The transmission of attachment style is thought to be not only through sensitive responsiveness of the carer to the infant, but also related to the extent to which
parents are defensive about their own negative emotional experiences. Fonagy, Steele, Steele, Leigh, et al (1995) postulated that such defensiveness could lead to a
lack of understanding (dismissal) or to incomplete understanding of their child’s states of anxiety (preoccupation). The intergenerational transmission of secure
attachment styles has in part been explained by the transmission of reflecting or mentalising capacity of the parent (Fonagy et al, 1995). This notion is based on Main’s (1991) discussion of metacognitive monitoring and singular versus multiple models of attachment, which she introduced to the Adult Attachment Interview coding. She suggests that differences in attachment organisations during childhood are linked to the quality of metacognition in the parent. Incoherent adult narratives indicating poorly structured multiple models of attachment relationships may cause the child’s insecure pattern of attachment. Main (1991) argues that without the capacity for metacognitive monitoring, i.e. not understanding the “representational nature of their ovm (and others’) thinking” (p. 128), then the child is open to the parent’s inconsistent behaviour, because the parent cannot distinguish between the
immediate experience and the mental state that might underlie it.
Fonagy et al (1995) assume that the quality of a child’s attachment to the parent is linked to two factors in the parent: (1) The parent’s internal working model of
attachment; and (2) the parent’s capacity to reflect on the current mental state o f the child, i.e. the parent should have a theory o f the child’s mind. This enables the parent
to reflect and cope with the child’s emotion and reduces the child’s need to protect himself from the psychological presence of the caregiver. A child becomes insecurely attached when he has to develop defensive behaviours to protect himself
from his parents’ lack of understanding of the child’s mental state. Parents with secure attachment patterns and high in reflective function would be expected to
provide better containment of the child’s affect and engender security in the child, and thereby create a better environment for the child’s development o f mentalising
function. This facilitates the child’s capacity to develop secure relationships with others, including his/her own child. Secure attachment experiences enhance the child to develop in a “theory of mind”, the cognitive capacity which is the basis for reflective-self function (Fonagy et al, 1995). O f course, “theory of mind” is biologically-based (Baron-Cohen, 1989) with its own timetable, but it may be speeded up or slowed down by attachment factors.
Reflective functioning or mentalising can be defined as the ability to understand self
and others in terms of mental states (feelings, beliefs, intentions and desires), and the capacity to reason about one’s own and other’s behaviour in terms of mental states
(Fonagy et al 1996). It is described as being a natural development unless both the absence of a safe relationship and the experience of maltreatment in the context of a close relationship inhibit it. As theory of mind and reflective-self function are
thought to develop in the context of intense interpersonal relationships, the fear of a mind of another would have detrimental effects on the development of understanding
the attitudes, intentions, plans of others. A child who feels rejected and unloved by her parents would avoid thinking about what others feel and what she feels and
thinks, and evade the mental world so that she does not acquire reflectiveness of her own thoughts and feelings or the thoughts and feelings of others (Fonagy et al,
1995).
Fonagy, Moran, Steele, Steele & Higgit (1991) developed the Reflective-Self
Function (RSF) scale as a way of coding Adult Attachment Interviews on the
individual’s ability to understand mental states and their readiness to think about these in a coherent manner (see method section). RSF looks at the individual’s capacity to:
1) see and understand oneself in terms of mental states (feelings, intentions, beliefs) and to reflect on one’s own thoughts, and
2) contains an interpersonal component to see and understand others and their behaviour in terms of mental states.
Fonagy, Steele, Steele, Leigh et al (1996) applied the RSF scale to Adult Attachment Interviews from a sample of psychiatric patients and non-psychiatric controls, and this study indicated that patients diagnosed with psychiatric disorders scored lower on the Reflective-self Function than controls. They concluded that the borderline personality disorder group tended to avoid o f thinking about their thoughts and feelings and those of others (related to early abusive experiences) and this had
become generalised to all subsequent intimate relationships. This lack of reflective
functioning had become a core part of their psychopathology, and reduced their capacity to come to terms with their early experiences, leaving them more vulnerable to interpersonal stress (Fonagy et al, 1996).
In relation to the present study, a small group of eating disordered adults in Fonagy et al’s (1996) study (n=14) scored significantly lower on reflective-self functioning than non-psychiatric controls, and those diagnosed with depression, anxiety or substance abuse disorders. Armstrong & Roth, (1989) have described eating
disordered patients as having difficulty in talking about their inner world, making
attachment research with this population difficult. It could be that they show a limited capacity for reflective-self functioning, which would affect how they relate to others, and could have implications for therapy. One aspect o f the present study will
be assessing the individual’s ability to talk about their inner world by looking at their capacity to reflect on their own thoughts and feelings and the thoughts and feelings behind the behaviour of others, particularly their caregivers.