Social Competence

Sensitivity and Attachment Security with multiple attachment figures and Social Competence in preschool children in Lima - Peru Katherine Fourment ([email protected]), Magaly Nóblega, Katherinne Pérez PONTIFICAL CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF PERU ATTACHMENT RELATIONSHIP AND SOCIOEMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Partial Results

Latino American and Peruvian contexts promote multiplecaregivers networks Latino American

Peru

Economic, social and cultural factors Multiple-caregivers networks are responsible of children care (parents,

61.9% Female population work outside home: New female roles, different family 75% Children aged 3 and 5 years old are exposed to other unfamiliar caregivers in

Objectives • To find the association between caregiver-child attachment security and caregiver´s sensitivity. • To evaluate the predictive capacity of attachment security and caregiver´s sensitivity to explain: • Child social competence • Internalizing and externalizing child behavioral problems

Method

Multiple-caregivers Participants

Hierarchical model Mother-child relation predominates over other relationships to shape child attachment representations Child attachment Mother-child representations attachment (Bowlby, 1969).

Independence model Attachment relationships with each caregiver are independent of each other. Each of them influences the child development in a different way

•

Mother – child attachment

•

Father – child attachment Caregiver – child attachment

•

(Howes, 1999).

Integrationist model A child integrates characteristics of all relationships to shape a single attachment representation

•

Mother – child attachment

Mothers´ age between 29 and 45 years (M=36.31)

Measures Sensitivity Maternal Behavior for Preschoolers Q Set (MBPQS) Interater reliability Caregiver MIN MAX Mother

0.73

0.96

Father

0.41

0.97

TAF

0.81

0.97

(AQS)

(Waters, 1995)

Interater realiability Caregive MIN MAX er Mother 0.57 0.94 Father TAF

0.61 0.60

General objective To evaluate the adequacy of independence and integrationist models to explain child socio-emotional competence (i.e. emotional regulation, behavioral problems and social problem solving skills) based on child attachment security and caregiver’s sensitivity.

Anxious/Depressed

0.63

0.98

Somatic Complaints

0.35

0.98

Withdrawn

0.54

Aggressive Behavior

0.84

Internalizing

0.78

Externalizing

0.83

Prosocial orientation 0.77 Social initiative

0.59

Self-control

0.77

Interpersonal skills

0.81

Assertive skills

0.77

Mother sensitivity

(Posada et al., 2002)

Attachment Q Set (AQS) (Waters, 1995)

Attachment Story Completion Task (ASCT)

Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (Achenbach y Rescorla, 2000)

Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC) (Shields & Cicchetti, 1997)

Challenging Situation Task (CST)

M = .67

(Bretherton, Ridgeway y Cassidy, 1990)

M = .65

SD = .19

DS = .15

M = .37

Min = -.03

Min = .14

Max = .70

Max = .79

p

-.14

.44

.14

.59

(Bermúdez, 2010)

Agressive behavior

MBPQS (mother)

AQS (mother)

Challenging Situation Task

Session 4

MBPQS (father)

AQS (father)

Attachment Story Completion Task

Session 5

MBPQS (TAF)

AQS (TAF)

Emotion Regulation Checklist

SD = .22

Min = -.23

Min = -.48

Max = .75

Max = .56

Max = .61

R2 F (3, 22)

.25

3.69

β

p

Mother-child attachment security

-.15

.44

Father-child attachment security

-.57

.01

TAF-child attachment security

.41

.06

p

.03

R2

F (3, 22)

p

.24

3.61

.03

p


-.58

.00


.00

.99

-.45

.03

R2 F (3, 22)

.36

5.66

p

.01

β

p


-.52

.01


.13

.52

-.48

.03


R2

F (3, 22)

p

.25

3.82

.02

Conclusions

Socio-demographic data sheet

Session 3

M = .27

SD = .22

Externalizing behavior β


Interview: Family care history

Question about TAF


β


Interview: Identifying TAF

M = .60

Withdrawn

Social Competence

Socioeconomic Status sheet

Min = -.34

Assertive skills

.03

Informed consent

SD = .20


TAF sensitivity

Social Competence and Behavioral Problems

.49

Procedure

r = .46*

M = .36


(Denham et al., 2007)

r = .41* Father sensitivity

Max= .78

Maternal Behavior for Preschoolers Q Set (MBPQS)

Third figure – child relation


Measures

Participants

Father – child relation


Min = .16

Method

Psychological counseling

Areas

Dimensions

r = .14

SD = .13

Session 6

(Bermúdez, 2010)

From dyadic relationships to multiple-caregivers networks Mother – child relation

Session 2

Social Competence

Results

(Tevecchio & van Ijzendoorn, 1987; van Ijzendoorn et al., 1992).

Session 1 First meeting or initial meeting

Internalizing and Externalizing Behavior Problems Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000)

Attachment Security Attachment Q Set

(Posada et al., 2002)

Caregiver – child attachment

26 families of high and high-middle SES • Mother • Father • Third attachment figure (TAF) • Child between 3 and 5 years old

Third Attachment Figures: 15 grandmothers, 6 female household workers, 4 aunts (mother’s or father’s sisters), 1 babysitter. Age between 19 and 73 years (M=52.54)

Fathers´ age between 30 and 47 years (M=38.08)

(Howes & Spieker, 2008; van IJzendoorn et al., 1992)

Child attachment representations

Father – child attachment

Children Socioemotional Competence Social competence Emotion regulation Internalizing and externalizing behavior problems Social problem solving

Children: 13 boys and 13 girls between 36 and 70 months (M=53.92)

Child Behavior Checklist Social Competence Time to talk with mother (doubts, concerns about the child)

• Results supports sensitivity hypothesis for father and TAF. • Participant mothers had similar and high sensitivity scores that diminished its relation with children’s attachment. • Caregiver´s sensitivity did not predict children social competence, neither behavioral problems. • Some evidence was found for the independence model: • Father-child attachment predicted assertive skills and withdrawn behavior. • Mother-child and TAF-child attachment predicted aggressive and externalizing behavior.