Method

Results and Discussion

Luisa’s case will be analyzed first and Claudia’s second, independently of one another. Specific aspects of the interviews that help describe and characterize the participants’ state of mind with respect to attachment will be highlighted. Those sensitive behaviors by the mother and attachment security behaviors by the child that were observed to be most characteristic and can be explained based on each case’s state of mind classification, will also be discussed.

Luisa “dances between angels and ghosts”

When talking about her relationship with her mother during childhood, Luisa describes the latter as “close-minded”, “anxious”, “very much a homemaker”, “worried”, and “alert”. Asked about why she described her mother as “close-minded”, Luisa responded: “Yes, because she was not one of those moms who understands things, she never asked me why something had happened, why that other thing had happened... her solution was always to punish.” Luisa describes a number of episodes of maternal violence, such as beatings with a stick, and also threatening attitudes, such as frightening Luisa with objects she was scared of, like a sheep’s head.

Thus, the mother, the main figure of attachment, is remembered as a source of fright, which faces Luisa with an unresolvable paradox. Speaking about these issues, her discourse turns disoriented; at times, she can’t name the violence or finish her sentences, and uses meaningless words to describe her abuse: “Ehhh... I... let’s say, but mom, wait, nooo but meeee... she began to yell and ta ta ta ta... my mom found the pretext and hit me with whatever because I was dad’s favorite otherwise.”

It can also be inferred in the narrative that Luisa’s mother rejected her daughter’s approaches and was not a figure Luisa could seek in stressful situations. When Luisa felt overwhelmed, she talked to her sister; when she hurt herself, she would not go to her mother; and when she fell ill, it was her father who took her to the doctor. Luisa does not seem to trust her mother’s availability in the present, either: forced to absent herself from the household due to an emergency, she left her 15-year-old daughter in charge of the infant, which may signify a lack of confidence in her own mother’s ability to care for the child.

When asked to explain why she describes her mother as “anxious”, Luisa says:

“Yes, see, all kinds of memories, my mom is one who, for instance, I picked up a cup with water or with milk and nooo, nooo! you are going to trip and fall, you are going to! so mi mom is, she was already thinking the milk was spilled, I had already burned myself, I was already in the hospital. So, before anything happened, she had, she already was predisposed, but she would not see the good side, she always, the tragic side, or something is going to happen, what cra...! but nothing has happened yet, but it will! She, no, no, at some level she can be scary and even now, for example, my little baby is walking and aaaaaaiiihhh! Don’t shout I tell her because, leave her alone! If she falls, she can get up. No, I don’t follow on that path, but my mom is like that to this day.”

Some violations of the manner of the narrative (according to ^{Grice’s classification, 1975}) can be seen in this passage, when Luisa uses exaggerated language (“all kinds of”; “always the tragic side”) or introduces exchanges she had with her mother as if they were taking place in the present. A lowering of Luisa’s temporal monitoring of her state of mind with respect to those experiences is also observed, as she moves from speaking about the past (her childhood) to the present and to events related to her own daughter. This way of narrating experiences with her mother indicate that Luisa remains “involved” in the situation.

Luisa describes her current relationship with her mother: “My mom helps me plenty now, but she meddles (...) I see her like she’s trying to mend some things. My mom several times has apologized to me for her abuse.” Luisa says that several characteristics of her mother still bother her, yet she articulates a possible explanation for her mother’s behavior (“I see her like she’s trying to mend some things”) and seems to imply forgiveness.

Meanwhile, the adjectives Luisa chooses to describe her father are neither too positive, nor too negative: “grouchy”, “perfectionist”, “joyful”, “a friend”, and “responsible”. Regarding the adjective “grouchy”, Luisa says: “(...) when he got exasperated, he would raise his voice, but never hit us (...) We have no memories of major episodes with him, but I was aware he could grumble or could be preoccupied about work, he yelled at my mom.” While describing him as someone who yelled and fought often with his partner, Luisa says that her father would defend her from her mother (“My dad was there to defend me”), which made her feel special. In general, the adjectives used to describe the father are supported in Luisa’s discourse, which allows us to infer in him an attitude of care towards his daughter. No significant violations of Grice’s maxims are observed. Luisa states that she had a closer relationship with her father than with her mother, and indicates in her discourse that having her father as a source of support during childhood was important for her.

Alongside her father and mother, another figure has been important in Luisa’s life: her godmother (an aunt), who also functioned as a figure of support. “She took me, during school vacations, she took me to her home, which was the opposite of my home, in the sense that my mom, due to her pro... my mom didn’t let us, she didn’t let us play anymore (...) And I would wait for the weekend to arrive and again try to get my godmother to take me.” Luisa recounts episodes of greater calm with her godmother, in the absence of the mother’s psychological violence. It can also be observed that Luisa’s rage when speaking about her mother is contained, as she does not complete the word in “my mom, due to her pro...” Luisa may have been about to say “due to her problem”, but stopped herself short, not allowing herself to talk about the subject in those terms.

Luisa’s manner of speaking is spontaneous and light-hearted, not clichéd, with expressions like “look, something just came to mind right now.” Her discourse is coherent, her rage is contained, and at times she employs a humorous tone. She appears involved in the relationship with her mother, consciously articulating active complaints, yet displaying recognition and acceptance of who the mother and the relationship itself are, and evincing forgiveness of flaws. At the same time, Luisa does not identify with her mother’s negative characteristics. All of the above are features of a secure state of mind with respect to attachment.

Also present in Luisa’s discourse are metacognitive processes related to her monitoring and reporting of thought process in the course of the interview, a good indicator of secure attachment. These operations refer to the recognition of a change in the presentation of the figure of the mother. Luisa says: “So, that was the part that my mom, well, later when I was an adolescent I was able to understand why she did those things, right? (...) As a child, one doesn’t know the troubles they had as a couple, right? It was a way of blowing off steam, but I came to understand that later.”

Based on the classification and the analysis of the interview, the conclusion is that Luisa tends toward an unresolved state of mind with respect to attachment due to traumatic childhood experiences, yet her characteristics, despite those experiences, justify an alternative sub-classification of secure-autonomous attachment.

^{Fonagy, Steele, Moran, Steele and Higgit (1993}) write that the AAI makes it possible to measure the “ghosts in the room”, a metaphor to describe the way in which a mother’s relationship with her infant is imbued with unresolved experiences. In this case, Luisa’s experiences of violence manifest themselves in her relationship with her own children, to the point that she finds it extremely difficult to separate and leave her infant under the care of someone else; she says she does not trust her mother to care for the baby. Nevertheless, although Luisa’s experiences of violence are unresolved, she is given a secure sub-classification. It is possible that Luisa’s godmother functioned as an alternative figure of protection, an “angel in the room” (^{Lieberman, Padrón, Van Horn, & Harris, 2005}). Several studies underscore the importance of the presence of alternative care figures in the face of an individual’s negative experiences with his or her parents during childhood. When such figures are able to provide adequate emotional support, they ease the acquisition of security and internalization of relationship patterns that are conducive to a more secure state of mind (^{Saunders et al., 2011}; ^{Zaccagnino, Cussino, Saunders, Jacobvitz, & Veglia, 2014}). Luisa navigates daily life between such “ghosts” and “angels”, albeit which of them comes to the fore may shift from moment to moment.

With regards to her own maternal behavior, Luisa displays the ability to detect, interpret, and respond to her daughter’s needs (r= .749). Observed among Luisa’s most characteristic behaviors is a sensitive response to the child’s signals, maintaining a positive mood (MBQS, item 36) and a high degree of participation in their interactions. The ability to notice the child’s signals (MBQS, item 1) and to seek face-to-face interactions are also characteristic. It is important to note that, while negative feelings towards the child may be present, Luisa is able to set them aside when interacting (MBQS, item 22). So, while Luisa presents unresolved attachment, her ability to recognize her own state of mind and that of her child makes it possible to sustain more regulated and positive interactions (^{Berthelot et al., 2015}; ^{Madigan et al., 2015}).

On her part, Luisa’s daughter has been able to establish a secure bond with her (r= .383). The infant displays warmth in interactions with her mother and is open to exploring the environment and interacting with others. She is observed to be lighthearted, playful (AQS, item 9), active most of the time (AQS, item 68), expressive in her interactions (AQS, item 89), and attracted to new activities (AQS, item 85). The child does not easily become angry and does not appear impatient, demanding, or upset at her mother’s behaviors (AQS, items 30, 38 and 65). As ^{Hsiao et al. (2015}) point out, mothers who display elements of secure attachment provide greater opportunities for their children to express emotions and needs, which can then be adequately processed.

Claudia “swims” under her traumatic childhood experiences

Claudia grew up with her mother, father, and three siblings. The experiences of enduring violence at the hands of her father and witnessing domestic abuse were traumatic for her, and her narrative during the interview was suffused with those events. “...because my dad wasn’t, I mean, he wasn’t someone to pick up a belt, right?, I mean he hit you with whatever was at hand, so, eh, that’s what I was afraid of, for my dad to be holding something whack! he throws me down because if I remember correctly once my dad (...) my dad pulled me by my hair and left me, he pulled me to the floor, later, I have a scar here or here, something like this on my face (aha) because, because he threw me down and... and... I fell on my face, like that I got scratched, that was what I have worst, right?” A different episode Claudia recounts is of one time when “...my eye got swollen because when he hit me with the belt, the buckle caught me and gave me a bump.”

Claudia says that her mother did not pay much attention to her. “Oh my mom when I said mom, eh, how do you say it, help me with my homework, my mom said ‘no, can’t you see I have to be selling? you need to realize that if I don’t sell, you’ll have nothing to eat.” Claudia’s discourse posits high levels of rejection and negligence in the inferred experiences of her parents.

Claudia was not able to obtain support from her parents in stressful situations. Asked about an episode of her childhood when she may have felt overwhelmed, she says: “I cried, cried, cried... when my parents fought I sometimes felt that, I’d say, God I want to die... Ehhh... sometimes I wanted to run away from home (...).” The subject of violence again comes up in her narrative, as does the fact that such violent episodes prompted depressive feelings and ideas of death.

When physically hurt, Claudia says she sought her mother’s attention by causing herself even more harm: “Sometimes I tried to push it out, to, to, to have it, to have the hurt be bad, sometimes when I fell doing that, I scratched myself to make it bigger, to to have them pay attention and maybe that way, right?, my mom paid attention to me, she helped me heal, and sometimes, that’s when I asked her do you love me, and my mom said yes, I love you very much, and I said no, you don’t love me, and even now sometimes.”

Throughout the interview, Claudia appears confused, frightened, and distraught by her traumatic experiences. The subject dominates the interview and emerges in incoherent ways; several moments are suffused with fear, giving the impression that Claudia is unable to distance herself from the issue or to control it, as it overwhelms her thought process. For example, in a passage of the interview when she is talking about the adjectives used to describe her father, Claudia says: “I was sometimes scared of... sometimes seeing myself like that my my my trembled, I I felt weird seeing them like that, better I went to my grandma’s and told my grandma. (...) when I saw my dad I was trembling like that or if I saw I would keep very quiet, very still so he didn’t, because everything set him off.”

Claudia’s discourse also features violations of ^{Grice’s maxim of quantity (Grice, 1975}), as she provides more information than necessary, taking long conversation turns in several passages of the interview. There are evidences of diminished monitoring in connection with trauma-inducing situations. When Claudia talks about the situations of violence she experienced, emotional and cognitive dysregulation can be observed: she hesitates and speaks of fear, which generates a frightened/frightening pattern of maternal behavior.

In summary, Claudia suffered physical violence from her father and witnessed violence between her parents. Her narrative is confused, frightened, and distraught, and her thoughts include visual intrusions. Claudia presents an unresolved state of mind, frightened and preoccupied with traumatic events. This classification is rarely found in low-risk samples. It describes individuals who have lived through frightening experiences regarding attachment, for whom such experiences remain active concerns and may even dominate mental processes in unpredictable ways.

Claudia is affected by her traumatic experiences in the present and in connection with her own children. Asked by the interviewer “Does this experience influence in any way how you relate to your children?” Claudia responds: “Yes, at times I feel I am treating my little boy badly. There are times when he doesn’t want to eat and I you don’t want to eat ok oooook now you have nooothiiiing, like that, right? (...) There are times I see my boy crying and when I see him crying I cry with him because I say I am not well.” This shows how, not having had a figure of support and containment in childhood, Claudia becomes overwhelmed and anxious when her child cries; it is her who needs attention and containment. This is characteristic of preoccupied attachment patterns.

Low levels of sensitivity were observed (r= .197) in Claudia’s behavior, with inadequate responses to the child’s signals. It was also found that Claudia tends to interfere in the child’s activities and shows scant interest in his physical appearance. Her most characteristic behaviors focus on tending to the child’s physical needs, such as providing nutritional snacks (MBQS, item 48) or placing toys within the child’s reach (MBQS, item 90); however, she tends to dismiss the child’s emotional state, either ignoring his signals of anxiety or distress or delaying response (MBQS, item 11), and responding only when the signals become frequent, prolonged, or intense (MBQS, item 7). Such maternal behaviors are in agreement with what the literature describes in connection with an unresolved state of mind, which results in low levels of emotional availability and sensitivity (^{Moehler et al., 2007}). The mother’s inability to monitor her behavior in interactions and to respond to the child’s stress appear to be the result of childhood trauma and her difficulty in integrating those experiences. (Lyon-Ruth & Jacobvitz, 1999).

On his part, Claudia’s child has not been able to develop a secure bond with his mother (r= -.322). His behavior displays limited warmth in interactions with Claudia and diminished proximity-seeking in stressful situations (AQS, item 88). The child’s interactions with other adults are equally limited. His secure base behavior was found to be characterized by difficulties in regulating emotional states and finding adequate strategies to elicit the mother’s care: the child becomes upset when his mother leaves (AQS, item 13); is demanding and impatient when he wants something from her (AQS, item 38); behaves generally as if she will not do what he wants (AQS, item 74); and expresses his needs through fussiness, crying, or discomfort (AQS, item 81 and 38). Studies by ^{Hsiao et al. (2015}) and by ^{Negrão, Pereira, Soares, and Mesman (2016}) have pointed out that mothers with unresolved and preoccupied attachment, like Claudia, often redirect interactions to focus on their own emotional experience rather than the child’s. This renders the mother incapable of organizing the child’s experiences (especially in the case of negative emotional experiences such as pain, sadness, or grief) and unable to function as a secure base that can help resolve them.

Conclusions

This study describes representations of attachment in two mothers assigned an unresolved state of mind classification. While both cases feature unresolved childhood experiences of violence, substantive differences in discourse organization prompted differing sub-classifications. In one case, a secure sub-classification was given based on the presence of elaboration of those early experiences and of alternative figures of support in the individual’s life; the insecure sub-classification assigned in the second case is due to the presence of preoccupation and fear in connection with traumatic experiences. Taking these sub-classifications into account, it becomes clear that the individual with unresolved/secure attachment displays greater levels of maternal sensitivity and security in her bond with the child, compared to the individual classified as unresolved/insecure. These results are in accord with the literature.

The results of this study show that, by providing information about the effects of past trauma on present behavior, the classification and detailed analysis of unresolved states of mind and the corresponding sub-classification contribute in significant ways to an understanding of traumatic experiences. This makes it possible to plan interventions that are pertinent to each specific configuration. Based on her results, treatment for Luisa would involve working with the “angels” and “ghosts” that are rooted on her traumatic experiences, as well as with her rage levels, in order to foster greater narrative coherence and to avoid the repetition or unraveling of that rage in the relationship with her children. An intervention for Claudia, meanwhile, would focus on understanding and integrating her lived experiences, and on promoting secure attachment by improving Claudia’s sensitive response to her child’s needs.

These results show that the AAI and the observation of a dyad’s behavior mutually validate one another. It would nevertheless be pertinent to analyze larger groups of mothers, allowing for greater systematization. Those results would be of capital importance for clinical work with mothers, especially in high-risk populations.