My watch list  

Attachment disorder


Attachment disorder is a broad term intended to describe disorders of mood, behavior, and social relationships arising from a failure to form normal attachments to primary care giving figures in early childhood, resulting in problematic social expectations and behaviors. Such a failure would result from unusual early experiences of neglect, abuse, abrupt separation from caregivers after about age 6 months but before about age 3 years, frequent change of caregivers or excessive numbers of caregivers, or lack of caregiver responsiveness to child communicative efforts. A problematic history of social relationships occurring after about age 3 may be distressing to a child, but does not result in attachment disorder.

The term attachment disorder is most often used to describe emotional and behavioral problems of young children, but is sometimes applied to school-age children or even to adults. The specific difficulties implied depend on the age of the individual being assessed and a child's attachment-related behaviors may be very different with one familiar adult than with another, suggesting that the disorder is within the relationship and interactions of the two people rather than an aspect of one or the other personality. [1] No list of symptoms can legitimately be presented but generally the term attachment disorder refers to the absence or distortion of age-appropriate social behaviors with adults. For example, in a toddler, attachment-disordered behavior could include a failure to stay near familiar adults in a strange environment or to be comforted by contact with a familiar person, whereas in a six-year-old attachment-disordered behavior might involve excessive friendliness and inappropriate approaches to strangers.

There are currently two main areas of theory and practice relating to the definition and diagnosis of attachment disorder, and considerable discussion about a broader definition altogether. The first main area is based on scientific enquiry, is found in academic journals and books and pays close attention to attachment theory. It is described in ICD-10 and DSM-IV-TR as reactive attachment disorder of various types. The second area is controversial and is found in clinical practice, on websites and in books and publications, has little or no evidence base and makes controversial claims relating to a basis in attachment theory.[2] The use of these controversial diagnoses of attachment disorder is linked to the use of controversial attachment therapies to treat them. [3]

Thirdly, some authors have suggested that attachment, as an aspect of emotional development, is better assessed along a spectrum than considered to fall into two non-overlapping categories. This spectrum would have at one end the characteristics called secure attachment; midway along the range of disturbance would be insecure or other undesirable attachment styles; at the other extreme would be non-attachment. [4] Diagnostic criteria have not yet been agreed.[5]

Finally, the term is also sometimes used to cover difficulties arising in relation to various attachment styles which may not be disorders in the clinical sense.

The present article will consider ways of looking at attachment-related problems ranging from mild to serious.


Attachment and attachment disorder

Main article: Attachment theory

Attachment theory is primarily an evolutionary and ethological theory. In relation to infants, it primarily consists of proximity seeking to an attachment figure in the face of threat, for the purpose of survival. [6] Although an attachment is a "tie" it is not synonymous with love and affection although they often go together and a healthy attachment is considered to be an important foundation of all subsequent relationships. Infants become attached to adults who are sensitive and responsive in social interactions with the infant, and who remain as consistent caregivers for some time. Parental responses lead to the development of patterns of attachment which in turn lead to 'internal working models' which will guide the individual's feelings, thoughts and expectations in later relationships.[7]

In the clinical sense, a disorder is a condition requiring treatment as opposed to risk factors for subsequent disorders. [8] There is a lack of consensus about the precise meaning of the term 'attachment disorder' although there is general agreement that such disorders only arise following early adverse caregiving experiences. Reactive attachment disorder indicates the absence of either or both the main aspects of proximity seeking to an identified attachment figure. This can occur either in institutions, or with repeated changes of caregiver, or from extremely neglectful primary caregivers who show persistent disregard for the child's basic attachment needs after the age of 6 months. Current official classifications of RAD under DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 are largely based on this understanding of the nature of attachment.

The words attachment style refer to the various types of attachment arising from early care experiences, called secure, anxious-ambivalent, anxious-avoidant, (all organized), and disorganized. Some of these styles are more problematical than others, and, although they are not disorders in the clinical sense, are sometimes discussed under the term 'attachment disorder'.

Discussion of 'disorganized attachment' style sometimes includes this style under the rubric of attachment disorders because disorganized attachment is seen as the beginning of a developmental trajectory that will take the individual ever farther from the normal range, culminating in actual disorders of thought, behavior, or mood. [9] Early intervention for disorganized attachment, or other problematic styles, is directed toward changing the trajectory of development to provide a better outcome later in the person's life.

Zeanah and colleagues proposed an alternative set of criteria (see below) of three categories of attachment disorder, namely "no discriminated attachment figure", "secure base distortions" and "disrupted attachment disorder". These classifications consider that a disorder is a variation that requires treatment rather than an individual difference within the normal range.[10]

Official ICD-10 and DSM-IV-TR classifications

ICD-10 describes Reactive Attachment Disorder of Childhood, known as RAD, and Disinhibited Disorder of Childhood, less well known as DAD. DSM-IV-TR also describes Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy or Early Childhood. They divide this into two subtypes, Inhibited Type and Disinhibited Type, both known as RAD. The two classifications are similar and both include;

  • markedly disturbed and developmentally inappropriate social relatedness in most contexts.
  • The disturbance is not accounted for solely by developmental delay and does not meet the criteria for Pervasive Developmental Disorder.
  • Onset before 5 years of age.
  • Requires a history of significant neglect.
  • Implicit lack of identifiable, preferred attachment figure.

ICD-10 includes in its diagnosis psychological and physical abuse and injury in addition to neglect. This is somewhat controversial, being a commission rather than omission and because abuse of itself does not lead to attachment disorder.

The inhibited form is described as "a failure to initiate or most social interactions, as manifest by excessively inhibited responses" and such infants do not seek and accept comfort at times of threat, alarm or distress, thus failing to maintain 'proximity', an essential element of attachment behavior. The disinhibited form shows "indiscriminate sociability...excessive familiarity with relative strangers" (DSM-IV-TR) and therefore a lack of 'specificity', the second basic element of attachment behavior. The ICD-10 descriptions are comparable. 'Disinhibited' and 'inhibited' are not opposites in terms of attachment disorder and can co-exist in the same child. The inhibited form has a greater tendency to ameliorate with an appropriate caregiver whilst the disinhibited form is more enduring.[11]

Whilst RAD is likely to occur following neglectful and abusive childcare, there should be no automatic diagnosis on this basis alone as children can form stable attachments and social relationships despite marked abuse and neglect. Abuse can occur alongside the required factors but on its own does not explain attachment disorder. Experiences of abuse are associated with the development of disorganised attachment, in which the child prefers a familiar caregiver, but responds to that person in an unpredictable and somewhat bizarre way. Within official classifications, attachment disorganization is a risk factor but not in itself an attachment disorder. Further although attachment disorders tend to occur in the context of some institutions, repeated changes of primary caregiver or extremely neglectful identifiable primary caregivers who show persistent disregard for the child's basic attachment needs, not all children raised in these conditions develop an attachment disorder.[12]

Boris and Zeanah's typology

Many leading attachment theorists, such as Zeanah and Leiberman, have recognized the limitations of the DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 criteria and proposed broader diagnostic criteria. There is as yet no official consensus on these criteria. The APSAC Taskforce recognised in its recommendations that "attachment problems extending beyond RAD, are a real and appropriate concern for professionals working with children", and set out recommendations for assessment. [13]

Boris and Zeanah (1999) [14], have offered an approach to attachment disorders that considers cases where children have had no opportunity to form an attachment, those where there is a distorted relationship,and those where an existing attachment has been abruptly disrupted. This would significantly extend the definition beyond the ICD-10 and DSM-IV-TR definitions because those definitions are limited to situations where the child has no attachment or no attachment to a specified attachment figure.

Boris and Zeanah use the term "disorder of attachment" to indicate a situation in which a young child has no preferred adult caregiver. Such children may be indiscriminately sociable and approach all adults, whether familiar or not; alternatively, they may be emotionally withdrawn and fail to seek comfort from anyone. This type of attachment problem is parallel to Reactive Attachment Disorder as defined in DSM and ICD in its inhibited and disinhibited forms as described above.

Boris and Zeanah also describe a condition they term "secure base distortion". In this situation, the child has a preferred familiar caregiver, but the relationship is such that the child cannot use the adult for safety while gradually exploring the environment. Such children may endanger themselves, may cling to the adult, may be excessively compliant, or may show role reversals in which they care for or punish the adult.

The third type of disorder discussed by Boris and Zeanah is termed "disrupted attachment." This type of problem, which is not covered under other approaches to disordered attachment, results from an abrupt separation or loss of a familiar caregiver to whom attachment has developed. The young child's reaction to such a loss is parallel to the grief reaction of an older person, with progressive changes from protest (crying and searching) to despair, sadness, and withdrawal from communication or play, and finally detachment from the original relationship and recovery of social and play activities.

Problems of attachment style

Main article: Attachment theory

The majority of 12-month-old children can tolerate brief separations from familiar caregivers and are quickly comforted when the caregivers return. These children also use familiar people as a "secure base" and return to them periodically when exploring a new situation. Such children are said to have a secure attachment style, and characteristically continue to develop well both cognitively and emotionally.

Smaller numbers of children show less positive development at age 12 months. Their less desirable attachment styles may be predictors of poor later social development. Although these children's behavior at 12 months is not a serious problem, they appear to be on developmental trajectories that will end in poor social skills and relationships. Because attachment styles may serve as predictors of later development, it may be appropriate to think of certain attachment styles as part of the range of attachment disorders.

Insecure attachment styles in toddlers involve unusual reunions after separation from a familiar person. The children may snub the returning caregiver, or may go to the person but then resist being picked up. These children are more likely to have later social problems with peers and teachers, but some of them spontaneously develop better ways of interacting with other people.

A small group of toddlers show a distressing way of reuniting after a separation. Called a disorganized/disoriented style, this reunion pattern can involve looking dazed or frightened, freezing in place, backing toward the caregiver or approaching with head sharply averted, or showing other behaviors that seem to imply fearfulness of the person who is being sought.[15] Disorganized attachment has been considered a major risk factor for child psychopathology, as it appears to interfere with regulation or tolerance of negative emotions and may thus foster aggressive behavior.[16]


Main article: Attachment measures

Recognised assessment methods of attachment styles, difficulties or disorders include the Strange Situation procedure (Mary Ainsworth), [17][18][19] the separation and reunion procedure and the Preschool Assessment of Attachment ("PAA"),[20] the Observational Record of the Caregiving Environment ("ORCE")[21] and the Attachment Q-sort ("AQ-sort").[22] More recent research also uses the Disturbances of Attachment Interview or "DAI" developed by Smyke and Zeanah, (1999).[23] This is a semi-structured interview designed to be administered by clinicians to caregivers. It covers 12 items, namely having a discriminated, preferred adult, seeking comfort when distressed, responding to comfort when offered, social and emotional reciprocity, emotional regulation, checking back after venturing away from the care giver, reticence with unfamiliar adults, willingness to go off with relative strangers, self endangering behavior, excessive clinging, vigilance/hypercompliance and role reversal.

Alternative Diagnosis of Attachment Disorder

Main article: Attachment therapy

In the absence of officially recognized diagnostic criteria, and beyond the ambit of the discourse on a broader set of criteria discussed above, the term attachment disorder has been increasingly used by some clinicians to refer to a broader set of children whose behavior may be affected by lack of a primary attachment figure, a seriously unhealthy attachment relationship with a primary caregiver, or a disrupted attachment relationship.[24] Although there are no studies examining diagnostic accuracy, concern is expressed as to the potential for over-diagnosis based on broad checklists and 'snapshots'.[25]

A common feature of this form of diagnosis within attachment therapy is the use of extensive lists of "symptoms" which include many behaviours that are likely to be a consequence of neglect or abuse, but are not related to attachment, or not related to any clinical disorder at all. Such lists have been described as "wildly inclusive".[26] The APSAC Taskforce (2006) gives examples of such lists ranging across multiple domains from some elements within the DSM-IV criteria to entirely non-specific behavior such as developmental lags, destructive behaviors, refusal to make eye contact,cruelty to animals and siblings, lack of cause and effect thinking, preoccupation with fire, blood, and gore, poor peer relationships, stealing, lying, lack of a conscience, persistent nonsense questions or incessant chatter, poor impulse control, abnormal speech patterns, fighting for control over everything, and hoarding or gorging on food. Some checklists suggest that among infants, “prefers dad to mom” or “wants to hold the bottle as soon as possible” are indicative of attachment problems. The APSAC Taskforce expresses concern that high rates of false positive diagnoses are virtually certain and that posting these types of lists on Web sites that also serve as marketing tools may lead many parents or others to conclude inaccurately that their children have attachment disorders." [27]


Main article: Child therapy
Main article: Attachment therapy

There is a variety of mainstream prevention programs and treatment approaches for attachment disorder, attachment problems and moods or behaviors considered to be potential problems within the context of attachment theory. All such approaches for infants and younger children concentrate on increasing the responsiveness and sensitivity of the caregiver, or if that is not possible, changing the caregiver.[28][29][30] Such approaches include 'Watch, wait and wonder,' [31] manipulation of sensitive responsiveness, [32][33] modified 'Interaction Guidance,'.[34] 'Preschool Parent Psychotherapy,'.[35] 'Circle of Security'.[36][37], Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-up (ABC),[38], the New Orleans Intervention,[39][40][41] and Parent-Child psychotherapy.[42] Other known treatment methods include Developmental, Individual-difference, Relationship-based therapy (DIR) (also referred to as Floor Time) by Stanley Greenspan, although DIR is primarily directed to treatment of pervasive developmental disorders[43] Some of these approaches, such as that suggested by Dozier, consider the attachment status of the adult caregiver to play an important role in the development of the emotional connection between adult and child.[44]

There is also a considerable variety of treatments for alleged attachment disorders diagnosed on the controversial alternative basis outlined above, popularly known as attachment therapy. These therapies have little or no evidence base and vary from talking or play therapies to more extreme forms of physical and coercive techniques, of which the best known are holding therapy, rebirthing, rage-reduction and the Evergreen model. In general these therapies are aimed at adopted or fostered children with a view to creating attachment in these children to their new caregivers. Critics maintain these therapies are not based on an accepted version of attachment theory.[45] These therapies concentrate on changing the child rather than the caregiver. [46]

See also


  1. ^ Zeanah, 2005
  2. ^ Prior & Glaser p 183
  3. ^ Chaffin et al (2006) p78
  4. ^ O'Connor & Zeanah, (2003)
  5. ^ Chaffin et al p. (2006)
  6. ^ Bowlby (1969) p 181
  7. ^ Bretherton & Munholland (1999) p 89
  8. ^ AACAP 2005, p1208
  9. ^ Levy K.N. et al (2005)
  10. ^ Prior & Glaser (2006) p 223
  11. ^ Prior & Glaser 2006, p. 220-221.
  12. ^ Prior & Glaser (2006) p218-219
  13. ^ Chaffin (2006) p 86
  14. ^ Boris & Zeannah (1999)
  15. ^ Mercer, J (2006) p 107
  16. ^ VanIJzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg (2003)
  17. ^ Ainsworth (1978),
  18. ^ Main & Solomon (1986), pp.95-124.
  19. ^ Main & Solomon (1990), pp. 121-160.
  20. ^ Crittenden (1992)
  21. ^ National Institute of Child Health and Human Development(1996)
  22. ^ Waters and Deane (1985)
  23. ^ Smyke and Zeanah (1999)
  24. ^ Chaffin et al, (2006) p 81
  25. ^ Chaffin et al (2006) p 82
  26. ^ Prior & Glaser (2006) p186-187
  27. ^ Chaffin (2006) p 82
  28. ^ Prior & Glaser (2006), p. 231.
  29. ^ AACAP (2005) p. 17-18.
  30. ^ BakermansKranenburg et al. (2003) A meta-analysis of early interventions.
  31. ^ Cohen et al. (1999)
  32. ^ van den Boom (1994)
  33. ^ van den Boom (1995)
  34. ^ Benoit et al. (2001)
  35. ^ Toth et al. (2002)
  36. ^ Marvin et al (2002)
  37. ^ Cooper et al (2005)
  38. ^ Dozier et al (2005)
  39. ^ Larrieu & Zeanah (1998)
  40. ^ Larrieu & Zeannah (2004)
  41. ^ Zeannah & Smyke (2005)
  42. ^ Leiberman et al. (2000), p. 432.
  43. ^ Interdisciplinary Council on Developmental & Learning Disorders. (2007). Dir/floortime model.
  44. ^ Dozier et al (2005)
  45. ^ Prior & Glaser (2006) p 262
  46. ^ Chaffin et al (2006) p 79


  • Ainsworth. Mary D., Blehar, M., Waters, E., &b Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0-89859-461-8.
  • AACAPPractice Parameter for the Assessment of Children and Adolescent with Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy and Early Childhood. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Nov; 44:
  • Bakermans-Kranenburg, M., van IJzendoorn, M. and Juffer, F. (2003). Less is more: meta-analyses of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood. Psychological Bulletin 129, 195-215
  • Benoit, D., Madigan, S., Lecce, S., Shea, B. and Goldberg, S. (2001). Atypical maternal behaviour toward feeding disordered infants before and after intervention. Infant mental health journal 22, 611-626.
  • Boris, N.W. and Zeanah, C.H. (1999). Disturbance and disorders of attachment in infancy: An overview. Infant Mental Health Journal. 20,1-9.
  • Bowlby J [1969] 2nd edition (1999). Attachment, Attachment and Loss (vol. 1), New York: Basic Books. LCCN 00266879; NLM 8412414. ISBN 0-465-00543-8 (pbk). OCLC 11442968.
  • Bretherton, I. and Munholland, K., A. (1999). Internal Working Models in Attachment Relationships: A Construct Revisited. In Cassidy, J. and Shaver, P., R. (eds.) Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research and Clinical Applications..pp.89-111. Guilford Press ISBN 1-57230-087-6.
  • Chaffin M; et al. (Feb 2006). Report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment Problems. Child Maltreatment 11 (1): 76-89. doi:10.1177/1077559505283699. ISSN 1552-6119.[1]
  • Cohen,N., Muir, E., Lojkasek, M., Muir, R., Parker, C., Barwick, M. and Brown, M. (1999) 'Watch,wait and wonder: testing the effectiveness of a new approach to mother-infant psychotherapy.' Infant Mental health Journal 20, 429-451.
  • Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., Powell, B. and Marvin, R. (2007). The Circle of Security Intervention; differential diagnosis and differential treatment. In Berlin, L.J., Ziv, Y., Amaya-Jackson, L. and Greenberg, M.T. (eds.) Enhancing Early Attachments; Theory, research, intervention, and policy. The Guilford Press. Duke series in Child Development and Public Policy. pp 127-151. ISBN 1593854706.
  • Crittenden, P. M. (1992). Quality of attachment in the preschool years. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 209-241.
  • Dozier,M., Lindheim,O. and Ackerman, J., P. 'Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up: An intervention targeting empirically identified needs of foster infants'. In Berlin, L.J., Ziv, Y., Amaya-Jackson, L. and Greenberg, M.T. (eds) Enhancing Early Attachments; Theory, research, intervention, and policy The Guilford press. Duke series in Child Development and Public Policy. pp 178 - 194. (2005)ISBN 1593854706 (pbk)
  • Interdisciplinary Council on Developmental & Learning Disorders. (2007). Dir/floortime model.
  • Zeanah, C.H., and Larrieu, J.A. (1998) "Intensive intervention for maltreated infants and toddlers in foster care. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 7,357-371.
  • Larrieu,J.A., & Zeanah,C.H. (2004). Treating infant-parent relationships in the context of maltreatment: An integrated, systems approach. In A.Saner, S. McDonagh, & K. Roesenblaum (eds.) Treating parent-infant relationship problems (pp. 243-264). New York: Guilford Press ISBN 1593852452
  • Levy KN, Meehan KB, Weber M, Reynoso J, Clarkin JF (2005). "Attachment and borderline personality disorder: implications for psychotherapy.". Psychopathology 38 (2): 64–74. doi:10.1159/000084813. PMID 15802944.
  • Lieberman, A.F., Silverman, R., Pawl, J.H. (2000). Infant-parent psychotherapy. In C.H. Zeanah, Jr. (ed.) Handbook of infant mental health (2nd ed.) (p. 432). New York: Guilford Press. ISBN 1593851715
  • Main, M. and Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of an insecure disorganized/disoriented attachment pattern: procedures, findings and implications for the classification of behavior. In T. Braxelton and M.Yogman (eds) Affective development in infancy, (pp. 95-124). Norwood, NJ: Ablex ISBN 0893913456
  • Main, M. and Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti and E. Cummings (eds) Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research and intervention, (pp. 121-160). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226306305.
  • Mercer, J (2006) Understanding Attachment. Westport, CT: Praeger
  • Marvin, R., Cooper, G., Hoffman, K. and Powell, B. The Circle of Security project: Attachment-based intervention with caregiver – pre-school child dyads. Attachment & Human Development Vol 4 No 1 April 2002 107–124.
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (1996). Characteristics of infant child care: Factors contributing to positive caregiving. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, 269-306
  • O'Connor, T.G., Zeannah C.H., Attachment disorders: Assessment strategies and treatment approaches. (2003) Attachment & Human Development,5,3, 223-244 doi 10.1080/14616730310001593974
  • Prior, V., Glaser, D. Understanding Attachment and Attachment Disorders: Theory, Evidence and Practice (2006). Child and Adolescent Mental Health Series. Jessica Kingsley Publishers London ISBN 1843102455 OCLC 70663735
  • Smyke, A. and Zeanah, C. (1999). Disturbances of Attachment Interview. Available on the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry website at
  • Toth, S., Maughan, A., Manly, J., Spagnola, M. and Cicchetti, D. (2002) 'The relative efficacy of two in altering maltreated preschool children's representational models: implications for attachment theory.' Development and psychopathology 14, 877-908.
  • van den Boom, D. (1994). The influence of temperament and mothering on attachment and exploration: an experimental manipulation of sensitive responsiveness among lower-class mothers with irritable infants. Child Development 65, 1457-1477.
  • van den Boom, D. (1995). Do first year intervention effects endure? Follow-up during toddlerhood of a sample of Dutch irritable infants. Child development 66, 1798-1816.
  • VanIJzendoorn, M & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. (2003). Attachment disorders and disorganized attachment: Similar and different. Attachment & Human Development, 5.313-320
  • Waters, E. and Deane, K (1985). Defining and assessing individual differences in attachment relationships: Q-methodology and the organization of behavior in infancy and early childhood. In I. Bretherton and E. Waters (Eds) Growing pains of attachment theory and research: Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 50, Serial No. 209 (1-2), 41-65
  • Zeanah, C., H. and Smyke, A., T. "Building Attachment Relationships Following Maltreatment and Severe Deprivation" In Berlin,L.,J., Ziv, Y., Amaya-Jackson, L. and Greenberg, M., T. Enhancing Early Attachments; Theory, research, intervention, and policy The Guilford Press, 2005 pps 195-216 ISBN 1593854706 (pbk)

Further reading

  • Holmes, J (2001). The Search for the Secure Base. Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge. ISBN 1583911529
  • Cassidy, J; Shaver, P (eds.) (1999). Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications. New York: Guilford Press. ISBN 1-57230-087-6.
  • Zeanah, CH (ed.) (1993). Handbook of Infant Mental Health. New York: Guilford Press. ISBN 1593851715
  • Bowlby, J (1988). A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development. London: Routledge; New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-415-00640-6.
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Attachment_disorder". A list of authors is available in Wikipedia.
Your browser is not current. Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 does not support some functions on Chemie.DE