Title: A physical lens on early attachment: Descriptive review of tools that consider physicality in the assessment of the parent-infant interaction
Name: Jacqueline Westerdahl
Primary Presenters: Jacqueline Westerdahl
College of Health Sciences
Research Doctorate (PhD)
Faculty Sponsor(s): Victoria Moerchen
Background: An infant seeks physical closeness to their mother from the moment they are born. A mother’s displays of physical closeness during daily interactions influence security of the attachment bond that is formed with her baby throughout the first year of life. However, not all physical interactions are positive or supportive, and some physical interactions may be more salient to the formation of attachment. Observational tools that assess parent-infant interactions (PIIs) often do not include any physicality-focused dimensions, and those that do are variable in their approach. The purpose of this review was to identify and describe commonly used tools that include physicality of interactions in assessing the PII.
Methods: Two systematic reviews, Lotzin et al. (2015) and Canas et al. (2020), identified a combined total of 27 tools used to assess the PII. A search of PubMed from years 2001-2021 using the terms (“parent-infant interaction” OR “mother-infant interaction” OR “caregiver-infant interaction” OR “parent-child interaction” OR “caregiver-child interaction” OR “parent-infant interaction”) AND (assessment OR “observation tool”) identified 15 additional tools. Descriptions of the tools found in the literature showed a total of 22 scales that included at least one item, domain, or subscale that assessed physicality. Based on accessibility of tool manuals or description of item/scale content, a total of 15 tools were included in this review.
Results: 52% (22/42) of identified tools included physicality-focused items, and the number of these items included in a single tool ranged from 1 to 10. The types of physicality assessed included: parent proximity to child (7), assistance/positioning (10), force/intrusiveness (4), soothe/affection (8), abuse/roughness (7), physical caregiving (6), and avoidance of touch (3).
Conclusion: Tools that capture nuanced presentations of physical interactions between mothers and infants may help identify the aspects of physicality that support early attachment and that may be amenable to intervention.
Hi Jacqueline, very interesting study. You’re right that the image one has is of touch with the infant, so it is interesting that only 50+% of the tools measured some component of physicality. I was interested in the use of ‘mother’ in your introduction and then ‘caregiver’ in your search terms. Does the physical touch need to be from the mother for their to be attachment or can it also occur with a male caregiver?
Hi Dorothy- Thanks for the question! Yes, attachment bonds absolutely can form with male caregivers. Often children will form attachment bonds with several of their caregivers, but the primary attachment bond has been more strongly linked to the child’s developmental outcomes. I focused my abstract/presentation on mothers because much of the research over past decades has been focused on mother-infant interactions due to mothers often being the primary caregiver and because research that focuses on how physicality impacts attachment has mainly focused on mothers. However, as family dynamics change and as research in this area has become more inclusive of fathers and others as primary caregivers, we’re starting to see more research and assessment tools focused on “caregivers” or “parents” rather than just mothers. When searching for tools that assess dyadic interactions, I wanted to be sure any described in the literature as focusing on mother, parent, or caregiver were included.
Jacqueline,
It is great to see how you continue to move forward with your research trajectory!