u/tlC prcdslm'c otcm (1 pr,,·r.cn(1Sli...

265

Tabela 3. Tabela unakrsne 3 X 3 klasifikacijc sigume privrtcnosti oca i detetaeN = 44)

Sigurna privrtcnosl dclctaA B C

Siguma 0 , 1 J 12privrtenost F 1 14 4 19odraslo~ E 5 6 2 13

14 21 9 44

Greska u predvidanju sigumosti deteta smanjena je za 45.1 % kada jepredvidanje pravljeno na osnovu poznavanja da Ii je privrZenost oca sigumaiIi nesigurna (dihotomija iz tri kategorije). Tabela 4. pokazuje frekvencijeizmedu telija predvidanja i greske u ovakvim uslovima (45.1 PRE, P <.00014, konkordansa 72.7%).

Tabela 4. Tabcla dihotomnc unakrsne kJasifikacijc sigume privlienosti oca idetcta (izvcdcna iz tri kaegorijc) (N = 44)

Siguma privrzcnost odraslog SiguranNcsiguran

Siguma privricnost dctetaSigman Ncsiguran

14 57 18

21 23

192544

Kao i u modelu sa cetiri kategorije, stepen konkordanse izmedu kate­gorija odrasli E i dete C bilaje veoma niska- 15.4%. Njen uticaj oa smanji­vanje moci prcdvidanja u modelu 3 x 3 jos je yeti jer opstaju sarno dye mo­guce kategorije za dodeljivanje.

Svi opisani mode Ii predvidanja pokazali su znacajan uspeh u predvi­danju. Ova analiza ukazuje da, sve u svemu, poznavanje prirode modela pri­vr.i:enosti buduceg oca pruza dobar prediktivan kriterijum za organizacijuprivr.i:enosti njegovog deteta, nekih petnaest do osamnaest meseci kasnije.Mcdutim, najbolji rezultati prcdvidanja postignuti su kada su klasifikacije ioceva i deee bile dihotomne - siguran nasuprot nesiguran. Nedostatak ovogpri~tupa je smanjenje ~pecificnosti predvidanja. Prihvatljiv kompromis pos­tignut je u modclu unakrsnc klasifikacije 4 x 4, sa PRE =40.4 uz ocuvanjenajvecc mogucl:: specificnosti. Ovaj model, osim toga, pokazuje korisnostkategorije oceva neodlu{an kao ranog pokazatelja buducc dezorganizova­ne/dezonjenfisane privrienosti deteta oeu. Ipak, ostaje znacajan nivo grdkcu prcdvidanju, cak i u najboljcm modclu.

266 PJlllijat. dan. f2005JJ7!Z/157.2701Radojf'~ic M Prrnatalne prelis/""": rx!':;'Q 0 priw':..nOSli...

DiskusijaUocena je znacajna i umerena do umcrcno snafna povczanost izmedu

razvojne iSlorije oca i kvaliteta privrZcnosti dClcta Dell posle pctnacst mcscciZivota. Taka, na najnii.em nivau analizc, cak i pre nego sto je dete radena,rnogti su se razlikovati ocevi cija cc dcca razviti sigurnu nasuprol ncsigurnojprivrzenosti sa njima takom prvih petnaest meseci Syog zivota. Cak. i na ni­YOU anatize kategorija-po-kategorija predviden odnos ostao je znacajan, ma­rla manje nagJasen.

Ovi nalazi u skladu su sa nalazima drugih istrazivanja koja su ispiti~

val a odnos organizacije privri:cnosti kad odraslih i kad dccc, uz koriscenjeAAI. Od tri istra:livanja koja su ispitivala odnos otae-dete sa AAI/SS, Mej­nova i saradniei [6] su nasli da je povczanost znacajna, ali manje snaina odpovczanosti majka-dete sa AAIISS. Mcdutim, Stil i saradnici [30J nalaze daSll i sigurnost i majke i oca na AAI bile jcdnako prcdiktivnc za sigurnost pri­vrZenosti deteta. Van Ijzcndom i saradnici [7] s druge strane, nisu nasli da jeuskladcnost izmcdu occvc i dccje privrZcnosti statisticki znacajna, mada jcllskladenost izmcdu majcinc i decje privrZcnosti bila statisticki znacajna.Medutim, ovi autori isticu da jc post hoc analiza procenc privrienosti kododraslih, nekoliko godina posle merenja decje priYrienosti, mogla da utice nanjihove podatke. Nalazi, uzeti zajedno, ukazuju da nacin na koji roditelji do­zivljavaju i verbal no sc prisecaju ~vojih najranijih i trenutnih afektivnih vezadirektno utice na kvalilet odnosa privrLenosti izmedu roditelja i deteta, vero­vatno zato sto ova shvatanja iii mentalne predstave 0 privrzenasti uticu naponasanjc roditclja prcma dctetu.

Proporcija sigurnih modela privr.lcnosti (36% za cctvorostrllku i 43%za trostruku AAJ k.lasifikaciju) uoccna kod buducih oceva izgleda nisko zanormativan uzorak. Mcdutim, ovi nalazi spadaju u okYir klasifikacije privr­:zenosti kad odraslih kao autonomne, 0 kojoj izvestavaju drugi istrazivatl. Naprimer, van Ijzendarn i saradnici [7], koristeci sistem trostruke klasifikacije,oznaCili su 48% svog uzorka kao kategoriju olltonoman (N =: 29). Autor nadrugom mcstu opsirnije razmatra uporedne nalaze [34]. Stavise, u metaanali­zi van ljzendoma [I G] osamnaest AAIISS istrazivanja nadeno je da podaci izovog istrazivanja nisu anomalni.

Dodatni kva!itativni podaci koji govore 0 mogucim stilskim razlika­rna II reakcijarna u AAI izmedu oceva i majki mogu da budu korisno sredstvokojim bi se unapredilo razumcvanje mentalnih procesa povezanih sa odno­som oea i deteta. Van ljzendornava [16J metaanaliza nije nasla da su oceviznacajno vise zastupljcni u odnosu na majke u kategoriji D. Nczvanicno, is­pitivaCi nisu pokazali bilo kakvu razliku u pristupu AAI izmedu buducih oce­va i njihovih trudnih partnerki. Manjak sredstava onernogucio je da se obradei podaei iz ispitivanja majki na AAI.

avo istrazivanje yaino je iz nekoliko razlaga. Prvo, prospektivni,longitudinalni stU istrazivanja koji je koristio cetvorostruku klasiflkaeiju pri­vrZenosti odraslih i dece uspeSno je predvideo kontinuitet u prirodi i kvalitetu

hifrij<lt. dan 12005/37121257-2701Rado}e\'ii: M. Prenatalne pred5tO...e ote\'Q ()prn·r!enost; ..

267

adnosa otae-dete kraz generaeije. ana stoga pruza snaznu podrsku paradigmiprivrienosti, zbog valjanosti AAI kao instrumenta, i zbog znaeaja oea u dru~­

tvenom i osecajnom razvoju deteta.Dakazi dOl acevi nezavisna lItieu na odnas privrlenosti sa svojom de­

com, snazni Sll l39j, s obzirom dOl nijc naden odnos izmedll relativnog rodi­tcljskog angazmana i sigumosti privrZenosti deteta. Nalazi ovog istrazivanjapodriavaju na(aze Frodija i saradnika [39]. ani ukazllju da, eak i u doma­cinsrvima 1I kojima je majka primami pruzalac nege, istorija oca i njegovcmemalne predstave a iskustvima privrienosti jednako utiell II odrcdivanjllkvaliteta privrzenosti izmedu oea i deteta koliko i istorija majke na privrza­nost majka-dete. Stoga moiemo da pretpostavimo dOl su mentalni proeesi od­raslih koji su u vezi sa privrzenoscu i njihovo prenosenje - isto. Naravno, toostavlja otvoreno pitanje koje su pastavili Mejnova i saradniei [6] 0 postoja­n.iu u detinjstvu hijerarhijskog rasporeda u organizaciji radnih modela privr­ienasti, kaji favorizuje primamog negovatelja. Sadasnji nalazi ne mogu dadaju odgovor na ova pitanje. Medutim, oni ipak ukazuju na zna~aj mentalnogst<lt~ja (lea u vezi sa privrl.enosclI 1I drustvenom i osecajnorn razvoju deteta,narocilo s obzirom da je U ovom istraiivanju otae sekundarni negovatelj. Stim u vezi, ovde opisani pozitivni prediktivni nalazi ukazuju da AA1 mozepouzdano da mobilise i odrazi mentalna stanja oca II vezi sa privrienoscu, irazlike medu njima, podriavajuci tako valjanost AAI u uzorku oceva.

Drugi vatan aspekt ovog istraiivanja jesle u tome sto je ono jedno odmalog broja istrazivanja koja su ukljllCila kategorijll nesiguranlsiguran odra­sl! u normalan llzorak prediktivnog istraiivanja [40,25]. Dodatno je znacajnoto sto je ovo prvo prospektivno istrazivanje sa ocevima. Ono stoga dozvolja~

va procenu doprinosa u predvidanju specifikovanije strukture unakrsne klasi­fikaeije. S tim u vezi, a u pogledu privrienosti izmedu oca i deteta, treba recida je sarno 36% odnosa u nepoznatoj situaciji klasifJ.kovano kao sigurno (vi­di Tabelu I). Logicno, dodatak drugc kategorije smanjice brojeve u ostalimkategorijama. Mejnova [41] ukazuje da je llvodenje kategorije dezorganizo­milo dete, uopste uzev, imalo efekat smanjenja broja deec klasifikovane usigw·an odnos privrzenosti. Na primer, Mejnova i Solomon [29] izvestavajudajc u istraZivanju Mejnove i Vcstona [5] (u kojem se ispitivala i privrl.enostolae-dete) 13 od 19 dece procenjeno kao te.sko za klasilikaeiju, u kasnijernistrazivanju sa 152 nepoznare situacije " ... bilo identifikovano kao sigurno sroditeljem kada su korisceni standardni postupei klasifikacije" [25J.

U ovom istraZivanju uklanjanje kategorije nesiguranldezorganizovaniz analize za rezuhat je imalo da je 48% deee procenjeno da imn siguran od­nos privrienosti sa oeem. Ovaj nalazje u skladu sa podaeima Mejnovc i sa­radnika [51 i sa tvrdnjama Mejnove [29]. Mada ove proporeije sigume privr­zenosti otae-dete mogu da izgledaju male one nisu u neskladu sa metaanali­zorn Ijzcndoma i Kronenberga [31] kulturno razlicitih obrazaea privrienosti.Osim toga, obrazae sigurnc privrLcnosti olae-dete pojavio se kao model i u 3x 3 i II 4 x 4 modelu unakrsnc klasifikaeijc (vidi Tabclc 2 i 4).

268 I's,hijm dan. /2005/37/2/257-2701Radajt\'i{: M. Prena/alne preds/<JI,t a~Ha (J pr"'r~e"QsIL

S tim u vezi, 27% decc (N = 12) bilo je klasifikovano da pokazujenesigurnuldezorganizovanu privrZcnost ocevima. Ovaj nalaz je u skladu sanalazom Ejnzvortove i saradnika [40} koji imaju slicllU proporciju D dccc(33%) u svom ncselcktivnom uzorku dijada majka-dete. Zanimljivo je da Sll

u nascm iSlrazivanju jedino nesigurnaldezorganizovana deca sa altcrnativ­nom klasifikacijom kao sigurna ana deca podklasifikovana kao 84 (N =5);grupa cijijc status 1I klasifikaciji siguran bio dovcden u pitanje [42,43].

Neodlu(.;na privricnosl oca (koja je u svim slucajevima osim jednogbila rczultat gubitka zbog sllmi) nadena jc kao umereni pokazatclj da ce detebiti nesigllrnoldezoranizovano (konkordansa = 61.5%)1. Ovi nalazi mogu seporediti sa nalazima Mejnovc i Hesca [25] koji izvestavaju 0 60% slaganja usyom odabranom uzorku od 53 dijade majka.dete. Ejnzvortova i Ajhberg[40],5 drugc stranc, izvcstavaju 0 100% slaganja u njihovom istrazivanju saneselektivnim uzorkom od 45 dijada majka-dete. Medutim, moida jc najvaz­nija stvar to da u tri istrazivanja (ukljucujuci i nase), roditelji koji iii nisu is­kusili gubitak znacajnc osobc iii, ako jesu, izgleda da su razresili taj gubitak,nisu imali dccu koja bi u ncpoznatoj situaciji bila proccnjena kao dezorgam··zovona u odnosu sa njima. Tako izgleda da nedostatak prevladavanja tugo­vanja kod roditelja moze da bude veci cinilac rizika za nepovoljne razvojneposledice kod deteta nego gubitak sam po sebi. Mcjnova i saradnici [6] i Kc­sidi [38] izveStavajll 0 sestogodisnjacima koji su kao deca bili procenjeni kaonesigurnildezorganizovani sa roditeljem, i pokazuju kontrolisucc iii kaznja­vajuce ponasanje prema tom roditelju. Osim toga, ova deca su se ukljucila i 1I

razvojno neprikladne odnose zamene uloga roditelj-dcte. Novije teorije 0 pri­rodi razvoja mentalnog stanja dece klasifikovane kao dezorganizova­naldezorijen/isana u detit~stvu spekulisu da ova deca mogu, kao odrasleosobe, da blldu ranjivija na razvoj disocijativnih dusevnih poremecaja [44].2Ako priroda ocevog odnosa sa detetom ima potcllcijal da deluje kao zastitlliiii cinilac ranjivosti u razvoju deteta, kao sto se predlaze u teoriji privrZenostii istrazivanjima koja se bave privdenoscll [17,5,18] onda dete sa dezorgani­zovanom privdenoscu neodlucnom oeu moze da bude nar06to ranjivo.

Ook su se u ovom istrazivanju mogli razlikovati i pre rodenja detctaocevi dece koja ce razviti sigurnu, nesigurnu/izbegavajucu iii nesigur­mddezorganizovanu pruvrienost, to nije bio slucaj sa ocevima cija su decarazvila nesigu/"11ulodbojnu privrienost. Prospektivno istrazivanje Fonagija isaradnika [15] niskorizicnih dijada majka-dete iz srednje klase, uz koriscenjc3 x 3 modela unakrsne kilasifikacije, takode je pokazalo da je majcin statusnesigurnalprevise zaokupljena slabo predskazivao nesigurnulodbojnu privr­fenost deteta. S druge strane, u visoko rizicnom uzorku Yord, Botjanski,

I O<.J 62 ota, 51 (83%) je. IOkom s'l.>g dclinjSlva. mladosti ih kao mlad; odrasli, iskusilo guhilakzbog smrti rod;tclja iii drugc osctajno \'awe osobe. Mada su drugi, \'i~e simbolilni gubici (pOpul onih koji sepojavljuju " situacijama razvooa) smatrani va:£nim aspckluna istorije privrlenosti pojedinca. nije se smalraloda su odredujuci za status neod/lIlmr.

; Ova ideja dobija iZVCSDU podr!lm It iskustva i ncdamih 144 J I lckutih islrath·anja kOJ3 iSPllUJUodnos izmcdu katcgorijc neodlu<'an i psihopatologijc disoeijativnih porcmccaja f33.44J.

l'sihym, danIlOOSIJ71l11S7·1701Radu}""tc' ."1. Prenatalne predst(n'e otem 0 pri\'Y~eno~ti...

269

Planket i Karlson [46J nalaze dobru predvidljivost u kategoriji nesigu­ran/previse zaokup/jen odrasli, kao i Mejnova [licno saopstenje, 41] u svomllzorku niskog rizika. Mejnova i Solomon [33] su lJocili da decji obrazac ne­siguranlodbojan maze da bude manje "dobro organizovan" u poredenju sadrugim obrascima privdenosti. To maze da bude slucaj i sa mentalnim st3­njem nesiguranJprevi.\:c zaokupljen adrasli. Uocite da je u 4 x 4 modelu llna­krsnc klasifikacije previse zaokupljen roditelj bio dobar pokazatelj opste ne­sigllrne privrZenosti deteta (konkordansa = 85.7% - A, 0, C). Jasno je dabudllca istrazivanja treba da razjasne moc predvidanja ove kategorije. OvoistraZivanje je pakazalo dobru predvidljivost modela cetvorostruke unakrsneklasifikacije (40.4 PRE) u poredenju sa skromnijim rezultatima modela tros­trLlke unakrsne klasifikacije (29.7 PRE). Snaga cetvorostrukog modela poci­va na dobroj prediktivnaj maei kategorija siguran, nesiguranJomalovaiava­juCi i ncsiguranlneodlucan s jedne strane i lose prediktivne moei kategorijeJlesiguranlprevise zaokupljen, s drllge slrane. Do sada se kategorija neodlu­(~a" upotrebljavala u malom broju istrazivanja. Medutirn, sadasnji nalaziukazllju na njen znacaj u buducim istrazivanjima odnosa izmedu AAI i S5klasifikacija, naroCilo u svetlu sve vise dokaza koji su i sve snazniji, a izgle­d:l da povezuju neodlllcnu privrZenost odraslog i dezorganizovanuldezo­rijent;sanu privdenost deteta sa losim prilagodavanjem u odnosima.

Treee, avo istrazivanje je znacajno jer je sprovedeno u Australiji, ukojoj do sada nije bilo istrazivanja sa korisecnjem Intcrvjua 0 privrz.enostiodraslih. Uspeh predvidanja u australijskom uzorku occva ukazuje da je AAIkulturno valjan instrument za upotrebu u Australiji, barem u uzorku muska·mea srednje klasc. On potvrdujc univerzalnost stanja duha u pogledu privr­zenosti koju AAI proeenjuje.

Zbog malog broja ispitivanja oceva sa AAI i zbog nuznih ogranicenjau nacrtu istrazivanja, nalazi ovog istrazivanja zahtevaju pailjivo tumaccnjc.U slucaju neskladnih odnosa otae-dete, ponovljeno merenje analize 0 poda­eima iz samoizvdtaja ukazalo je na trend da su sigurni ocevi sa nesigllrenoprivrzenom decom iskllSili vece intra- i interpersonalne teskoee tokom prc­laska u l'oditeUstvo u odnosu na nesigllrne oceve cija su deea bila siguf'f1oprivrzena sa petnaest meseci. Buduca istraiivanja sa vecom populacijom,mnago raznolik..ijom u pogledll ku[tllmih i drustveno-ekonomskih cinilaea,mogu bolje da ispitaju snaznu ulogu psiholoskog stresa, kao i psiholoskc ot­pornosti. Osim toga, nije poznat stepen do koga je greska u predvidanju mo­gILl biti rczultm gresaka u postupku iIi obradi podmaka, iIi pak izmenjenihpredstava oceva 0 privrienosti tokom prelaska u ocinstvo. Ova kontingencijamogJa bi se u buduCim prospcktivnim istrazivanjima bolje obraditi uz upot­rebu pretesta i retesta.

Bez obzira na ova ogranicenja, ovo istrazivanje pruza znacajne pros­pcktivne podatkc koji podriavaju paradigmu privrlenosti, pokazujuci da pos­tojc zakonomerni odnosi izmedu nacina na koji ocevi zamisljaju svoju sops­tvcnu razvojnu istoriju i kako podizu sopstveno dete. Osim toga, pokazalo se

270 PJ,llIjOI, dan./l005lJ7/1/157-2701Radoje"iC ./.1. Prena/alne prtds,mle o(ewJ" privr!enoslI...

da jc AAI sposoban da prenatalno razlikujc one occvc cija ce deca kasnijepostati sigurno iii nesigurno privricna. Narocito jc vaino da upotreha kate­gorija neodlutan odrasli/dezorganizQvlIno dele U ovom istraiivanju prui.aprvi dokaz prospektjvne iskustvene veze ovo dvoje u niskorizicnom uzorkuroditelja. Na kraju, usredsredivanje na dijadu olae-dete donelo je nove zoa­cajne uvide 1I to kaka ocevo shvatanje sopstvenog razYoja oblikujc priroduovog za njega va:!nog odnosa.

lzjave zahvalnos/iAutor se zahvaljuje Meri Mejn na njenim promisljcnim komentarima

na ranije verzije ovog clanka, Dajeni Benoa i Di:onu Lordu na provcri pouz­danosti AAI, odnosno, decjeg SSP, i Alenu Tejloru za statisticku obradu.

I'$lhyal. dOl•. 1100J/37/2f]7J-Z87/IWdo)e\'ic M Pre""/,,I piller"al upresemalion.r ofal/ochme'" predicl infam-faliwr

271

Research article

UDK: /59.9: /7.023.32

PRENATAL PATERNAL REPRESENTATIONSOF ATTACHMENT PREDICT OF INFANT-FATHER

ATTACHMENT AT 15 MONTHS:AN AUSTRALIAN STUDY

Marija Radojevic

Child, Adolescent and Family Service, Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Hospital,Sydney and Graeme Russell

School of Behavioral Sciences, Macquarie University

Abstract: This study reports the power of the George, Kaplan and Main l12] AdultAttachment Interview (AAI) to predict infaut·fathcr attachment in an Australian sample of first­lime prospective fathers (N=44). Hoth the three category (Secure, Vismissing, Preoccupiedadult; Seclln:, Aw;idanJ, Re~·is/(ml infanl) andthl.: four C3tl.:gor)' (Secure, Dismissing, I'reocCII­pled, Unresolved adult: Secure, Avoidalll, Resistant, Disorganized infant) models wen: tested;each in its binary (Secure/Insecure) and in its full cross-tabulation form. All models demon­strated significant predictive success. Strongest prediction was achieved when patl.:mal and in­fant classifications were dichOlomized to Secure \'s. Insecure (50.9 Percent Reduction in Error­PRE). The binary loon of the thn.:e category mooe) yielded a 45.1 PRE. TIlc 4x4 cross­classific:ttion mudel yielded :t 40.4 PRE and preserved maximum specificity, thereby highlight­ing the predictive usefulness of lhc patemal Unresolved categury.

Key words: infant-father al/Uchmelll, predictioll. AA/

272 P3iilijal. dan 12005/37/Z1Z1I-}tj7/Nodojn-it: .\1. Prenatal pulernal ffpresenlatiQns ofOlfochmem predict mJam-folher

Attachment theory, and the subsequent research activity it has gener­ated has, over the last 20 years, has resulted in onc of the most robust meth­odologies for both theory expansion and for the understanding of child so­cial-emotional development. Within the attachment research domain, thebody of work generated hy Michael Lamb and his associates [1,2,3,4] hasbeen of importance because it has demonstrated both the existence and thevariability of the father-infant attachment relationship. However, a cursoryinspection of the attachment literature reveals that, since Lamb's importantcorpus of work, a continuing sustained focus on fathers in attachment re­search has been notable by its absence in published work (with some excep­tions 5,6,7]. However, ongoing research into the father's role has been moreproductive within broader developmental and psychoanalytic paradigms [8,9.10,11].

TIle development of the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI), and itscoding system, bunched the adult attachment research program [12,13].Since its inception, one of the central questions has been to determine devel·opmental antecedents in the parent which contribute to caregiving and hence,to variable infant attachment outcomes. Within this framework. there is ac·cumulating evidence for continuity between the way a mother mentallyrepresents and verbally constructs her own experience of being reared on theone hand, and the way that she subsequently treats her child on the other [6,14.7,15]. The transmission mechanism for continuity is considered to be thedegree to which the infant's mother is responsive to its signals for comfortand security.

The aim of this study is to examine the extent to which the securityof expectant fathers' mental representations of attachment may innuence thesubsequent quality of infam·fathcr attachment security in a low·risk, oon­clinical sample. In a rcccnt meta·analysis of the predictive validity of theAA r r16] the selection procedure yielded 18 studies on the relation betweenAAI classifications and infant attachment classifications. Of these 18 studies,only four (including the present study) involved fathers. The relative neglectof fathers in ongoing attachment research suggests that an assumption of theprimacy of the mother-infant dyad continues to underlie attachment researchendeavours. This is puzzling for several reasons. First, both theory and re·search within the attachment paradigm suggest that a secure infant-father at­tachment is likely to provide a buffering effect should the infant-mother at·tachmcnt be insecure [17,5]. Alternately, if the infant· father attachment isalso imecure, then fewer interactional opportunities exist to buffer the childagainst social-emotional maladaptation [7,18]. Thus, the nature of the affec·tiona I tie between father and child has the potential to function as either aprotective or a vulnerability factor in the child's development. For example,studies of child outcome in divorced families consistently demonstratepoorer psychosocial outcomes in father abse-nt families and in families inwhich children have minimal access to their father [19,20].

P51hljul dan.120051J712127 J~287/

Rudojnic M. Prenutal pmernal repreSI!"taliOM ofollachmem predici infam-fmher273

Second, the degree of social change in Western industrial countries,particularly with respect to increasing family breakdown and changing workpractices, poses significant challenges to many assumptions attending thenature and conduct of family life and in particular, of parenting. These as­sumptions include, for example, the primacy of the mother-child dyad andthe secondary caretaker status of the father who is presumed to exert a re­duced impact on infant development. Currently in Australia, 53% of womenare in the paid work force and of these women, 48% had a youngest child often years of age [21]. This figure likely under-represents the current situationbecause of the continuing increase in the return of mothers of young childrento the paid work force. Further, in June 1996 there were 672,000 one parentfamilies and of these, 85% were headed by a woman. Thus, given the scaleand significance of social change it is important to understand better the na­ture of the child's attachment relationship with his or her father (which, likeinfant-mother attachment, is presumed to vary as a function of paternal re­sponsiveness to his infant). Additionally, we need to understand the natureand antecedents of the falher's afTectional tie to his child, particularly asthese are expressed in paternal refleclions about attachment and in paternalbehavior.

The AAI was developed to predict the quality of infant-parent at­tachment relationships as assessed in the Strange Situation [22]. Via a seriesof questions and probes it is designed to assess an adult's state of mind withrespect to attachment relationships, particularly as these relationships wereexperienced in childhood. Classification relies more on the coherence of ex­pressed thoughts and feelings than it does on actual content. Interviews aretranscribed verbatim and one of the four major classifications is assigned:Autonomous (F), Dismissing ofAttachment (Os), Preoccupied by Attachment(E) and Unresolved with respect to Attachment (U).

Secure (Autonomous) adults provide relatively coherent, consistentand non-defensive aecounL'i oflheir attachment relevant experience, irrespec­tive of whether it was actually positive or negative. In being relatively com­fortable with the full range of their own affective experience, Autonomousparents arc thought to be freer than insecure parents to respond empathicallyto the child's distress signals [23,24]. Hence the child's expeclation is ofprompt affectionate attention.

The most outstanding characteristic of Insecure/Dismissing adults isthe defensiveness implicit and explicit in their discourse. The seeming reluc­tance to acknowledge their own attachment needs may make the Dismissingadult less sensitive and responsive to the affectional needs of the child [24].Under lhese conditions the child learns quickly to deflect attention from itsown attachment needs and thus appears (often precociously) self sufficient.

Insecure/Preoccupied adults seem to still be angry and overinvolvedwith the perceived shortcomings of one or other parent. In response to theinfant's attachmenl bids for comfort and/or affection, the Preoccupied adult is

274 P3rhijUl. dan./2005/Ji/2/27/-287/Radojev,r: M. PrenOialpalunal repreJcntaUf)n5 ojallachment prI'dicllnfam-Jmher

likely to be inconsistent; sometimes intrusively available, at other times ne­glectful. This caregiving strategy creates both hypervigilance as well as at­tenuated attachment behavior in the child, presumably because the child isnol sure how the caregiver will respond.

Finally, adults classified as Insecure/Unresolved show signs of unre­solved experiences of trauma, involving either loss through death or elseabuse suffered at the hands of an attachment figure. It is postulated that theUnresolved adult is likely to inadvertently behave towards the infant in wayswhich may engender transient fearfulness and conflict in the child [25].

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the AA I is not the only measureof adull attachment whose theoretical basis lies in Attachment Theory. In­deed. the work of Hazan and Shaver (1990, 1994) has inspired a corpus ofadult attachment research based upon self report measures [26,27,28]. Whilstthe elaboration of this significant and parallel research is beyond the scope ofthe present paper it is elegantly discussed by Feeney and Noller (1996).

The classifications of the AAI are considered to be systematicallyrelated to infant patterns of attachment as assessed in the Strange Situation[22]; Secure (B), Avoidant (A), Resistant (C) and Disorganized/Disoriented(0) [29J. The rationale here is that infants inlernalize patterns of caregivingduring repeated interactions with parents. These internalizations then becomepart of infants' representational models of relationships. The latter. in turn,shape both the infant's own behavior as well as its expectations orthe behav·ior of others. The behavioral expression of infant patterns of attachment areconsidered to represent strategies for eilher mobilizing or else for restrictingawareness of attachment related affects and cognitions. They may be summa­rized as follows:

I. Infants who are not ambivalent in seeking proximity, interaction orcontact with the returning mother are classified Secure (Group B).

2. Infants who snub or avoid the mother upon reunion, and whoshow few if any signs of missing her during separation arcclassed as Insecure/Avoidant (Group A).

3. Infants who manifest anger and ambivalent toward their return­ing mother are classed Insecure/Ambivalent (C). They cry andseem to want contact but are unable to settle and return to play.

In developing the Insecure/Disoriented (D) category, Main & Solo­mon [29] noted that" ... infants v..·ho could not be classified within the A. B,e system did not appear... to resemble one another in coherent organizedways. What these infants share in common was instead bouts or sequences ofbehavior which seemed to lack a readily observable goal, intention or expla­nation" (p. 122). The present study is one of a small number which. to date,incorporates the Insecure (D) category.

Dfthe three studies [6,7,30) which have assessed both maternal andpaternal patterns of attachment, and have examined their respective concor­dances with infant-mother and infant-father attachment, Main et al. [6] and

/".1111)01. don.IJOOSlJ7121)7/·2871R(ldo}~rlc M. Prlma/al palernal representations ofattm;hmem predict infant-father

275

Van Ijzcndoorn ct al. [7] found stronger associations between mothers ascomparcd with that of fathers and their infants. Steele ct al. [30], using theadult Secure/Insecure dichotomy, found that patcrnal security was just aspredictive as maternal security of infant secure attacluncnt. Paternal insecu­rity though was found to be considerably less likely than maternal insecurityto increase the chance of an insecure infant-father attachment. Given thateach was undertaken in a different country (USA, The Netherlands and Eng­land respectively), these studies may also be considered to provide cross­nation data. The latter have been shown to be assoeimed with different cul­turally based approaches to childrearing and, subsequently, to different dis­tributions of infant-parent attaclunent categories despite the fact that mothers:lre the primary caretakers in most societies [31]. Only Steele et a1., [30] useda prospective method. While a true predictive design remains the preferredscit:ntific design, Van ljzendoorn's [16] meta-analysis found type of design(rctrodictive, concurrent, predictive) did not explain variability in effect sizesacross the 18 studies. Although both the adult Unre.wlved attachment cate·gory and the infant Disorganized/Disoriented attaclunent category predictedby it art: important from theoretical, empirical and clinical perspectives [32,33J. they were either not used or not reported in these studies. All three stud­ies employed well educated, middle class, non-clinical samples wherein themother was the (presumed) primary caregiver.

Clearly, given the dearth of studies \vhich have examined the rela­tionship between paternal attachment status and infant-father attachmentstatus, conclusive inferences are not possible. Rather, collectively, the threestudies cited here raise several issues. The first relates to whether, during thefirst 18 months, the father's history of attachment experiences may be lessinfluential of the developing infant-father attachment relationship in primarymaternal caretaking households. The second issue relates to whether, theAAI (irrespective of prenatal administration) reliably mobilizes and reflectsthe father's mental state in tenus of attachment relevant experiences. Thethird issue concerns whether a four way classification system will improvepredicability by increasing the specificity of adult and infant attaclunent c1as­sitlcation. We undertook an Australian prospective study to examine the rela­tionship between security of expectant father's representations of attachmentand infant-father security at 15 moths using a four·way classification system.Uased on attachment theory. the specific prediction was that there would bean association between the security or insecurity of prospective father's men­tal models of attachment on the one hand and the security or insecurity of theinC1nt's attachment to its father at 15 months on the other.

MethodThe initial sample comprised 66 couples in the last trimester of prt:g­

nancy, in which both partners were expecting their first child. Four coupleswithdrew after the prenatal data gathering stage due to geographic relocation

276 I'.tihijll/. dan.120051J7/11Z7 J·]871Radoj(!\";C M. Prenmaf paternal representatIOns ojattachmenl predIct mfum-fulher

in the case of three couples and due to separation in the remaining case.However their demographic data was retained to maximize numbers fordemographic purposes. Thus the total, ongoing sample consisted of 62 cou­ples. This sample is described fully elsewhere [34]. Men's mean age was 30years (range, 22 - 43). Respondents were middle class and the majority werewell educated. 85% of men had completed a minimum of senior high schoolyears (years II and 12 in AustfDlia), whilst 50% had some form of tertiaryeducation. On a scale of Occupational Prestige [36] ranked 1-7, the meanpaternal ranking was 4.1 (l =highest; judge, 1.2; 7= lowest; mortuary atten~

dant, 6.8). 94% of couples were married at the time of recnlitment; the re­mainder were in stable common law relationships. Due to financial con­straints, the current prediction study comprised a paternal sub-sample of 44.Comparative demographics of the paternal prediction sub-sample (N=44) andthe remainder of the paternal sample were undertaken. There were no signifi­cant differences between these groups in age, educational level or occupa­tional status. However, the forty four prospective fathers in the predictionstudy had been married/together with their partner for longer than the pater­nal remainder, 5.83 years and 3.54 years respectively (pooled t=2.90, d.L =

63, p < .002). Infants in the prediction study sub-sample comprised 21 malesand 23 females.

RecruitmentCouples were recruited from two major Sydney public teaching hos­

pitals, one major private teaching hospital and two privately operated ante­natal preparation organizations. Couples were informed that the study wouldinvestigate the process of the transition to parenthood and that an aspect ofthis aimed to clarify how the parents' experience of their own childhood maysubsequently inOuence their parenting.

There were five stages in this longitudinal study: prenatal, 6, II, 12and 15 months. At each point a series of self-report measures (several re­peated) were completed and independently by father and mother. In the lasttrimester, they were separately interviewed in their own homes using theAdult Attachment Interview [12]. At 6 and II months home observations ofmother, father and infant and of father and infant in free play were videoed.At 12 moths all infants were assessed with mother in the Strange Situation,then at 15 months they were all assessed with father. Only prenatal paternalAAI and father-infant attachment data (15 months) are reported here. Fundshave not been available for further analysis at this stage.

.I.\.1easuresAdult Attachment Interview (AAl) [12]. The AAI is a semi-structured

audiotaped interview which assesses and classifies and adult's "state of mindwith respect to attachment" [13]. It has been described in the Introduction.

J'siltlj(l/. dan. /2005/3712/27/-287/Rado}<"'ic .1,,1. Prenalal palernal rtP"eselllQ/lons ofallm:h",elll pN!dicl infanl-falher

277

Research assistants made transcripts anonymous and assigned newsubject numbers to ensure that subsequent coding of infants in the StrangeSituation Procedure would be blind. All coding was undertaken by the firstauthor. Inter~rater agreement for four AAI categories was 80% (Kappa=.72,p<.OOl) on 20 randomly selected transcripts; representing 32% of the totalsample (N = 62). The first author had received training in the scoring of theAAI by Mary Main, MaI)' Ainsworth and Erik Hesse.

Strange Situation Procedure (SS) [22]. This 20 minute standardizedlaboratory procedure has well established reliability and validity. Infants areobserved responding to two brief separations from and reunions with the par­ent. Infants are assigned to categories on the basis of their behavior in the 5S,with a particular focus on reunion behavior.

Inter-rater reliability was established with a coder unfamiliar with theproject. Agreement for four primary classifications was k =.86 (p<.OOI).Both coders had received training in the scoring of the Strange Situation A, Band C categories from Alan Sroufe. Additionally, the first author has estab­lished inler-Iaboratory reliability with Alan Sroufe for A, Band C categories.Both coders 3ltcnded a one week programme of instruction in 0 categorycoding provided by Main and Hesse {25]. The first author spent three weeksduring 1993 working directly with Main and Hesse in order to establish reli­ability for D coding.

ResultsThe data presented here pertain to the hypothesis that a prospective

father's working models of attachment can predict the nature of the infant'sattachment to its father 15 to 18 months later.

Prmpective paternal working models ofa(fachment as a predictor ofinfant attachment to fa/her at J5 months

There are several measures of association which permit an interpreta­tion of percentage reduction in error (PRE) in predicting the dependent vari·able from knowledge of the independent variable. In effect, this is similar tothe concept of variance explained. The Delta PRE statistic [37] is the mostsophisticated of these {38]. The null hypothesis that prediction yields no errorreduction (coefficient = 0) is tested against the alternate hypothesis that thereis error reduction (coefficient> 0). In terms of the present study this is to saythat knowing the prospective father's AAI category reduces error in predict­ing his infant's attachment category over whatever predictive error reductionwould obtain if prospective paternal AAJ category was unknown. Traditionalconcordance rates are also reported.

/\. secure versus insecure dichotomy was created for both the fourcategory AAI/SS cross-classification model and the traditional three categoryAAIISS cross-classific3Lion model. Hence, four Del PRE analyses were con­ducted; each employing different levels of prediction specificity.

278 P51111JIlt. Jun_ 11005/J712P.7 /-187/Rodojel"/c M Pre/mfal pllfunal repre$enlaliulllf QfQI/(Jchmentpredict infam-father

l1w 4x4 Cross-Classification A10dei (Adult DIE/FlU and injCmtAle/BID altachment categories)

Assessing the pr~dictive value of the full 4x4 cross-classificationmodel has been a fealure of this study. In employing the adult Inse­cure/Unresolved categol)' as a predictor of infanl Insecure/Disorganizedstatus. it represents the most complex model.

Cell frequencies amongst prediction and error cells in the futl 4x4cross-tabulation model (40.4 PRE, p<.OOOI, concordance 56.8%) are shownin Table I. The error in predicting the infant's aUachmem category (fromamongst four) was reduced by 40.4% when prediction was made on the basisof knowing the assigned attachment category (from amongst four) of the pro­spective father. Underscored entries are prediction cells. Non-underscoredentries are error cells.

Table I. A 4 x 4 table of cross-classifications of infant and paternal attach­ment security (N = 44)

Inr~nl Atl~chment SecurityA " C 0

Adult Att~cluncnt Security 0 , I I I 8r I II 3 I 16E 3 I I 2 7U I 3 1 8 13

10 16 6 12 44

The concordance between adult E and infant C category was verylow at 14.3% suggesting that the adult EllnsecurelPreoccupied category maybe a poor predictor of infant C/lnsecurelResislant status. On the other hand,consistent with prediction, prospective fathers who had received an htse­curelUnresolved (U) classification tended to have children who displayed anInsecurelDisorf{anized (D) attachment to their fathers.

The error in predicting infant security versus insecurity was reducedby 50.9% when prediction was made on the basis of knowing whether theprospective father's attachment status was secure or insecure (dichotomisedfrom four categories). Table 2 shows the cell frequencies among the predic­tion and the error cells in this condition (50.9 PRE, P < .0003, concordance77.2%).

Table 2. Table of dichotomised cross-classifications of infant and paternalattachment security (reduced from four categories) (N = 44)

Infant Attachment SecuritySecure Insecure

AdultAttachmentSecurity

SecureInseCllre

II ,, 23

16 28

162844

PJihijal. da".12QOj/3711127 1-2871Rad"jevic M. Prenalal poterna{ repreJe,,/a/lo1U ojal/ochme"/ predict mjon/-jmher

279

The 3x3 cross-tabulation model (adult DIEIF and infant AICIE cate­gories)

When prediction was made on the basis of knowing the assigned at­tachment category (from amongst three) of the prospective father, the error inprediction the infant's attachment category (from amongst three) dropped tothe modest 29.7%. Table 3 shows the cell frequencies among the predictionand error cells in the 3 x 3 cross classification model (29.7 PRE. p < .007,concordance 54.5%).

Table 3. A 3 x 3 Table of cross-classifications of infant and paternal attach­ment security (N "" 44)

Infant allacluncnl sccurilyA B C

Adult D , 1 ) 12anllchmem F 1 14 4 19security E 5 6 2 I)

14 21 9 44

The error in predicting infant security was reduced by 45.1 % whenprediction was made on the basis of knowing whether the father's attachmentstatus was secure or insecure (dichotomised from three categories). Table 4indicates the frequencies among the prediction and error cells in this condi­tion (45.1 PRE. P < .00014, concordance 72.7%).

Table 4. Table of dichotomised cross-classifications of infant and paternalattachment security (reduced from thrce categories) (N "" 44)

lofant attachment securitySecure Insecure

Adult attacluncnt security Secure

Insecure147

21

51823

192544

As in the four category model, the concordance rate between adult Eand infant C category was very low at 15.4%. Its effect in reducing the pre­dictive success in the 3 x 3 model is heightened because only two alternatepredication categories remained.

All the predictive models described demonstrated significant predic­tive success. These analyses suggest that, overall, knowledge of the nature ofa prospective father's working models of attachment provides a good predic­tive criterion for his infant's attachment organization to him some 15-18months later. However, the strongest prediction was achieved when both in­fant and paternal classifications were dichotomised to Secure versus Inse~

cure. The disadvantage of this approach was the loss of specificity of predic-

280 I'sih!Jaf_ dan 12QOJI]7/2127!-}!J71Radojt,.,c M PrtnUlal pa/ernal rtpN.ttnlal;Om ofQmxhmtnl predict mfan/:lillhcr

tion. An acceptable compromise was achieved in the 4 x 4 cross­classification model which yielded a 40.4 PRE. whilst preserving the maxi­mum specificity. In particular, Ihis model highlights the usefulness of thepaternal Unresolved category as a predictor of infant DisorgonizedlDiso­rient~d attachment to father. Nevertheless, a substantial degree of predictiveerror remains even considering the strongest predictive model.

DiscussionA significant and moderate to moderately strong positive relationship

was found between a prospective father's developmental history on the onehand, and his infant's quality of attachment to him at !ifteen months on theother. Thus, at the most molar level of analysis, and even before the childwas born, it has been possible to distinguish between fathers who infantswould develop a secure versus an insecure attachment relationship with themover the !irst fifteen months oftheir lives. Even at a category for category levelof "nalysis, predicted relationships remained significant although less strong.

These findings are consistent with other studies which have investi·gated the relationship between adult and infant attachment organization usingthe AAI. Of the three studies which have investigated the paternal MIl in­fant S5 relationship, Main et al. [6] found the association to be significantbut less strong than the maternal AAII infant SS relationship. However,Steele et al. [30] fOlll1d that paternal and maternal AAI security were just aspredictive of infant attachment security. Van Ijzcndoorn ct al. [7] on theother hand. did not find the correspondence between paternal and infant at­tachment to be statistically significant although that between maternal andinfant attachment was significant. However these latter authors stress that thepOSl hoc: methodology of assessing adult attachment several years aftermeasuring infant attachment may have confounded their data. Taken collec­tively, findings suggest that the W3Y p3rents perceive and verbally recollecttheir earliest and more current affectional ties directly influences the qualityof the parem·infant attachment relationship, presumably because these per­ceptions or mental representations of attachment influence parental behaviortoward the child.

The proportion of secure models of attachment (36% and 43% usingthe four way and the three way AAI classification system respectively) foundamongst prospective fathers seems low for a nortn3tive sample. However,these findings fall within the range of Autonomous adult attachment classifi­cations reported by other investigators. For example, van Ijzendoorn et al.[7J, using the three way classification system assigned 48% of their paternalsample (N=29) to the Autonomous category. The first author has discussedcomparative findings more fully elsewhere [34]. Furthermore, in van Ijzen~

doom's 116] meta-analysis of 18 AAI·SS studies, data from the presenl in·vestigation were not found to be anomalous.

P!,hlJaI. dan. 120Q513712117/-1871RudQJH'~ AI. Pr~nalal polemal repreJemalions ofol/achmem predIct mfum-jo'her

281

Additional qualitative data which address possible stylistic differ­ences in AAI responses between fathers and mothers would be a usefulmeans by which to advance understanding of mental processes associatedwith father-infant relationships. Van Ijzendoorn's [16] meta-analysis did notfind that fathers were significantly more ovcr·represented than were mothersin the D category. Anecdotally, interviewers did not report any differencesbetween prospective fathers and their pregnant partners in the approach to theAAI. Resource constraints have prevented maternal AAI's being coded to date.

The present investigation is important for several reasons. First a pro­spective, longitudinal design using the four-way adult and infant attachmentclassification systems successfully predicted continuity in the nature andquality of father-child relations across generations. It therefore offers power­ful support for the attachment paradigm, for the validity of the AA1 and forthe importance of the father in the social-emotional development of his child.

The evidence is compelling that fathers independently influence theattachment relationship with their children [39] found there to be no relation­ship between relative parental involvement and the security of infant attach­ment. The findings of this study support those of Frodi ct al. [39]. They sug­gest that even in primary maternal caretaking households, the father's historyand mental representation of attachment experiences is equivalently influen­tial in determining the quality of the infant father attachment relationship asis mother's history for infant-mother attachment. We may therefore assumethat lhe adult attachment related mental processes and their transmission arethe same. This, of course, leaves open the question raised by Main et al. [6Jof the existence in infancy of a hierarchical ordering in the organization ofworking models of attachment with favors the primary caretaker. The presentfindings Calmot answer this question. They do, however, point to the saliencefor the child's socio-emotional development, of the father's attachment re­lated mental state, particularly given the secondary caretakcr status of thefathers in this study. Relatedly, the positive predictive findings describedhere suggest that the AA1 docs reliably mobilize and reflect paternal attach­ment relevant mental states, and differences amongst them, hence supportingthe validity of the AAI in a patemal sample.

A second important aspect of this study is that it is onc of only asmall number which has incorporated the adult Insecure/Unresolved categoryin a normal sample prediction study f40,25l Of additional significance isthat it is the first such prospective study with fathers. It therefore permits as­sessmenl of the contribution to prediction of a more highly specificd cross­classification structure. In this regard, and with reference to infant-father at­tachment outcomes, it is noteworthy that only 36% of the strange situationrelationships were classified as Secure (see Table I). Logically, the additionof another category will reduce numbers in the other categories. Main [41]has suggested that the introduction of the infant Disorganized category hasgenerally had the effect of reducing the number of infants classified as hav-

282 P$ihyul. dan I2QOS/37/J/ZlJ·}fi7/RarJojc:,"ic M. Prmolrll pUlernol reprncmalian$ (Ifal/achmem predicl inJr)llt-father

iog Secure attachment relationships. For example, Main and Solomon [29Jreport that in the Main and Weston 1"5] investigation (which included assess­ment of infant-father attachment) 13 out of 19 infants judged difficult to clas­sify in the latter investigation of 152 strange situalion procedures "...wouldhave been identified as Secure. with the parent had standard classificationprocedures been utilized" (25).

In this study. removing the Insecure/Disorganized category fromanalysis resulted in 48% of infants being assessed as having Secure attach~

ment relationships with their fathers. This finding is consistent with the Mainel at. [5] data and with Main's [29] assertion. Although these proportions ofsecure-infant father attachment relationships may appear small they are notinconsistent with the van Ijzendoom and Kroonenberg [31] meta-analysis ofcross-cultural patterns of attachment. Additionally, the secure pattern of in­fant-father attaclunent emerged as modal in both the 3x3 and in the 4x4cross-classif1cation models (see Tables 2 and 4).

Relatedly, 27% (N:::12) of infants were classified as exhibiting Inse­cure/Disorganized attachment behavior towards their fathers. This proportionis consistent \\lith Ain~worth et al. [40] who found a similarly high propor­tion of 0 infants (33%) in their unselected sample of mother-infant dyads.Interestingly, in the present study, the only InsewrelDisorganized infantswith an alternate Secure classification were those infants sub-classified as 84(N=5); a group whose status within the Secure classification has been ques­tioned [42.43).

Paternal Unresolved status (resulting from loss through death inevery case but one) was found to be a moderate predictor of infant Inse­cure/Disorganized status (61.5% concordance)l. This finding is comparablewith that of Main & Hesse [25] who reported 60% agreement in their se­lected sample of 53 mother-infant dyads. Ainsworth & Eichberg [40], on theother hand reported 100% agreement in their study of 45 unselected rnolher­infant dyads. However, perhaps the most important point is that in the threestudies (including this one), parents who either had not experienced loss of asignificant figure or, if they had, appeared to have resolved that loss. did nottend to have infants judged Disorganized with them in the Strange Situation.It appears then that parental lack of resolution of mourning may be a greaterrisk-factor for unfavorable developmental sequelae in children than loss perse. Main et aL [6] and Cassidy [38] have reported that six year old childrenwho, as infants were judged Insecure/Disorganized with a parent demon­strated controlling or punitive behavior towards that parent. Additionally,they engaged in developmentally inappropriate role-inverting parcnt·child

1 Of the 62 fathers, 51 (SJ%) had, during their childhood. adolc:scence or young adul1hood, experi­enced the loss lhrough death of a parent or other emotionall)' significant person. Allhough other. more sym­bolic losses (such as those occurring III relation to divorce) arc considered imponant aspecls of the indi\"ldual"smw<:hment hislory. they an: not <:onSldeTcd in determining Unresolved status

Psihijm dan./ZOOj/J7IZ117/.Z871Ra(/OjHIC M. Pren(>/r>{ pulemal representations ofauuchmen/ predict infun/-father

283

interactions. Recent theorizing about the nature of the developing mentalstate of children classified as Disorganized/Disoriented in infancy speculatesthat these children may, as adults, be morc vulnerable to the development ofdissociative mental disorders [44].2 If the nature of the father's relationshipwith his child has the potential to act as a protective or as a vulnerability fac­tor in the child's development, as is suggested by attachment theory and re­search [17,5, 18J then the child with a Disorganized attaclunent relationshipto an Unresolved father may be particularly vulnerable.

In this shidy, while fathers or infants who would develop a secure, anInsecure/Avoidant or an Insecure/Disorganized attachment were distinguish­able before the child was born, this was not the case for the father whosechild would develop an Insecure/Resistant attachment. Fonagy et ai's [IS]prospective study of low-risk, middle class ma[ernal-infant dyads using the 3 x 3cross-classification model also found that the maternal Insecure/Preoccupiedstatus was a poor predictor of infant insecure/Resistant attachment. On the otherhand, in a high risk sample, Ward, Botyanski, Plunket & Carlson [46] foundgood predicability in the adult Insecure/Preoccupied category, as did Main(personal communication) in her low risk sample. Main & Solomon [33]have noted that the infant Insecure/Resistant pattern may be less "well organ­ized" than the other attachment patterns. This may conceivably also be thecase for the adult Insecure/Preoccupied mental state. Note that in the 4 x 4cross-classification modeJ, paternal preoccupied status was a good predictorof overall infant insecure status (85.7% concordance - A, D, C). Clearly, fur­ther studies are required to clarify the predictive status of this category. Thisstudy has demonstrated the good predicability of the four-way cross­classification model (40.4 PRE) compared to the more modest predicabilityof the three-way cross·classification system (29.7 PRE). The power of theformer model rested on the sound predictive perfonnance of the Secure, theInsecure/Dismissing and the insecure/Unresolved categories on the one handand the poor predictive performance of the insecure/Preoccupied categorieson the other. To date, few studies have employed the Unresolved category.However, the present findings highlight its importance for future investiga­tions of the relation between AAI and SS classifications, particularly in lightor increasing and compelling arguments and findings which appear to impli­cate the adult Unresolved and infant Disorganized/Disoriented attachmentstates with relational maladaptation.

Third, this investigation is important because it has been conductedin Australia where Adult Attachment Interview research has not been re­ported to date. The success in prediction in an Australian paternal samplesuggeSL'i that the AAI is a culturally valid instrument for Australian use, at

2 This specul~tiul1 is receiving wmo: ~mpirical support in recent [45] and CUllcnt investigations cx·~mining thc relationship between Unresolved SI~lus and the psychopathology of dj~ociativedisorders [33.44].

284 Psrhijal. dan. nOOJ/J7/2/171-2871HQdoJl!~I<: M. Prmaml pmernal rep,'eJen/alions ojQ1Ilxhmul/ predit;t mfant-fOlhu

least with middle class male populations. It argues for the universality of thestates of mind with respect to attachment which the AAI claims to tap.

Due to the dearth of paternal AAl studies and due to necessary de·sign constraints, the findings of this study require cautious interpretation. Inthe case of non-concordant father-infant relationships, repeated measuresanalysis of self report data suggested a trend for Secure fathers with Inse­curely attached infant.s to have experienced greater intra and interpersonalstrain over the transition to parenthood compared with Insecure fatherswhose infants were Securely attached to them at 15 months. Future studieswith larger, more culturally and socio-economically diverse populationscould examine better the potentiating roles of both psychological stress andpsychological resilience. Additionally, the degree to which prediction failuremay have resulted from procedural or coding errors on the one hand or fromaltered paternal representations of attachment across the transition to parent­hood is not known. The latter contingency could be addressed by further pro­spective studies employing a pretest-retest design.

These limitations no!\vithstanding. this investigation has providedimportant prospective data which supports the attachment paradigm in dem­onstrating that lawful relations do exist between the way fathers constructtheir own developmental history on the one hand and how they go about nur­turing their child on the other. Additionally, the AAI was shown to be able todiscriminate prenatally, those fathers who children would subsequently be·come Securely or Insecurely attached to them. In particular, the use in thisstudy of the adult Unresolved/infant Disorganized categories has providedthe first evidence of a prospective empirical link between the two in a low­risk paternal sample. Finally, in focusing on the father-infant dyad valuablenew insights have been provided into how the father's perception of this owndevelopmental history shapes the nature of this important relationship.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors wish to thank Mary Main for her thoughtful conunents on

an earlier version of this paper, Diane Benoit and John Lord for reliabilitychecks 011 the AAl and infant SSP respectively, and Alan Taylor for his statisti­cal support.

References

I. Lamb ME. Father-infant and mother-infant interaction in the first year oflife. Child Dev 1977a; 48: 167-181.

2. Lamb ME. Qualitative aspects of mother-and father-infant attachments.InfaO! Behavior and Development 1978; 1:265-275.

3. Lamb ME, Goldberg WA. The father·child relationship: a synthesis ofbiological, evolutionary and social perspectives. In: LW, Hoffman, RGandelman, HR Schoflinan, (Eds.). Parenting: its causes and conse­quences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1982.

!':<ych. TodayI200JI1712!27J·2871 285Radujel'l(" M. Prenlllal p(llernul represenltlliDnJ DfQI/(u:hmenl predict mfamjalher Qllachmell/

4. Lamb ME. The development of mother-infant and father-infant attach­ments in the second year oClife. Dev Psychol 1977b; 13: 637-648.

5. Main M, Weston D. The quality of the toddler's relationship to motherand father. Child Dev 1981; 52:932-940.

6. Main M, Kaplan N, Cassidy J. Security in infancy, childhood and adult­hood: a move to the level of representation. ill!. Bretherton & E. Waters(Eds.). Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographsof the Society for Research in Child Development 1985; 50 (142, SerialNo. 209): 66-104.

7. Van Ijzendoom MH, Kranenburg MJ, Zwart4 \Voudstra, HA, Van Buss·chbach AM, Lambermon MWE. Parental anachment and children's socio­emotional developmem: some findings on the validity of the Adult At­tachment Interview in the Netherlands. Int J Behav Dev 1991;14: 375·394.

8, Berman PW, Pedersen FA. Men's transition to parenthood. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum; 1987.

9. Lamb ME. The father's rolc. Hi.llsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1987.10. Russell G. Fatherhood in Australia. In: ME Lamb (Ed.). The father's

role. Hillsdale, NJ. Erlbaurn; 1987.II. Pruett KD. The nurturing father. New York: Wamer; 1987.12. George C. Kaplan N, Main M. The Berkeley Adult Attaclmlcnt Inter­

view. Unpublished protocol, Department of Psychology, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley; 1985.

13. Main M, Goldwyn R. Adult attadunent scoring and classification SYS4

lem. Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley. Un­published manuscript, 1988.

14. Grossman K, Fremmer-Bombik E, Rudolph J, Grossman KE. Maternalattachment representations as related to patterns of infant-mother­attachment and matemal care during the flfSt year. In: RA. Hinde. J. Ste­phenson-Hinde (Eds). Relationships within families. Oxford: ClarendonPress; 1988. p. 241-260.

15. Fonagy P, Steele 1-1, Steele M. Matemal representations of attachmentduring pregnancy predict the organisation of mother-infant attachment atone year. Child Dev 1991; 62: 891-905.

16. Van Ijzendoom, MH Adult attachment representations, parental respon­siveness and infant attachment, a meta-analysis on the predictive validityoflhe Adult Attachment Interview. Psychol Bull 1995; 117:387-403.

17. Bowlby J. A Secure base. London: Tavistock; 1988.18. Brcthenon 1. Attachment theory: retrospect and prospect. In: I. Brcther­

ton & E. Waters (Eds). Growing points of allachment theory and re·search. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Developmellt1985; 50 (1-2, Serial No. 209): 34 25.

19. Amold LE, Carnahan JA. Child divorce stress. In: Arnold LE (Ed.).Childhood Stress. New York: Jo1m Wiley & Sons; 1990,

20. Kamerman S. Fatherhood and social policy: some insights from a com­parative perspective. In: M. Lamb. A Sagi, (Eds.). Fatherhood and fam­ily policy. Ilillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1983.

21. McLennan W, Goward P. Australian Women's Year Book 1997. Can­berra: Commonwealth of Australia; 1997.

22. Ainsworth MOS, Blehar MC. Waters E, Wall S. Patterns of attachment:a psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum;1978.

286 Psyeh rodu)'/2OOS/J7/]/27l-}})7/Radoje..,e M Prenawl paTernal represemallo"5 ofal/aehnll'm predict mfant-fmher r11lachment

23. Gro.ssman K, Grossman KE, Spanglcr G, Suess G, Unsner L. Matcrnalsensitivity and newborn's orientation responses as rclated to quality ofattachment in northern Germany. In: 1. Bretherton, E. Waters (Eds.).Monographs of Growing points of attachment theory and research of theSociety for Research in Child Development. 50 1985; (1·2, Serial No.209)' 233-256.

24. Crowell JA, Feldman S. Mother's internal models of relationships andchildren's behavioural and developmental status: a study of mother-childinteraction. Child Dev 1988; 59: 1273-1285.

25. Main M, Hcsse E. Parents" unresolved traumatic experiences are relatedto infant disorganized attachment status: is frightened and/or frighteningparem:11 behavior the linking mechanism'! 1n: MT Greenberg, D. Cic­chetti, EM Cummings (Eds.). Attachment in the preschool years: The­ory, research and intervention. Chicago: University of Chicago In Press;1990.

26. Collins NL, Read SJ. Adult attachment, working model~, and relationshipquality in dating couples. J Pers and Soc Psychol1990; 58: 644-633.

27. Bartholemew K, Horowitz L. Attachment styles among young adults: atest of a fourcategory model. J Pers Soc Psychol 61, 226-244. 1991.

28. Griffin DW, Bartholemcw K. The metaphysics ofmeasurcmcnt: the caseof adult attachment. In: K. Bartholemcw 0 Perlman (Eds.). Advalll.:es inpersonal relationships. Vol. 5. London: Jessica Kingsley; 1994.

29. Main M, Solomon J. Procedures lor idcntifying infants as disorgan­ized/disoriented during the Ainsworth strange situation. to: MT. Green­berg, D. Cicchetti, EM. Cummings (Eds.). Attachment in the pr~school

year~: theory, research and intervention. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress; 1990.

30. Steele M, Steele H, Fonagy P. Associations among attachment classifi­cations of mothers, fathers and their infants: evidence for a relationshipspecific perspective. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society forResearch in Child Development, New Orleans (Louisiana); 1993.

31. Van Ijzendoom MH, Kroonenberg PM. Cross-cultural patterns of at­tachment. A meta-analysis of the strange situation. Child Dev 1988; 59:[47-156.

32. Main M, Hesse, Disorganized/disoriented infant behavior in the strangesituation, lapses in the monitoring of reasoning and discourse during theparent's adult attachment interview, and dissociative states. In: M.Arnanini, D. Stem (Ed~.). Attachment and psychoanalysis. Roma: Gius,Laterza and Figle; 1992.

33. Main M, Van ljzendoom, Hesse E. Unresolvedlunclassifiable responsesto the adult attachment interview: predictable from unresolved states andanomalous beliefs in the Berkeley-Leiden adult attachment question­naire. Developmental Psychology. In press 1993.

34. Radojevic M. Mental representations of attachment among prospectiveAustralian fathers. Aus N Z J Psychiatry 1994; 28: 505 -511.

35. Main M, Van Ijzendoom, Hesse E. Unresolvedlunclassifiable responsesto the aduil attachment interview: predictable from unresolved stat~s andanomalous beliefs in the Berkeley-Leiden adult attachment question­nairc. Dcy Psycholln press 1993.

36. Power DAE. Power, privilege and prestige: occupations in AustraliaMelbourne: Cheshire Longmans; 1983.

Ps)'ch.7OO<1)'/2005/37/2/271-287/ 287Rado}Hi( M. Prenala! pa/ernal repreUntatlOns 0/al/achmem predici ill/amjather allachmem

37. Hidlebrand OK, Laing J, Rosenthal H. Prediction analysis of cross­classifications. New York: Wiley; 1977.

38. Cassidy J. Child-mother attachment and the self in six year olds. ChildDev 1988,59: 121-134.

39. Frodi AM, Lamb ME, Frodi CPo Father-mother infant interaction in tra­ditional and nontraditional Swedish families: a longitudinal study. Alter­native Lifestyles 1983; 5: 142-163.

40. Ainsworth MDS, Eichberg CG. Effects on infant-mother attachment ofmother's unresolved loss of an attachment figure or olher trawnatic ex­perience. In: Marris P, Stevenson-Hinde J. Parkes C, (cds). Attachmentacross the lifecycle. New York: Routledge; 1991. p. 160-183.

41. Main M. Personal communication. University of Minnesota: Minneapo­lis; 1990.

42. Sagi A, Lamb ME, Lewkovicz KS, Shoham R, Dvir R, & Estes D. Secu­rity of infant-mOlher, - father, and - metapelet attachments in Kibbutz­reared Israeli children. In: 1. Bretherton, E. Waters (Eds.). Growingpoints in attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society forResearch in Child Development. 1985; 50, (serial No. 209): 257-275.

43. Van Ijzendoom, MH, Goossens, FA, Kroonenburg, PM, TavecchioCWC Dependent attachment: B-4 children in the strange situation. Psy­chol Rep, 1985; 57:439-451.

44. Liulti G. Disorganized attachment and dissociative experiences: an illus­tration of me developmental-ethological approach to cognitive therapy.In: H. Rosen, KT Kuehlwein (Eds.). Cognitive Iherapy in action. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass. In press. 2006.

45. Ross CA Multiple personality disorder: diagnosis, clinical features andtreatment. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1989.

46. Ward MJ, Botyanski NC, Plunket SW, Carlson A. Concurrent validity ofthe AAI for adolescent mothers. Paper presented at the 1991 BiennialMeeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, April 18-20,Seattle (Washington).

Marija RADOJEVIC, klinicki psiholog, Sluiba za za~titu mladih i porod icc,bolnica Hornzbi i Ku-ring-gaj, Sidnej Grem Rasel, Fakultet bihejvioralnihnauka, Univerzitet Makvari, Australija

Marija RADOJEV1C, PhD, Senior Clinical Psychologist, Adolescent andfamily Service, Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Hospital, Sydney and GraemeRussell PhD, Associate Professor of Psychology, School of Dehavioral Sci­ences, Macquurie University, AUSlfalia

E-mail: mradoj@bigpond.com