College of Behavioral & Social Sciences

Permanent URI for this communityhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/8

The collections in this community comprise faculty research works, as well as graduate theses and dissertations..

Browse

Author: search.filters.author.Madigan, Sheri

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Examining Ecological Constraints on the Intergenerational Transmission of Attachment Via Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis
    (Taylor & Francis, 2018-05-09) Verhage, Marije L.; Pasco Fearon, R.M.; Schuengel, Carlo; van IJzendoorn, Marinus H.; Bakermans-Kranenburg, Marian J.; Madigan, Sheri; Roisman, Glenn I.; Oosterman, Mirjam; Behrens, Kazuko Y.; Wong, Maria S.; Mangelsdorf, Sarah; Priddis, Lynn E.; Brisch, Karl-Heinz; The Collaboration on Attachment Transmission Synthesis
    Parents’ attachment representations and child–parent attachment have been shown to be associated, but these associations vary across populations (Verhage et al., 2016). The current study examined whether ecological factors may explain variability in the strength of intergenerational transmission of attachment, using individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. Analyses on 4,396 parent–child dyads (58 studies, child age 11–96 months) revealed a combined effect size of r = .29. IPD meta-analyses revealed that effect sizes for the transmission of autonomous-secure representations to secure attachments were weaker under risk conditions and weaker in adolescent parent–child dyads, whereas transmission was stronger for older children. Findings support the ecological constraints hypothesis on attachment transmission. Implications for attachment theory and the use of IPD meta-analysis are discussed.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Disorganized attachment in infancy: a review of the phenomenon and its implications for clinicians and policy-makers
    (Taylor & Francis, 2017-06-22) Granqvist, Pehr; Sroufe, L. Alan; Dozier, Mary; Hesse, Erik; Steele, Miriam; van Ijzendoorn, Marinus; Solomon, Judith; Schuengel, Carlo; Fearon, Pasco; Bakermans-Kranenburg, Marian; Steele, Howard; Cassidy, Jude; Carlson, Elizabeth; Madigan, Sheri; Jacobvitz, Deborah; Foster, Sarah; Behrens, Kazuko; Rifkin-Graboi, Anne; Gribneau, Naomi; Spangler, Gottfried; Ward, Mary J; True, Mary; Spieker, Susan; Reijman, Sophie; Reisz, Samantha; Tharner, Anne; Nkara, Frances; Goldwyn, Ruth; Sroufe, June; Pederson, David; Pederson, Deanne; Weigand, Robert; Siegel, Daniel; Dazzi, Nino; Bernard, Kristin; Fonagy, Peter; Waters, Everett; Toth, Sheree; Cicchetti, Dante; Zeanah, Charles H; Lyons-Ruth, Karlen; Main, Mary; Duschinsky, Robbie
    Disorganized/Disoriented (D) attachment has seen widespread interest from policy makers, practitioners, and clinicians in recent years. However, some of this interest seems to have been based on some false assumptions that (1) attachment measures can be used as definitive assessments of the individual in forensic/child protection settings and that disorganized attachment (2) reliably indicates child maltreatment, (3) is a strong predictor of pathology, and (4) represents a fixed or static “trait” of the child, impervious to development or help. This paper summarizes the evidence showing that these four assumptions are false and misleading. The paper reviews what is known about disorganized infant attachment and clarifies the implications of the classification for clinical and welfare practice with children. In particular, the difference between disorganized attachment and attachment disorder is examined, and a strong case is made for the value of attachment theory for supportive work with families and for the development and evaluation of evidence-based caregiving interventions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Attachment goes to court: child protection and custody issues
    (Taylor & Francis, 2022-01-11) Forslund, Tommie; Granqvist, Pehr; van IJzendoorn, Marinus H.; Sagi- Schwartz, Avi; Glaser, Danya; Steele, Miriam; Hammarlund, Mårten; Schuengel, Carlo; Bakermans-Kranenburg, Marian J.; Steele, Howard; Shaver, Phillip R.; Lux, Ulrike; Simmonds, John; Jacobvitz, Deborah; Groh, Ashley M.; Bernard, Kristin; Cyr, Chantal; Hazen, Nancy L.; Foster, Sarah; Psouni, Elia; Cowan, Philip A.; Cowan, Carolyn Pape; Rifkin-Graboi, Anne; Wilkins, David; Pierrehumbert, Blaise; Tarabulsy, George M.; Carcamo, Rodrigo A.; Wang, Zhengyan; Liang, Xi; Kazmierczak, Maria; Pawlicka, Paulina; Ayiro, Lilian; Chansa, Tamara; Sichimba, Francis; Mooya, Haatembo; McLean, Loyola; Verissimo, Manuela; Gojman-de-Millán, Sonia; Moretti, Marlene M.; Bacro, Fabien; Peltola, Mikko J.; Galbally, Megan; Kondo-Ikemura, Kiyomi; Behrens, Kazuko Y.; Scott, Stephen; Rodriguez, Andrés Fresno; Spencer, Rosario; Posada, Germán; Cassibba, Rosalinda; Barrantes-Vidal, Neus; Palacios, Jesus; Barone, Lavinia; Madigan, Sheri; Jones-Mason, Karen; Reijman, Sophie; Juffer, Femmie; Fearon, R. Pasco; Bernier, Annie; Cicchetti, Dante; Roisman, Glenn I.; Cassidy, Jude; Kindler, Heinz; Zimmermann, Peter; Feldman, Ruth; Spangler, Gottfried; Zeanah, Charles H.; Dozier, Mary; Belsky, Jay; Lamb, Michael E.; Duschinsky, Robbie
    Attachment theory and research are drawn upon in many applied settings, including family courts, but misunderstandings are widespread and sometimes result in misapplications. The aim of this consensus statement is, therefore, to enhance understanding, counter misinformation, and steer family-court utilisation of attachment theory in a supportive, evidence-based direction, especially with regard to child protection and child custody decision-making. The article is divided into two parts. In the first, we address problems related to the use of attachment theory and research in family courts, and discuss reasons for these problems. To this end, we examine family court applications of attachment theory in the current context of the best-interest-of-the-child standard, discuss misunderstandings regarding attachment theory, and identify factors that have hindered accurate implementation. In the second part, we provide recommendations for the application of attachment theory and research. To this end, we set out three attachment principles: the child’s need for familiar, non-abusive caregivers; the value of continuity of good-enough care; and the benefits of networks of attachment relationships. We also discuss the suitability of assessments of attachment quality and caregiving behaviour to inform family court decision-making. We conclude that assessments of caregiver behaviour should take center stage. Although there is dissensus among us regarding the use of assessments of attachment quality to inform child custody and child-protection decisions, such assessments are currently most suitable for targeting and directing supportive interventions. Finally, we provide directions to guide future interdisciplinary research collaboration.