Running head: CRITICAL PERIOD VS.

PLASTICITY AND ATTACHMENT

Critical Period vs. Plasticity and Attachment Jaylene Bettcher and Angela Chiasson CAAP 633 L01 Dr. Jo-Anne H. Willment February 27, 2012

CRITICAL PERIOD VS. PLASTICITY AND ATTACHMENT Critical Period vs. Plasticity and Attachment Theory

Attachment theory is fundamental to child development, yet many unanswered questions remain, such as the nature of attachment and the mechanisms by which it develops and in turn, its consequences (Siegel, 2011). The present paper strives to clarify the role that critical periods and plasticity play in the development of healthy and unhealthy attachments. A critical period, also known as a sensitive period, is a certain time frame in which some developments must take place or opportunity is missed (Broderick & Blewitt, 2010). Consequently, plasticity is defined as the brain being an amazingly malleable organ that demonstrates throughout the lifespan (Broderick & Blewitt, 2010). Are early social interactions critical for developing subsequent relationships with others, or are they merely a template that future environmental factors shape and mould? OConnor and Rutters (2000) study, Attachment Disorder Behavior Following Early Severe Deprivation: Extension and Longitudinal Follow-up, supports the critical period perspective in the development of attachments. This article examines attachment disturbances in a sample of children adopted into the United Kingdom (165 from Romania, and 52 from the U. K.) following severe early deprivation (OConnor & Rutter, 2000). A semistructured interview was given to the parent(s) to gather information on the childs attachment disorder (OConnor & Rutter, 2000). Results revealed a close association between the length of deprivation and severity of attachment behaviour disorders; meaning the more deprivation, the more severe the attachment disorder (OConnor & Rutter, 2000). Furthermore, the severity of uninhibited symptoms remained unchanged, despite participants being adopted into nurturing environments (OConnor & Rutter, 2000). In terms of counselling, early intervention with families is the focus for children who have had early infantile attachment disturbances (Broderick & Blewitt, 2010).

CRITICAL PERIOD VS. PLASTICITY AND ATTACHMENT Scharfs (2001) study, A Natural Experiment in Childrearing Ecologies and Adolescents Attachment and Separation Representations supports the plasticity perspective in the development of attachments by exploring the long term effects of different childrearing ecological contexts (Scharf, 2001). Participants included 131 adolescents aged sixteen to eighteen who were assigned to one of four groups: participants who lived in a city, participants from a kibbutz familial setting, participants from a kibbutz communal setting, and a transitional group who moved from a communal to a transitional setting between the ages of three and six (Scharf, 2001). The Adult Attachment Interview, Separation Anxiety Test, and background questionnaires were administered to participants (Scharf, 2001). The transition group demonstrated improvements in many aspects associated with attachment stability when compared to the communal group, thus supporting the plasticity perspective (Scharf, 2001).

Counsellors are to utilize techniques that offer ongoing positive experiences to support the client in acquiring rich developed capacity for neural integration (Siegel, 2001). Through critical analysis, the current paper answers the question of whether attachments must take place within a certain time frame, such as the first year of life, or whether an individual is able to develop or learn healthy attachment at any time given the appropriate opportunities (Broderick & Blewitt, 2010). Broderick and Blewitt (2010) claim that empirically validated assessments, diagnoses, and treatments for attachment related problems in infancy and childhood remain murky and misunderstood. Subsequently, an increased knowledge of the effects of early infantile relationships enables clinicians to make sound, empirically educated decisions based on appropriate intervention techniques (Broderick & Blewitt, 2010). Critical Period and Attachment

CRITICAL PERIOD VS. PLASTICITY AND ATTACHMENT As proposed by John Bowlby and Erik Erikson, a childs ability to form secure attachments is largely determined by the quality of their infantile relationship with their primary caregivers (Broderick & Blewitt, 2010). These early interactions not only impact the development of future relationships and self concept, but also impact the development of undifferentiated neural systems (Broderick & Blewitt, 2010). Each neural system has a specific timetable for development, called a critical period that is dependent, in part, on early infantile experiences (Perry, 2009). The critical period, contrary to plasticity, recognizes that attachment disturbances within the first year of life can lead to permanent disorganization of the neural systems that mediate socioemotional interactions; consequently, succeeding nurturing

environments may be of little benefit to these children (Perry, 2009). The following section aims to review OConnor and Rutters (2000) study, emphasizing the importance of the critical period in developing secure attachments. OConnor and Rutter (2000) systematically examined one of the largest experimental samples of children exposed to severe social deprivation and neglect during their first few years of life: the Romanian orphans. In the 1980s Romania was burdened with stringent social policies and severe economic crises, placing over 65,000 infants and children in orphanages (Chugani, Behen, Muzik, Juha, Nagy, & Chugani, 2001). The quality of life for infants in these orphanages or institutions was immoral, as they were often left in their cribs unattended for 20 hours per day and infant-caregiver ratios were 10:1 (Chungani et al., 2001). Following their removal from the institutions, numerous studies on this population reveal that most children exhibited low cognitive abilities, indiscriminately friendly behaviour, and attachment disruptions (Chungani et al., 2001). These findings may indicate that deprivation and insecure attachments in early

CRITICAL PERIOD VS. PLASTICITY AND ATTACHMENT infancy can create vulnerabilities, and consequently alter resiliency, in developing secure attachments throughout childhood (Perry, 2009). Method OConnor and Rutter (2000) examined attachment disruptions in a large, systematic

sample of Romanian children exposed to early deprivation before being adopted by middle class U.K. families. Participants were chosen through stratified random sampling to account for demographics and age of institutionalization (85% of children were placed in an institution within the first week of life) (OConnor & Rutter, 2000). Based on the duration of deprivation, participants were placed into one of four groups; 1) 58 Romanian born children adopted before six months of age, 2) 59 Romanian born children adopted between six and 24 months of age, 3) 48 Romanian born children adopted between 24 and 42 months, and 4) 52 U.K. born children adopted before six months of age (OConnor & Rutter, 2000). Group four was the comparison sample, as the U.K. born children were not placed in an institution and they did not experience severe social deprivation (OConnor & Rutter, 2000). By using categorical variables, OConnor and Rutter (2000) were able to directly test the effects of early deprivation, and furthermore, the role that the critical period plays in developing secure attachments. Evidence for attachment disturbances was derived from a semistructured interview with the adopted parent(s) and a standardized cognitive assessment of the child (OConnor & Rutter, 2000). The semistructured interview was constructed to assess disinhibited behaviour through questions examining the childs behaviour towards parents, strangers, and peers in both novel and recurring situations (OConnor & Rutter, 2000). The childs cognitive abilities were directly assessed with the Global Cognitive Index from the McCarthy Scales of Childrens Abilities (OConnor & Rutter, 2000). Participants were assessed at age 4 and again at age 6 not only to

CRITICAL PERIOD VS. PLASTICITY AND ATTACHMENT examine the validity of potential attachment disturbances, but also to examine stability and change and identify factors that either hinder or foster attachments (OConnor & Rutter, 2000). By adopting a plasticity perspective one may expect improvement in disinhibited symptoms, as childrens inherent malleability should allow their socioemotional skills to advance in response

to nurturing environments (Van IJzendoor & Juffer, 2006). Whereas, from a critical perspective one would expect little or no improvement in disinhibited symptoms, as early environmental influences (attachment disruptions) organize specific neural pathways that maintain behaviour throughout childhood (Broderick & Blewitt, 2010). Results OConnor and Rutters (2000) findings provide insight into the association between infantile deprivation, duration of deprivation, and subsequent attachment disturbances. OConnor and Rutter (2000) found that the correlation between the total number of symptoms (both mild and severe) at age 6 and duration of deprivation was nonsignificant. However, when merely severe symptoms of attachment disturbances were accounted for a linear pattern emerged, indicating that duration of deprivation is correlated with severe attachment symptoms (OConnor & Rutter, 2000). OConnor and Rutter (2000) also found, through exploratory analyses, that the prevalence of severe attachment symptoms was nonsignificantly greater between the Romanian born children who experienced severe social deprivation and the U.K. born children who experienced attachment disruptions but did not experience severe social deprivation. Thus, regardless of severity of deprivation, infantile attachment disturbances may be sufficient enough to generate subsequent attachment disorders (OConnor & Rutter, 2000). The current study also reveals that individual differences in attachment symptoms were stable from age four to age six, and more specifically, 62% of participants showed no change in

CRITICAL PERIOD VS. PLASTICITY AND ATTACHMENT

symptoms over the 2-year period (OConnor & Rutter, 2000). Consistent with previous research, this finding indicates that disturbances during the critical period may have negative implications for attachment neurobiology and subsequent attachment behaviour (OConnor & Rutter, 2000). Broderick and Blewitt (2010) also emphasize the importance of the critical period, maintaining that nature may have equipped the infant with a sensitive period for the development of social attachments based on the brains developmental trajectory (p. 119). This raises clinical concerns about the safety and difficulties that children with attachment disturbances experience while attempting to build relationships with others (OConnor & Rutter, 2000). Counselling Implications Children who meet clinical criteria for attachment disorder are often unaware of social boundaries, exhibit deficits in socioemotional understanding and interpretation, and display a superficial interest in others (OConnor & Rutter, 2000). This is concerning to clinicians, parents, and members of society alike, as potentially there are a substantial number of infants and children in social service settings that have attachment disturbances (OConnor & Rutter, 2000). As maintained, experience during the critical period provides a developmental framework for infants, and because the brain is most receptive to environmental input during this time it is extremely important to intervene early (Pistole & Fitch, 2008). Broderick and Blewitt (2010) also confirm that best practice includes early intervention and supporting parents in fostering a relationship with their child. Early interventions must take into account the needs of both the infant and parent(s). Broderick and Blewitt (2010) explain that the goal, when counselling infants with attachment disturbances, is to repair relationships through interventions that support the parent to comprehend their childs communication pattern and respond to it with sensitivity. Counsellors

CRITICAL PERIOD VS. PLASTICITY AND ATTACHMENT need to approach parents with a supportive and nonjudgmental attitude, as parents may be very

frustrated and dejected when relationship challenges with their child seem intractable (Broderick & Blewitt, 2010). Parents should understand that although neural systems mediating socioemotional pathways have already been formed, providing children with security, patience, routine, sensitivity, and love may model appropriate behaviour while redirecting aberrant behaviour (Broderick & Blewitt, 2010). Plasticity and Attachment Stating that infant attachment only occurs during a critical stage, such as the first year of life (Broderick & Blewitt, 2010), would be like saying that those who do not form attachments in the first year of life will not experience success with attachment in future relationships. From a counselling perspective, this view could be detrimental to a family who has adopted a child that endured early attachment disturbances. Fortunately, from the view of plasticity, which suggests that the brain remains open to continuing influences from the environments throughout life, researchers can believe that positive experiences, and developing secure, trusting relationships past the first year of life, can provide new opportunities for growth in attachment (Broderick & Blewitt, 2010). Scharfs (2001) study examines the relationship between attachment and plasticity, while arguing for plasticity of human development in the face of adversity and subsequent changes in childrearing circumstances. The Israeli kibbutz is a cooperative community that share many responsibilities; most relevant to this study being collective childrearing, where infants were cared for in small groups by professional caretakers for about nine hours a day (Scharf, 2001). Furthermore, their communal sleeping arrangements involved children sleeping away from their attachment figures, where an unfamiliar person would monitor a large number of children concurrently. The kibbutz

CRITICAL PERIOD VS. PLASTICITY AND ATTACHMENT has a history of harsh and dangerous living conditions (Scharf, 2001). Childrearing in these communities can be considered as an environment that does not nourish healthy attachment development, as perceived in the Western culture. For this reason, the kibbutz was viewed as a natural laboratory for examining the consequences of early childrearing. Method Scharfs (2001) quasi-experimental design encompassed 131 randomly chosen adolescents, aged 16-18, who were assigned to of one of the following four groups: 1) 31

participants lived in a city, 2) 33 participants lived in a kibbutz familial setting, 3) 33 participants lived in a kibbutz communal setting, and 4) 34 participants lived in a transitional group of children who moved from a communal setting to a familial sleeping arrangement before the age of six. It was hypothesized that the differences in ecological context will affect future attachment relationships (Scharf, 2001). Of particular interest is the transition group who had been raised in a communal setting and then transitioned to a familial setting between the ages of three and six this group transitioned from an unhealthy living environment to a healthy environment (Scharf, 2001). From a plasticity perspective, the transition group should demonstrate superior attachment quality later in life in comparison to the communal group. While, from a critical perspective, results from this study would yield similar findings between the communal and transitional group in regards to attachment quality later in life. The Adult Attachment Interview (AAI), Separation Anxiety Test (SAT), Demographic Data Questionnaire, and Stressful Life Experiences Questionnaire, were among the measures used in this study (Scharf, 2001). The AAI was used to measure ones state of mind regarding attachment experiences using the following classification system: insecure-dismissing, insecurepreoccupied, secure-autonomous, and unresolved trauma (Scharf, 2001). This tool is comprised

CRITICAL PERIOD VS. PLASTICITY AND ATTACHMENT of a structured interview designed to arouse memories and emotions regarding attachment experiences (Scharf, 2001). To assess reactions to separation and loss on a representational level, the SAT was administered. Next, the Demographic Data Questionnaire was given to the participants to collect data about the adolescents family and personal history (Scharf, 2001).

10

Finally, in order to identify stressful situations experienced by the adolescents, the Stressful Life Experiences Questionnaire was administered (Scharf, 2001). This was achieved by asking participants if they had experienced any of the events described while rating the rate of desirability and impact of the event on a 5-point scale (Scharf, 2001). Results A regression analysis was performed to examine the differences in attachment representations among the various ecological contexts, with autonomous versus nonautonomous attachment patterns as the dependent variable, and ecological contexts and gender as the independent variables (Scharf, 2001). The effects of gender were not significant, however there were significant differences in ecological contexts (Scharf, 2001). As expected, the children in the communal group differed significantly in attachment when compared to the city, familial, and transition groups (Scharf, 2001). Most adolescents in the latter three groups exhibited autonomous attachment (74.2%, 69.7%, and 67.65%, respectively), while the adolescents in the communal group only exhibited 43.7% autonomous attachment presentations (Scharf, 2001). Secure autonomous attachments indicate a secure state of mind, meaning they are able to access childhood experiences and evaluate them coherently. Moreover, the communal group demonstrated the lowest level of constructive coping when compared to the other three groups (Scharf, 2001). Although the transition group did not catch up to the city and familial groups,

CRITICAL PERIOD VS. PLASTICITY AND ATTACHMENT they did demonstrate better attachment quality in comparison to the communal group; consequently demonstrating attachment plasticity.

11

Furthermore, a t-test revealed that there were no significant differences in transition age between adolescents (t= -.19), meaning that all children who transitioned between age three and six demonstrated similar plasticity when adapting to their new ecological environments (Scharf, 2001). These results oppose the idea that a childs previous attachment may be entrenched (Broderick & Blewitt, p.133) and harder to change after longer periods of time. Findings regarding the modification of the transitions group lend strength to Bowlbys perception of the flexibility and dynamic nature of internal models, and to the inherent plasticity of children and their ability to adapt and develop in response to changed circumstances (Scharf, 2001). Counselling Implications Of particular interest, seen through the eyes of a counsellor, is the transitional group of adolescents showing secure attachment despite growing up in the context of communal sleeping arrangements (Scharf, 2001). Communal sleeping arrangements can be compared to institutionalization, such as orphanages for children awaiting adoption (Scharf, 2001). The number of children adopted across and within borders has been drastically increasing over time, with a 100% increase since the late 1980s (Van IJzendoorn & Juffer, 2006). Thus, clinicians need to help families understand that adoption can be seen as an intervention in the development of the adopted child (Van IJzendoorn & Juffer, 2006). Attachment theory provides ideas for clinicians as they assess the socioemotional needs of parents and children (Broderick & Blewitt, 2010). The plasticity perspective enables clinicians to support families by indicating that ongoing experiences, especially those involving the basic aspects of secure attachments, may enable individuals to acquire a rich development of

CRITICAL PERIOD VS. PLASTICITY AND ATTACHMENT

12

neural capacity (Siegel, 2001). With this in mind, counsellors can give hope to families knowing that therapists, friends, or intimate partners can realign or reconstruct an originally problematic early relationship by becoming another secure base (Broderick & Blewitt, 2010). Clinicians who support the plasticity perspective can aid individuals who have had early attachment disturbances by teaching basic relationship components such as, collaborative communication, reflective dialogue, interactive repair, and emotional communication (Siegel, 2001). This, along with the development of enriched relationships with family, friends, and communities, supports the concept of plasticity in which there is promise for individuals who have experienced negative early infantile attachments with primary caregivers (Scharf, 2001). Summary Attachment theory is considered one of the most influential theories relative to infants and childrens socioemotional development (Broderick & Blewitt, 2010). Although most theorists agree that early social interactions create a model for future attachments with others, there is still some discrepancy as to whether or not this model is permanent or transitory. In other words, is attachment theory best viewed from a critical period perspective or a plasticity perspective? OConnor and Rutters (2000) study on Romanian orphans concludes that attachment disturbances within the first year of life may have permanent implications on socioemotional development, as children that displayed disinhibited symptoms did not show improvement, despite their newfound, nurturing environment. While Scharfs (2001) study on the Israeli kibbutz concludes that although attachment disturbances within the first year of life may hinder subsequent attachments, childrens inherent plasticity, in concert with a nurturing environment, fosters appropriate coping and socioemotional skills. Although both articles and

CRITICAL PERIOD VS. PLASTICITY AND ATTACHMENT arguments are compelling, we believe, from a counselling and developmental theory, that the critical period perspective is most comprehensive in explaining attachment disorder.

13

The critical period perspective is paramount in comparison with the plasticity perspective because it takes into account the magnitude of infantile interactions and both the biological and socioemotional implications of these interactions. OConnor & Rutters (2000) study made clear that the Romanian orphans, who experienced severe social deprivation within the first year of life, exhibited neurobiological attachment disturbances, which had permanent and unchanged repercussions throughout childhood. This permanency is confirmed through well renowned research explaining that the neural system is most sensitive within the first year of life, as it provides a developmental framework for infancy that remains throughout childhood (Perry, 2009). Although the plasticity perspective maintains that the brain is malleable to environmental influences that provide opportunities for growth in attachment (Broderick & Blewitt, 2010), Scharfs (2001) study provided little evidence to support this. The participants in Scharfs (2001) study that transitioned from an unhealthy to a healthy living environment demonstrated better attachment quality when compared to the communal group, however, their attachment quality did not compare to the city and familial groups, which one would expect if plasticity was more applicable to attachment theory than critical period. Infants are evolutionarily equipped to elicit emotional and behavioural attention and nurturance from adults, and in turn, adults are equipped to do the same (Broderick & Blewitt, 2010). However, due to unfortunate biological and environmental circumstances some infants do not have the opportunity to form a secure attachment with their primary caregiver, resulting in attachment disturbances (Broderick & Blewitt, 2010). From the featured articles and arguments, we have come to believe that the critical period perspective is most comprehensive in explaining

CRITICAL PERIOD VS. PLASTICITY AND ATTACHMENT attachment theory, as it describes both biological and socioemotional implications of infantile interaction. With that being said, it is extremely important for us, as counsellors or psychologists, to take a multidimensional approach to further understand how factors such as

14

infant temperament, environment, and culture impact early interactions between infants and their caregivers (Broderick & Blewitt, 2000). Ultimately, it is these factors that either foster or hinder resiliency, which may be the determining factor for a successful intervention (Pistole & Fitch, 2008).

CRITICAL PERIOD VS. PLASTICITY AND ATTACHMENT References Broderick, P. C., & Blewitt, P. (Eds). (2010). The Life Span: Human Development for Helping Professionals (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Chugani, H. T., Behen, M. E., Muzik, O., Juha, C., Nagy, F., & Chugani, D. C. (2001). Local brain functional activity following early deprivation: A study of postinstitultionalized romanian orphans. NeuroImage, 14, 1290- 1301. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2001.0917 OConnor, T. G., & Rutter, M. (2000). Attachment disorder behavior following early severe deprivation: Extension and longitudinal follow-up. J. Am. Acad. Child and Adolesc. Psychiatry, 39, 703-712.

15

Perry, B. D. (2009). Examining child maltreatment through a neurodevelopmental lens: Clinical applications of the neurosequential model of therapeutics. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 14, 240-255. doi:10.1080/15325020903004350 Pistole, M. C., & Fitch, J. C. (2008). Attachment theory in supervision: A critical incident experience. Counselor Education & Supervision, 47, 193-205. Scharf, M. (2006). A natural experiment in childrearing ecologies and adolescents attachment and separation representations. Child Development, 72, 236-251. Scott, J. (2011). The impact of disrupted attachment on the emotional and interpersonal development of looked after children. Educational & Child Psychology, 28, 31-43. Siegel, D. J. (2001). Toward an interpersonal neurobiology of the developing mind: Attachment relationships, mindsight and neural integration. Infant Mental Health Journal, 22, 67-94. Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Juffer, F. (2006). The Emmanual Miller Memorial Lecture 2006: Adoption as intervention. Meta-analytic evidence for massive catch-up and plasticity in

CRITICAL PERIOD VS. PLASTICITY AND ATTACHMENT

16

physical, socio-emotional, and cognitive development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 27, 1228-1245, doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01675.x