∆

PREVIOUS : Parent-Child ATT, #2

SITEs: “Neurobiology of Attachment to Nurturing & Abusive Caregivers“  (Scientific)  ✅ “Infant Attachment: What We Know Now”

NOTE:
AMBIVALENT child will become PREOCCUPIED adult
AVOIDANT child will become DISMISSING adult

INSECURE Attachment develops when the mother continually FAILS to recognize when the child’s “attachment light” is on (arms reaching out, eye contact, crying, climbing on her, tugging….), OR deliberately ignores the signals . This is inevitably absorbed by the baby as a personal rejection.  

🖤 The mother who de-synchronizes with her child = produces serious damage to her child’s mental & emotional attachment circuitry.
This is PMES neglect, which creates immense distress in the child, the awful disconnect  emptiness is experienced as a “death”, forcing it ro make an intense effort to avoid the feeling of terror. Sadly, the “death state” corresponds to “rest states”, so the child avoids rest at all cost. – This is a common issue for ACoAs ! (See Parent-Child Part 2b Secure, scroll to Joy-building = mother signaling rest-time)

As time goes on, the agonizing pain of mis-aligned attachment is then covered up & disregarded as much as possible – with addictions & emotional dissociation. (Ignore it & it’ll go away or Run to keep ahead of the pain).
The insecurity caused by maternal rejection will continue to haunt the child into adulthood, going unchecked without Recovery & FoO work, so anything that resembles rest or relaxation will be avoided. (See “Toxic Rules“).

«
♨️ When there is physical &/or emotional neglect, the baby will develop an insecure attachment (Avoidant, Anxious, or Disorganized). These styles are associated with persistent low self-esteem & relationship troubles – with a lack of trust, reluctance to commit, & all-encompassing fear of abandonment.

🚼 Avoidant-Insecure attachment (20-30% in low-risk ‘normal’ groups).  In the home, these parents were emotionally non-perceptive, unresponsive, unavailable & rejecting.

In the Strange Situation (SS – see Part 1), the mother was not available to the infants as a secure base from which it could explore its environment. When the mother started to leave the room, the infant might move toward her, but often did not. When she returned, the infant acted like she was not even there & just continued playing.

Some of these parents were responsive in non-emotional interactions, but very dismissive when the infant was emotionally needy, frustrated, or angry.  As a result, these babies often became clingy, demanding, & expressed random aggression.

√ The internal working model is likely, “Mom does not respond to my emotions, especially when I’m upset or angry, so I’ll shut down & try to become independent (not need her).”

The infants then protects itself from this ongoing terrifying environment by dissociating internally from their normal, legitimate need for connection, & generally repressing their emotions = a “de-activating” strategy.

🚼 Anxious-Ambivalent (insecure) attachment (5-15% of low risk samples)
In these homes, the mother was inconsistently available for the infant, & when she was paying some attention – she was often pre-occupied – so her responses to the infant were un-attuned or mis-aligned.

In the ‘SS’, while playing – the insecure infants were more alert to where the mother was. They were very upset when she left the room, immediately went to her when she came back, & became very clingy.
On reunion these children alternated between outbursts of anger & going limp, but either way they were not soothed by the presence of the mother, even if she seemed caring & emotionally available.

These infants respond with an “over-activated” attachment need, being the most anxious, needy & demanding at home.

√ The likely internal working model here is “Even if mom is available physically, she’s not warm & soothing.”

🚼 Disorganized-Insecure attachment (20-40% in non-clinical populations. And up to 80% from abusive homes)
These children often suffered physical &/or sexual abuse, with parents who were psychologically disturbed, &/or substance abusers. Inconsistent caregiving (come here-go away) became alternately a source of comfort & of fear

In the ‘SS’ scenario, these infants felt disoriented when the mother left the room. In response, they were not soothed even if they made physical contact when she returned .  The child’s behaviors were a confused mix – moving towards her, then away OR freezing & going into a corner

√ The inner working model is that the “supposed” source of soothing is also the source of danger – “fright without solution” – leaving the child’s mental & emotional state & behavior very confused.

NEXT : ATT