Cambio social y desarrollo 1 Cambio social

RECOGNITION TASK (FOR THE SAD FACE) IN RELATION TO THE DIFFERENT MODIFIED ATTACHMENT GROUPS (as assessed at five years with mother) Attachment Group Label for Sad face Insecure- avoidant Insecure- ambivalent Dis­ organised Secure Total Correct 9 (10.3) 2 (4.4) 4 (3.7) 30 (26.6) 45 [73.8%] Incorrect 5 (3.7) 4(1.6) 1 (1.3) 6 (9.4) 16 [26.2%] Total 14 [23.0%] 6 [9.8%] 5 [8.2%] 36 [59%] 61 [100%] chi-square=7.5, df=3, p<=.05

Table 4.2:

OBSERVED (AND EXPECTED) FREQUENCIES OF CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON THE LABELLING PHASE OF THE EMOTION- RECOGNITION TASK (FOR SAD FACE) IN RELATION TO THE DIFFERENT ATTACHMENT GROUPS AS TRADITIONALLY CLASSIFIED (as assessed at five years with mother)

Attachm ent Group Label for Sad face Insecure- avoidant Insecure- ambivalent Secure Total Correct 11 (12.5) 3 (5.2) 31 (27.3) 45 [73.8%] Incorrect 6 (4.5) 4(1.8) 6 (9.7) 16 [26.2%] Total 17 [27.9%] 7 [11.5%] 37 [60.7%] 61 [100%] chi-square=6.1, df=2, p<=.05 Table 4.3:

OBSERVED (AND EXPECTED) FREQUENCIES OF CHILDREN’S PERFORMANCE ON THE LABELLING PHASE OF THE EMOTION- RECOGNITION TASK (FOR SAD FACE) IN RELATION TO THE

DIFFERENT ATTACHMENT GROUPS CONSIDERED DICHOTOMOUSLY (as assessed at five years with mother)

Attachment Group Label for

Sad face

Insecure Secure Total

C orrect 15(18.4) 30 (26.6) 45 [73.8%]

Incorrect 10 (6.6) 6 (9.4) 16 [26.2%]

Total 25 [41%] 36 [59%] 61 [100%]

chi-square=4.2, d f= l, p<=.04

For all other labelling variables (afraid, angry, happy, m ischievous, surprised) the observed and expected frequencies are essentially equal, thus a non-significant result is revealed for attachm ent groups with respect to these five variables (results for modified attachm ent categories: afraid: chi-square=3.6, df=3, n.s.; angry: chi-

square=3.7, df=3, n.s.; happy: chi-square=3.5, df=3, n.s.; mischievous: chi- square=3.1, df=3, n.s.; surprised: chi-square=1.2, df=3, n.s.).^ Total correct' on the labelling task is considered also, in relation to attachment groups. No

significant difference is discovered, by this analysis, between attachment groups on 'total number of faces correctly identified' (F-value=.65, df=3, n.s.).

Where a significant result is revealed with respect to attachment groups (i.e. when participants were asked to label the sad face) the result supports the main hypothesis o f this thesis. Here, of the participants labelling correctly, the secure group makes up a disproportionately large majority, answering correctly on more occasions than is expected by chance. Results for the insecure groups seem ambiguous, in that, for some of the groups, correct answers are given more often than that expected by chance and for others correct answers are given less often than that expected by chance. In conducting analyses to examine the associations of child-mother attachment as traditionally classified (i.e. A, B, C with the D group forced-classified into the best-fitting traditional category), and o f attachment

considered dichotomously as the secure versus the insecure groups (i.e. B versus A, C, D), the above results hold but the ambiguity with regard to the insecure group lessens, where (particularly with respect to the dichotomous comparison) one can clearly see that the insecure groups are giving correct answers on labelling sad face less often than is expected by chance. There is generally a more straightforward

^All non-significant results, including descriptives, for the analyses discussed in this chapter can be found in Appendix 4.1. Results with respect to attachment are presented there in terms of all four attachment categories.

pattern for the secure group: where there is success in recognition of the sad emotion face the secure group make up a disproportionately large majority of that success.

4.3.2.b. Range o f emotion

The number of emotions discussed for all responses on the overall task is counted for each participant. Participants’ "range" of emotion discussion (how many emotions the participant mentions over the task) in relation to child

attachment classifications with mother (measured by the adapted Strange Situation) is the subject at hand here. Range of emotions used over the task is considered in relation to attachment in the form of both traditional and modified classifications, as well as considered dichotomously, as the secure versus insecure groups. A non­ significant result is revealed for attachment groups with respect to this variable (result for modified classifications: F-value=.50, df=3, n.s.).

4.3.2.C. Justification

After discussing how a character feels, participant is asked to justify why a character may feel this way in the given situation. Justification is looked at in terms of plausibility and differences in embellishment of the response. Participants' overall embellishment of justification in relation to child attachment classifications with mother is the subject at hand here. Embellishment o f justification is rated for the overall task and the score for each participant is considered in relation to attachment in the form of both traditional and modified classifications, as well as considered dichotomously, as the secure versus insecure groups. A non-significant result is revealed for attachment groups with respect to this variable (result for modified classifications: F-value=2.1 , df=3, n.s.)

4.3.2.d. Coherence

Participant's coherence of response on the emotion task is also considered. Coherence (congruence, plausibility, understandability, organisation) is rated on a scale of one to four, from low to high coherence. Each participant is given an overall coherence score. Participants' overall coherence o f response in relation to child attachment classifications with mother is the issue here. This score for each participant is considered in relation to attachment in the form of both traditional and modified classifications, as well as considered dichotomously, as the secure versus insecure groups. A non-significant result is revealed for attachment groups with respect to these variables (result for modified classifications: F-value=.60, df=3, n.s.).

4.3.2.e. Matching o f Parent-Child emotions

Responses are assessed in light of "matching of emotion" (or empathy) by scoring family cartoon scenes for matching of self/child-character and parent- character(s) emotion. Participants' "matched" (participant assigns and discusses the same emotion for parent(s) and self/child-characters in a given scene) and

"unmatched"(participant assigns and discusses different emotions for parent(s) and self/child characters in a given scene) responses on the task in relation to child attachment classifications with mother is the issue here. 'Matching' is considered for the three cartoon scenes (the Bicycle scene, the Sibling scene, the Separation scene) which contain both child and parent characters, in relation to attachment in the form of both traditional and modified classifications, as well as considered dichotomously, as the secure versus insecure groups. The observed and expected frequencies are essentially equal (observed do not differ significantly from

expected) for all the attachment groups with reference to all matching variables on the Emotion-Recognition Task. Thus, a non-significant result is revealed for attachment groups with respect to these three variables (results for modified classifications: matching for the Bicycle scene: chi-square=l.l, df=3, n.s.; matching for the Sibling scene: chi-square=2.2, df=3, n.s.; matching for the Separation scene: chi-square=.47, df=3, n.s.).

4.3.2.f. Multiple emotions

Use of multiple emotions on the overall task is considered for each participant. Whether or not the participant discusses assigning more than one emotion and emotion face to any character across the task is documented, and if so, with what level of skill and understanding he/she does so. Participants' use of multiple emotion, and skill in this use, in relation to child attachment classifications with mother is the issue here. A multiple emotion score for each participant

(reflecting whether or not participant uses multiple emotion in his/her discussion and if so at what level of clarity) is considered in relation to attachment in the form o f both traditional and modified classifications, as well as considered

dichotomously, as the secure versus insecure groups. A non-significant result was revealed for attachment groups with respect to this variable (result for modified classifications: F-value=.78, df=3, n.s.).

4.3.3. Results: Emotional expression and recognition as a function of father-child attachment

The findings with respect to father-child attachment are presented variable- wise by emotion task variables in the following order: spontaneous labelling of emotion faces, range of emotions discussed over the task, embellishment and

plausibility of justification, overall coherence, matching o f emotions, and discussion of multiple emotions.

4.3.3.a. Spontaneous labelling o f emotion faces

Percentages of participants' correct and incorrect responses in attempts to label the faces they were shown (afraid, angry, happy, mischievous, sad, surprised) according to child attachment classifications with father is the issue considered here. The observed and expected frequencies are essentially equal (observed do not significantly differ from expected) for all the modified attachment groups, traditional attachment classifications, and when attachment is considered

dichotomously, with reference to all labelling variables on the Emotion-Recognition Task. Thus, a non-significant result was revealed for all attachment groups with respect to these variables (results for modified classifications: afraid: chi-

square=1.7, df=2, n.s.; angry: chi-square=2.5, df=2, n.s.; happy: chi-square=3.1, df=2, n.s.; mischievous: chi-square=.15, df=2, n.s.; sad: chi-square=2.1, df=2, n.s.; surprised: chi-square=3.4, df=2, n.s.). The variable, 'Total number correct' on the labelling task, is also considered, with respect to attachment classifications. No significant difference is detected between attachment groups, with regard to labelling, in this analysis (F-value=.98, df=2, n.s.).

4.3.3.b. Range o f emotion

The number of emotions discussed in all responses on the overall task is counted for each participant. Participants' "range" of emotion discussion (how many emotions the participant mentioned over the task) in relation to child attachment classifications with father is the subject at hand here. Range of

and modified classifications, as well as considered dichotomously, as the secure versus insecure groups. A non-significant result is revealed for attachment groups with respect to this variable (result for modified classifications: F-value=1.08, df=2, n.s.).

4.3.3.c. Justification

After discussing how a character feels, participant is asked to justify why a character may feel this way in the given situation. Justification is looked at in terms of plausibility and differences in embellishment o f the response on the overall task. Participants' embellishment of justification in relation to child

attachment classifications with father is the subject at hand here. Embellishment of justification is rated for the overall task and this score for each participant is

considered in relation to attachment in the form o f both traditional and modified classifications, as well as considered dichotomously, as the secure versus insecure groups. A non-significant result is revealed for attachment groups with respect to this variable (result for modified classifications: F-value=.88, df= 2, n.s.).

4.3.3.d. Coherence

Coherence (congruence, plausibility, understandability, organisation) is rated for each participant reflecting their overall task performance. Participants'

coherence o f response in relation to child attachment classifications with father is the subject at hand here. Coherence is rated for the overall task and this score for each participant is considered in relation to attachment in the form o f both

secure versus insecure groups. A non-significant result is revealed for attachment groups with respect to this variable, (result for modified classifications: F-

value=.60, df=2, n.s.).

4.3.3.e. Matching o f Parent-Child emotions

Responses are assessed in light of "matching of emotion" for cartoon scenes where parent and child are present. Participants' level of "matching" family

emotion on the task in relation to child attachment classifications with father is the subject at hand here. 'Matching' is considered for the three cartoon scenes which contain both child and parent characters, in relation to attachment in the form of both traditional and modified classifications, as well as considered dichotomously, as the secure versus insecure groups. The observed and expected frequencies are essentially equal (observed do not significantly differ from expected) for all the attachment groups with reference to all matching variables on the Emotion-

Recognition Task. Thus, a non-significant result is revealed for attachment groups with respect to these three variables (results for modified classifications: matching for Bicycle scene: chi-square=4.4, df=2, n.s.; matching for Sibling scene: chi- square=.82, df=2, n.s.; matching for Separation scene: chi-square=1.7, df=2, n.s.). 4.3.3.f. Multiple emotions

Participant's discussions of assigning more than one emotion and emotion face to individual characters in each scene is documented over the task. If a participant yields a discussion of mixed emotion, the level o f skill and

understanding with which he/she completes this discussion of the experience of multiple emotion is documented as well. Participants' use of multiple emotion in their discussions in relation to child attachment classifications with father is the

subject at hand here. A multiple emotion score for each participant (reflecting whether or not participant uses multiple emotion in his/her discussion o f emotion and, if so, at what level of clarity) is considered in relation to attachment in the form of both traditional and modified classifications, as well as considered dichotomously, as the secure versus insecure groups. A non-significant result is revealed for attachment groups with respect to this variable (result for modified classifications: F-value=1.4, df=2, n.s.)

4.4. Discussion

4.4.1. Considering the positive result: support for the original prediction, that there will be an association between childhood attachment and Emotion- Recognition Task performance

The expectation was that the positive results reported in this chapter would be much more extensive than they are, that a powerful relationship between

emotion 'skills' and concurrent assessment of attachment security would exist. The findings are, however, disappointing. The single significant association found between performance on the Emotion-Recognition Task and concurrent attachment security with mother and father is, at the very least, in the direction o f the original prediction.

Recent developments in attachment research and theory were outlined in the chapter introduction as support for the prediction o f an association between

childhood attachment security and success in expression and recognition of emotion. The early childhood stage in the parent-child attachment relationship is distinguished as a new 'goal-corrected partnership' (Bowlby, 1969; Marvin, 1977; Marvin & Greenberg, 1982; Cicchetti, Cummings, Greenberg & Marvin, 1990). A

new form of negotiation of goals between parent and child begins here, as the child acquires language and cognitive skills enabling communication about, among other things, emotion and the consequences o f emotion. This stage in the relationship becomes 'goal-corrected' as the child learns and gains more skill in knowing how to express and understand emotion such that his/her goals, attachment goals and other goals, with mother and father may be accomplished.

[T]he expression of emotion...[is] channeled in directions that the emotion culture [parent] finds acceptable...[0]n the basis of the socialization practices of parents and other authorities, children acquire emotion schemas that, among other things, guide their predictions of the consequences of expressing various

emotions...[Children] can...thoughtfully evaluate [the] alternatives [of emotion expression] in terms of their relative suitability for accomplishing personal

goals...[i.e. attachment goals: being close to mother, communicating with mother, using mother for comfort]

(Thompson, 1994, p. 39)

Predicting a relationship, then, between a child's expression and recognition of emotion, and attachment security, the negotiation o f proximity and contact between parent and child, is a valid hypothesis.

This study finds, however, that no significant relationship is revealed between attachment with father and Emotion-Recognition Task performance and that there is only one significant relationship revealed between childhood

attachment with mother and response on the emotion task. Main et al.'s (1985) finding, as discussed above, though highlighting the emerging importance o f the father, accentuates the influence of the mother-child relationship as well. It shows quality o f attachment with mother as significantly related to children's overall concurrent functioning in interactions with the experimenter. Main et al. (1985) claim that while father's influence seems to gain its strength only after infancy, mother's influence appears to be strong in both infancy and childhood. Though

evidence to support Main et al's description of the importance o f father-child attachment security is lacking, the mother-child attachment relationship proves, indeed, somewhat influential with respect to response on the spontaneous labelling phase of the task. The sad face is among the most recognised o f the emotion faces presented in this phase of the task (approximately 75% recognise this face at age six), and children who are secure with mother in the sixth year make up the significant majority in the group who successfully spontaneously labelled this emotion face. O f the 16 who are unable to identify the sad face, 10 of those are from the insecure group. That is, while 40% of the insecure group is unable to identify the sad face, only 16% of the secure group has such difficulty. As the sad face is quite easily recognised by the group as a whole, it is all the more notable that the insecure group finds it a greater obstacle. This result coincides with predictions made regarding the influence of mother-child attachment upon

childhood emotionality in the introduction to this thesis. However, considering the number o f analyses that are conducted in this investigation, along with the

examination o f the influence of father-child attachment, the author concludes that this positive finding is minimal.

4.4.2. Considering the negative results: accounting for the lack of support for the original prediction, that there will be a strong association between childhood attachment and Emotion-Recognition Task performance

4.4.2.a. Is emotional expression and recognition being adequately assessed? The assumption behind the Emotion-Recognition Task is that in the sixth year a child is at an age where language and representational aspects of life are very significant. The literature (Ekman & Friesen, 1975; Fonagy, Redfem, &

Charman, 1995; Bretherton et al., 1990a; Shouldice & Stevenson-Hinde, 1992) reveals that children find representational tasks meaningful and that these tasks do, indeed, relate to their real-life experiences and reflect their relationship experiences. Similarly, the Emotion-Recognition Task assumes that children in the sixth year will express and recognise emotion in a way that reflects the emotional

relationships they have in real life, and specifically that they will express and recognise emotion in individually different ways that will reflect the emotion-laden goal-oriented patterns of communication that they carry out in their day to day lives with attachment figures. These predictions may expect too much of the communication and representational abilities of children in the sixth year. Perhaps the task needs to add an observational element as well as having an

expressive/representational one in order to get a fu ll picture of the emotional communication of these children. Aspects o f the task do, indeed, relate to participants' concurrent attachment relationships in childhood, lending support for the validity of the portion of the task which exists presently. It is conceivable to suggest, however, that the task simply needs to be broadened to include a measure of emotional expression and recognition which is not purely representational in nature.

4.4.2.b. Is attachment being adequately assessed?

The childhood attachment classification procedures presented in this chapter have been developed recently, and must endure reasonable speculation as to