|Causality: causality is the relation between two (separate) entities, whereby a state change of the one entity causes the state of the other entity to change. Nowadays it is assumed that an energy transfer is crucial for talking about a causal link.|
D. Hume was the first to consistently deny the observability of cause and effect. (David Hume Eine Untersuchung über den menschlichen Verstand, Hamburg, 1993, p. 95).
_____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments.
|Corr I 237
Causality/attachment theory/Shaver/Mikulincer: In the earliest studies of infant attachment, Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters and Wall (1978) identified several maternal behaviours during home observations of mother-child interactions that were associated with an infant’s attachment security in the Strange Situation. These behaviours included, for example, being responsive to the infant’s crying, timing of feeding, sensitivity to the infant’s signals and needs, psychological accessibility when the infant was distressed or signalled a need or desire for support and comfort. In subsequent decades, dozens of studies followed up Ainsworth et al.’s (1978)(1) findings and further linked infant attachment security with sensitive maternal behaviour and the quality of paternal care-giving (see Atkinson, Niccols, Paglia et al. 2000(2); De Wolff and van IJzendoorn 1997(3), for reviews and meta-analyses). Based on this solid evidence, van IJzendoorn and Bakermans-Kranenburg (2004(4), p. 248) concluded that ‘the causal role of maternal sensitivity in the formation of the infant-mother attachment relationship is a strongly corroborated finding.
1. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E. and Wall, S. 1978. Patterns of attachment: assessed in the Strange Situation and at home. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
2. Atkinson, L., Niccols, A., Paglia, A., Coolbear, J., Parker, K. C. H., Poulton, L., Guger, S. and Sitarenios, G. 2000. A meta-analysis of time between maternal sensitivity and attachment assessments: implications for internal working models in infancy/toddlerhood, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 17: 791–810
3. De Wolff, M. and van IJzendoorn, M. H. 1997. Sensitivity and attachment: a meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment, Child Development 68: 571–91
4. van IJzendoorn, M. H. and Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. 2004. Maternal sensitivity and infant temperament in the formation of attachment, in G. Bremner and A. Slater (eds.), Theories of infant development, pp. 233–57. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing
Phillip R. Shaver and Mario Mikulincer, “Attachment theory: I. Motivational, individual-differences and structural aspects”, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press_____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. The note [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.
Philip J. Corr
The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009