See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263917326
Attachment the Italian Way
Article in European Psychologist · January 2013
DOI: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000128
CITATIONS
READS
40
3,289
4 authors:
Cassibba Rosalinda
Giovanna Sette
Bari University, Italy
Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro
83 PUBLICATIONS 1,171 CITATIONS
5 PUBLICATIONS 117 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Marian bakermans-kranenburg
Marinus H. van IJzendoorn
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Erasmus University Rotterdam; UCL
543 PUBLICATIONS 40,543 CITATIONS
840 PUBLICATIONS 62,020 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Child and Adolescent development View project
Boys will be boys? View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Cassibba Rosalinda on 14 December 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
SEE PROFILE
Volume 18 | Number 1 | 2013
ISSN-L 1016-9040 · ISSN-Print 1016-9040 · ISSN-Online 1878-531X
European
Psychologist
www.hogrefe.com/journals/ep
Editor-in-Chief
Alexander Grob
Managing Editor
Kristen Lavallee
Associate Editors
R. Banse · U. Ehlert
G. Galfano · K. Salmela-Aro
N. Anderson
Official Organ of the European Federation
of Psychologists’ Associations (EFPA)
1|13
Contents
Editorial
Original Articles and
Reviews
EFPA News and Views
European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1)
European Psychologist Moves Forward
Alexander Grob and Kristen Lavallee
1
Using Personal Cell Phones for Ecological Momentary Assessment: An
Overview of Current Developments
Emmanuel Kuntsche and Florian Labhart
3
Psychological Resilience: A Review and Critique of Definitions, Concepts,
and Theory
David Fletcher and Mustafa Sarkar
12
Procrastination: When Good Things Don’t Come to Those Who Wait
Katrin B. Klingsieck
24
Impairments in Mental Model Construction and Benefits of Defocused
Attention: Distinctive Facets of Subclinical Depression
Ulrich von Hecker, Grzegorz Sedek, and Aneta Brzezicka
35
Attachment the Italian Way: In Search of Specific Patterns of Infant and
Adult Attachments in Italian Typical and Atypical Samples
Rosalinda Cassibba, Giovanna Sette, Marian J. Bakermans-Kranenburg,
and Marinus H. van IJzendoorn
47
Intergenerational Family Relations in Luxembourg: Family Values and
Intergenerational Solidarity in Portuguese Immigrant and Luxembourgish
Families
Isabelle Albert, Dieter Ferring, and Tom Michels
59
A Decade of European Congresses of Psychology: From London to Istanbul
– a Report
Veronika Polisenska
70
News and Announcements: From the EFPA Network of National News
Correspondents
73
Meeting Calendar
75
Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing
European
Psychologist
Your article has appeared in a journal published by Hogrefe Publishing.
This e-offprint is provided exclusively for the personal use of the authors. It may not be
posted on a personal or institutional website or to an institutional or disciplinary repository.
If you wish to post the article to your personal or institutional website or to archive it
in an institutional or disciplinary repository, please use either a pre-print or a post-print of
your manuscript in accordance with the publication release for your article and our
‘‘Online Rights for Journal Articles’’ (www.hogrefe.com/journals).
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
Original Articles and Reviews
Attachment the Italian Way
In Search of Specific Patterns of Infant and Adult
Attachments in Italian Typical and Atypical Samples
Rosalinda Cassibba,1 Giovanna Sette,1 Marian J. Bakermans-Kranenburg,2
and Marinus H. van IJzendoorn2
1
Department of Psychological and Educational Sciences, University of Bari, Italy, 2Centre for Child
and Family Studies, University of Leiden, The Netherlands
Abstract. In the present meta-analysis 627 Strange Situation Procedures (SSP;
Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) from 17 Italian infant attachment studies
and 2,258 Adult Attachment Interviews (AAI; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985) from 50
Italian adult attachment studies were included. All studies were published between
1990 and 2009. Our aim was to test the universality hypothesis of attachment theory
in this Italian database. Results indicated that the majority of nonclinical Italian
infants were classified as securely attached (53%); similarly, the majority of
nonclinical Italian adults were secure (60%). Although cross-cultural similarities
provide evidence for the universality hypothesis of attachment theory, our metaanalysis revealed also interesting cultural specificities. First, nonclinical Italian
infants’ distribution showed an overrepresentation of avoidant attachments compared to the normative distribution. Second, the underrepresentation of unresolved
loss among Italian nonclinical adults was noteworthy.
Keywords: strange situation, adult attachment interview, meta-analysis, Italian
cultural specificities
In the past three decades, attachment theory has generated a
vast amount of research. An important factor facilitating the
study of attachment was the availability of validated and
replicable assessment procedures for attachment, such as
the Strange Situation (SSP, Ainsworth & Wittig, 1969), to
measure the attachment security in infancy, and the Adult
Attachment Interview (AAI, Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy,
1985) to assess adults’ state of mind regarding attachment.
Although the study of attachment has been most intensive
in the United States of America, attachment research has
become truly international, with numerous studies conducted in European countries as well as in other parts of
the world (Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn,
2009a).
One of the most productive countries in terms of number of attachment studies is Italy, where attachment theory
was adopted with great eagerness at an early stage. Here we
focus on Italian attachment studies to examine whether the
distributions of child and adult attachment classifications
converge with the global distributions, or whether Italy
takes a special position. Italy has been found to be a special
culture in terms of a combination of individualistic and collectivistic orientations, and in having the lowest rank on an
Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing
index of women’s status among industrialized societies
(Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009). Attachment theory emphasizes the bias in infants to establish an attachment relationship, regardless of culture-specific influences. Nevertheless,
universality does not preclude the existence of culturespecific differences and cultural idiosyncrasies in the development of patterns of attachment. From an evolutionary
point of view, adaptive attachment behaviors can be realized in various ways depending on the specific (cultural)
niche in which children have to survive (Main, 1990; van
IJzendoorn & Sagi-Schwartz, 2008).
The findings of cross-cultural studies confirm a combination of universal trends and contextual determinants of
attachment. In general, parents perceive attachment security in a similar manner within and across societies
(Posada et al., 1995). Also, in all cultures studied thus
far the secure pattern emerges as the dominant pattern
(van IJzendoorn & Sagi-Schwartz, 2008). The three basic
SSP attachment patterns in infants (Secure, Avoidant, and
Ambivalent), as well as the AAI patterns in adults
(Secure, Dismissing, and Preoccupied), can be found in
every culture for which data are available, although significant cross-cultural differences in the distribution of
European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):47–58
DOI: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000128
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
48
R. Cassibba et al.: Attachment the Italian Way
classifications have been found. For example, in Israeli
studies ambivalent attachments appear to be overrepresented and avoidant attachments are almost nonexistent
(Sagi, Koren-Karie, Gini, Ziv, & Joels, 2002; Sagi
et al., 1997). In a similar vein, ambivalent attachments
are found to be prevalent in Japan while avoidant attachments seem to be underrepresented (Miyake, Chen, &
Campos, 1985; Rothbaum, Weisz, Pott, Miyake, &
Morelli, 2000; Takahashi, 1986). Less strong crosscultural differences have been found in adult attachments
but studies in non-Western countries are still scarce (for a
review, see Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn,
2009a).
To the best of our knowledge this is the first study with
meta-analytic data on attachment distributions from Italy.
We explore the following interrelated questions. The first
issue is whether the majority of Italian (nonclinical, typically developing or functioning) infants and adults are classified as secure. Although we hypothesize that the majority
of Italian infants and adults are secure, we also expect some
culture specificity in the distributions. A meta-analytic
study on individualistic versus collectivistic orientations
in several countries placed Italy very close to the USA
(considered the prototype of high individualism and low
collectivism) with respect to the individualism but, at the
same time, the Italians seemed rather collectivistic in their
orientation compared to the Americans (Oyserman, Coon,
& Kemmelmeier, 2002).
Another relevant dimension of Italian culture is the
dominant role of Catholicism (80% of the population is
Catholic, EURISPES, 2010). As hypothesized by Cassibba,
Granqvist, Costantini, and Gatto (2008), some organized
forms of religion, like Catholicism, may help to promote
successful mental resolution of trauma. For example, religion is likely to give hope for continued existence in a
metaphysical sense, which also implies a prospect of
reunion with deceased loved ones. We therefore expect a
lower percentage of unresolved attachments in Italian
samples.
The third issue concerns the distribution of infant and
adult attachments in clinical samples. In line with previous
meta-analytic findings results (van IJzendoorn, Goldberg,
Kroonenberg, & Frenkel, 1992, for infants, and
Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 2009a, for
adults), we expect a significant deviation of attachment distributions from the normative pattern for both infants and
adults with psychological problems.
Lastly, gender differences within the Italian samples
will be examined. Although attachment seems not to be
different for males versus females in many studies (van
IJzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 1996; BakermansKranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 2009a, 2009b), recently
Del Giudice (2009) argued that gender might play a role.
Italy has traditionally been a society with strong gender
differentiation, and in fact is a country with the lowest
rank on an index of women’s status among all European
and North-American countries, Australia, New Zealand,
and Japan (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009, p. 60), so this is
unique testing ground for potential gender differences in
attachment.
European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):47–58
Method
Database
Pertinent studies were selected through PsycINFO, using
the keywords ‘‘attachment,’’ ‘‘Italian,’’ and ‘‘Strange Situation Procedure.’’ In addition, a systematic search of references to SSP and AAI studies (from 1990 to 2009) was
conducted through tables of content of all Italian journals
of psychology and through catalogs of psychology books
of Italian publishers. Unpublished papers, such as doctoral
dissertations and conference papers, were also included, to
protect the meta-analytic procedure against the ‘‘file drawer
problem,’’ or the tendency of negative or inconclusive findings to remain hidden or unpublished (Rosenthal, 1979).
The following criteria were subsequently applied in
selecting the database for the current analyses: (1) Only
SSP and AAI studies with Italian samples (for both normative and clinical/at risk samples) were considered.
(2) Among studies on infant-mother attachment, only those
using the gold-standard Strange Situation Procedure, and
reporting the distribution of A, B, and C (or A, B, C, D,
or A/C) classifications, were considered. Regarding studies
on adult attachment, only those using the original AAI coding system (Main & Goldwyn, 1991, Main, Goldwyn, &
Hesse, 2003) or AICA (Attachment Interview for Child
and Adolescence; Ammaniti et al., 1990), and reporting
the three-way Ds, F, and E classifications or the four-way
classifications including Ds, F, E, and U, were considered.
As is customary, adults’ U and CC classifications were
combined; (3) When studies included two subsamples, both
groups were used, assigning them to their respective groups
of studies (i.e., normative sample and clinical/at risk sample). Overlapping samples were excluded, in order to
include every participant only once in the analyses. When
a study involved multiple assessments, the first assessment
was chosen to avoid the potentially contaminating effect of
a previous assessment (see van IJzendoorn et al., 1992);
(4) Among studies that did not stem from peer-reviewed
publications (i.e., chapters or conference papers), only those
were considered where at least one of the authors was a
reliable AAI coder (certified by Mary Main) or intercoder
agreement was more than .75 and at least one of the coders
was a reliable, certified SSP coder.
This selection procedure resulted in 17 studies (23 samples; 627 participants) using the SSP and in 50 studies
(72 samples; 2,258 participants) using the AAI with Italian
samples.
Data Analysis
We used approach that has been previously applied in
several meta-analyses on attachment distributions (e.g., van
IJzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 1996; van
IJzendoorn & Kroonenberg, 1988; van IJzendoorn et al.,
1992; Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 2009a).
Multinomial tests were performed to compare SSP and
AAI Italian distributions with the norm distribution for which
Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
R. Cassibba et al.: Attachment the Italian Way
49
Table 1. Distributions (frequencies, percentages, and standardized residuals) of norm American and Italian SSP
classifications and multinomial tests for the comparison with the norm group
Three-way
N
American norm
sample
Overall Italian
nonclinical sample
A (%)
419 138 (33%) 223 (53%)
208
84 (40%)
5.27**
Italian samples with 118
maternal risk factors
51 (43%)
4.64**
Italian samples with
child risk factors
C (%)
1,584 325 (21%) 1,062 (67%) 197 (12%)
5.26**
Overall Italian
at risk samples
B (%)
Four-way
90
33 (36%)
2.69
3.31**
67 (32%)
5.43**
32 (27%)
4.78**
35 (40%)
2.76
2
v
N
A (%)
B (%)
C (%)
D (%)
v2
306 70 (23%) 168 (55%) 23 (7%) 45 (15%)
58 (14%) 39.38** 262 74 (28%) 115 (44%) 15 (6%) 58 (22%) 18.52**
0.86
1.77
2.42
0.78
2.98
57 (28%) 91.40** 95 27 (28%) 26 (27%) 9 (10%) 33 (35%) 39.90**
5.84**
1.10
3.63**
0.91
4.97**
35 (30%) 70.90** 45 13 (29%) 10 (22%) 6 (13%) 16 (36%) 24.72**
5.15**
0.82
2.96
22 (24%) 23.64** 50 14 (28%) 16 (32%)
2.97
0.74
2.19
1.61
3.56**
3 (6%) 17 (34%) 17.46**
0.27
3.47**
Note. *p < .05. **p < .01.
AAI and SSP originally were developed. The frequency
distributions of three-way and four-way attachment classifications in Italian samples were tested against the proportions
of the norm distribution (see Tables 1 and 2). For the analyses
on the Italian SSP studies, the comparison normative data
were taken from 21 USA samples used as the norm from previous meta-analyses (van IJzendoorn et al., 1992). We used
these normative data instead of the most recent meta-analytic
SSP distribution (van IJzendoorn et al., 1999) because we
were interested in comparing both three- and four-way SSP
distributions in Italy, while the most recent meta-analysis
(van IJzendoorn, Schuengel, & Bakermans-Kranenburg,
1999) reported only four-way distributions.
For the analyses of the AAI studies the distribution of
nonclinical North American mothers was used as the norm
distribution (see Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn,
2009a). The standardized residuals of the difference
between observed and expected frequencies in each cell
were computed. Because of the large number of tests, standardized residuals smaller than 3.29 or larger than 3.29
(corresponding to a p-value of .001) were considered to
indicate a significant deviation from the norm.
In order to test the intra-cultural differences across Italian samples with respect to gender (male vs. female), age
(adolescents vs. adults), and type of population (nonclinical
vs. clinical/at risk), a series of cross-tabulations of total distributions by type of sample was conducted. More specifically, cross-tabulations of nonclinical and clinical/at risk
samples by three- and four-way AAI classifications were
performed. For the AAI comparisons, cross-tabulations of
male and female, adult and adolescent, nonclinical and clinical/at risk samples by three- and four-way AAI classifications were done, and accompanying chi-square statistics
were computed.
Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing
Results
Distribution of Child Attachment
In the combined samples of Italian nonclinical children
(N = 419), 33% were classified as A, 53% as B, and
14% as C. A majority of nonclinical children were classified as secure. With the inclusion of D category, the distribution of the combined samples (N = 262) was 28% A,
44% B, 6% C, and 22% D. Compared with the US normative sample, the overall SSP distribution of nonclinical Italian children showed significant deviations (see Table 1); in
particular, Italian children were more avoidant than the normative sample of US children. In the four-way comparison,
the Italian SSP distribution deviated from the overall normative distribution but none of the standardized residuals
for the cells were significant.
The three-way distribution of attachments in clinical/at
risk children (N = 208) was 40% A, 32% B, and 28% C.
With the category U included, the combined samples
(N = 95) showed the following distribution: 28% A, 27%
B, 10% C, and 35% D.
The combined samples of clinical/at risk Italian children
showed fewer secure attachment classifications and an
overrepresentation of the insecure categories compared to
the US nonclinical children, see Table 1. Considering the
four-way distribution, the Italian SSP distribution deviated
from the norm as well; specifically, the D category
appeared to be overrepresented in the clinical/at risk Italian
sample.
An overrepresentation of the avoidant category (v2(2,
N = 1,299) = 44.9, p < .001) emerged when we compared
clinical/at risk Italian children to the US clinical samples.
Including the category U, the two distributions did not
European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):47–58
European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):47–58
85
620
220
1493
230
159
82
41
42
Italian nonclinical fathers
Italian nonclinical adolescents
Italian nonclinical not specified
Overall Italian nonclinical
Italian at risk
Italian clinical
Italian parents of child with physical problems
Italian parents of child with psychological problems
Italian violence within family
Note. *p < .05. **p < .01.
554
568
Italian nonclinical mothers
195 (35%)
6.24**
22 (52%)
4.06**
16 (39%)
2.21
26 (32%)
1.74
52 (33%)
2.68
79 (34%)
3.91**
368 (25%)
1.33
45 (20%)
0.67
168 (27%)
2.13
30 (35%)
2.46
125 (22%)
0.49
169 (23%)
Ds (%)
209 (38%)
6.27**
9 (22%)
3.11
6 (15%)
3.65**
33 (40%)
2.11
49 (31%)
4.50**
112 (49%)
1.88
896 (60%)
1.02
142 (65%)
1.27
379 (61%)
1.02
39 (46%)
1.47
336 (59%)
0.36
434 (58%)
F (%)
150 (27%)
4.11**
11 (26%)
1.00
19 (46%)
3.92**
23 (28%)
1.78
58 (36%)
4.90**
39 (17%)
1.02
229 (15%)
3.25
33 (15%)
1.48
73 (12%)
4.13**
16 (19%)
0.12
107 (19%)
0.09
145 (19%)
E (%)
95.19**
27.19**
33.57**
10.69**
51.44**
19.84**
13.34**
4.24*
22.61**
8.24*
0.38
v
2
499
52
41
260
146
842
205
336
301
700
N
133 (27%)
5.64**
16 (31%)
2.55
7 (17%)
0.10
79 (30%)
5.55**
31 (21%)
1.43
172 (21%)
2.86
35 (17%)
0.23
80 (24%)
3.34**
57 (19%)
1.07
115 (16%)
Ds (%)
125 (25%)
9.24**
6 (12%)
4.28**
5 (12%)
3.75**
43 (17%)
8.50**
71 (49%)
1.19
508 (60%)
1.68
119 (58%)
0.39
209 (62%)
1.52
180 (60%)
0.88
392 (56%)
F (%)
78 (15%)
4.51**
8 (15%)
1.40
10 (25%)
3.12
44 (17%)
3.94**
16 (11%)
0.60
92 (11%)
1.42
24 (12%)
1.06
33 (10%)
0.23
35 (11%)
1.24
66 (9%)
E (%)
Four-way
163 (33%)
22 (42%)
4.00**
19 (46%)
4.24**
94 (36%)
6.82**
28 (19%)
0.29
70 (8%)
6.70**
27 (13%)
1.67
14 (4%)
6.01**
29 (10%)
3.47**
127 (18%)
U (%)
195.48**
43.56**
41.76**
165.10**
3.92
57.86**
4.13
49.68**
15.48**
v2
50
Overall Italian clinical/at risk
748
American Mothers (norm)
N
Three-way
Table 2. Distributions (frequencies, percentages and standardized residuals) of norm American and Italian AAI classifications and multinomial tests for the
comparison with the norm group
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
R. Cassibba et al.: Attachment the Italian Way
Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
R. Cassibba et al.: Attachment the Italian Way
differ significantly (v2(2, N = 571) = 7.09, p = .069) (data
not shown).
The clinical/at risk Italian samples were subdivided
according to the type of risk (maternal vs. child risk factors). The three-way distribution in samples with maternal
risk was 43% A, 27% B, and 30% C, which differed significantly from the norm distribution. Italian children with
clinical/at risk mothers appeared to be less often secure,
and more avoidant or ambivalent. For the four-way distribution, the SSP distribution was 29% A, 22% B, 13% C,
and 36% D, which was also significantly different from
the US norm, with a significant overrepresentation of disorganized attachment.
Italian samples with at risk children revealed a somewhat different pattern. The three-way (36% A, 40% B,
and 24% C) distribution did not deviate from the normative
sample. Only the four-way SSP categories distribution of
Italian atypically developing children differed significantly
from the norm with an overrepresentation of D classifications (see Table 1).
Finally, comparisons within the Italian samples were
made. Comparing nonclinical with clinical/at risk threeway SSP distributions, a significant difference emerged
(v2(2, N = 627) = 22.94, p < .001). More specifically, Italian clinical/at risk children appeared to be less often secure
(sr = 2.98) and more often ambivalent (sr = 3.06) than
their Italian nonclinical comparisons. When a four-way
classification was used, Italian clinical/at risk children were
more likely to be classified as disorganized (v2(3,
N = 357) = 10.6; p < .05) (sr = 1.79) than Italian nonclinical children.
Distribution of Adult Attachment in Italian
Samples
Parents
In all samples of Italian nonclinical mothers, the F category
emerged as modal. In the combined samples (N = 568), the
AAI classification distribution was 22% Dismissing or Ds,
59% Secure-autonomous or F, and 19% Preoccupied or E.
With the U category included, the distribution in the combined samples (N = 301) was the following: 19% were
classified as Ds, 60% as F, 11% as E, and 10% as U.
The three-way distribution was not significantly different
from the normative distribution. In contrast, the four-way
classification deviated significantly, with an underrepresentation of the U category (see Table 2).
In the combined samples of Italian nonclinical fathers,
35% were classified as Ds, 46% as F, and 19% as E. The
distribution deviated from the norm with a slight overrepresentation of dismissing fathers but the standardized residuals were not significant (see Table 2). There were no studies
presenting the four-way AAI classification distribution for
Italian fathers.
Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing
51
Nonclinical Adolescents
The three-way AAI classification distribution in the combined samples of nonclinical adolescents (N = 620) was:
27% Ds, 61% F, and 12% E, see Table 2. With the U category included, the distribution of attachment classifications in the combined samples (N = 336) was the
following: 24% Ds, 62% F, 10% E, and 4% U. The combined distribution diverged significantly from the norm,
showing an underrepresentation of the E category. Also
the four-way classification differed from the norm. More
specifically, the percentage of nonclinical Italian adolescents classified as U (4%) was significantly lower than in
the North-American norm group (18%), whereas they were
more often classified as dismissing.
The overall AAI classification distribution for nonclinical Italian samples (irrespective of gender, age, and parenthood) showed a three-way distribution of 25% Ds, 60% F,
and 15% E, and a four-way distribution of 21% Ds, 60% F,
11% E, and 8% U. The overall three-way AAI Italian distribution showed a slight deviation from the norm, without
significant standardized residuals. When the U category
was included, the distribution deviated from the norm with
standardized residuals revealing significantly fewer unresolved attachments among Italian adults.
Clinical and at Risk Samples
The combination of all clinical groups (irrespective of gender, age, and type of risk) showed a three-way distribution
of 35% Ds, 38% F, and 27% E. The four-way distribution
was 27% Ds, 25% F, 15% E, and 33% U (Table 2). This
was strongly divergent from the norms for both three-way
and four-way classifications. In the first case, an underrepresentation of the secure-autonomous category emerged, as
well as overrepresentations of dismissing and preoccupied
classifications. For the four-way classification, unresolved
attachment was significantly overrepresented, in addition
to fewer F and more Ds and E classifications, see Table 2.
The combined three-way distribution of clinical/at risk
Italian groups was not significantly different from the
non-Italian clinical distribution (v2(2, N = 3,943) = 5.12;
p = .07). By contrast, considering the four-way distribution,
the Italian AAI distribution deviated from the non-Italian
distribution (v2(3, N = 3,721) = 26.2, p < .001); specifically, the U category appeared to be underrepresented in
the clinical/at risk Italian sample.
Comparisons between Italian nonclinical and clinical/
at risk groups were also performed, revealing a significant difference for the three-way AAI distribution
(v2 (2, N = 2047) = 83.6; p < .001). Specifically, more
Ds (sr = 3.49) and E (sr = 4.63) and fewer F (sr = 5.20)
classifications emerged in Italian clinical/at risk samples.
For the four-way distribution the difference was also significant, v2(3, N = 1,341) = 200, p < .001), revealing fewer F
(sr = 7.23) and more U/CC classifications (sr = 8.19)
European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):47–58
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
52
R. Cassibba et al.: Attachment the Italian Way
among clinical/at risk Italian adults than among nonclinical
Italian adults.
Lastly, following Bakermans-Kranenburg and van
IJzendoorn (2009a), the overall clinical/at risk population
was subdivided into different groups, according to the type
of risk (see Table 2).
as U. The distribution differed significantly from the norm
distribution, with fewer secure and more unresolved
classifications.
Samples at Risk
The three-way distribution of Italian nonclinical fathers was
35% Ds, 46% F, and 19% E, which deviated from the norm
but showed no significant standardized residuals (see
Table 2). To test for gender differences within the set of
Italian studies, a comparison between three-way AAI distributions of Italian nonclinical fathers and Italian nonclinical
mothers was conducted. The two distributions differed significantly, v2(2, N = 743) = 13.2, p < .01), but again, standardized residuals were not significant (standardized
residuals Ds sr = 2.92, F sr = 0.60, E sr = 1.70). There
was no four-way distribution of Italian nonclinical fathers
available.
This set of studies was mainly characterized by low SES
background of participants, in some cases with additional
risk factors such as loss experience or maladjustment.
The combined Italian risk samples showed the following
three-way distribution: 34% Ds, 49% F, and 17% E, which
was significantly different from the norm. More specifically, the Italian risk samples showed more dismissing classifications compared to the normative distribution. In the
four-way distribution 21% of the participants were classified as Ds, 49% as F, 11% as E, and 19% as U, which
was not significantly different from the norm distribution.
Gender
Clinical Samples
Discussion
The three-way AAI classifications distribution of the combined clinical Italian sample was: 33% Ds; 31% F, and 36%
E. This distribution deviated from the norm, revealing
fewer secure and more preoccupied classifications than
the norm. In the four-way distribution of the combined
Italian clinical samples, 30% of the participants were classified as Ds, 17% as F, 17% as E, and 36% as U. This distribution deviated from the norm, showing more U, Ds, and
E classifications and fewer secure classifications.
In the present meta-analysis we included 627 SSPs from 17
Italian infant attachment studies and 2,258 AAIs from 50
Italian adult attachment studies. All studies were published
between 1990 and 2009. Our aim was to test the universality hypothesis in attachment theory in the Italian database.
Italy is important testing ground for the cultural dimension
of attachment theory as it is representative of a Western,
individualized culture but with strong familistic and interdependent features. Furthermore, Italy is one of the few
countries with an almost completely Catholic population.
Catholicism has been assumed to support individuals working through potentially traumatic losses because of its
emphasis on the hereafter and a possible reunion in the next
world.
Parents of Physically Impaired Children
The distribution of this sample was: 32% Ds, 40% F, and
28% E, which deviated from the norm but standardized
residuals were not significant.
Parents of Children With Psychological Problems
The distribution of this sample also deviated from the norm,
but here a significant underrepresentation of the F category
and an overrepresentation of the E classifications were
found. In the four-way distribution 17% of the participants
were classified as Ds, 12% as F, 25% as E, and 46% as U,
which was significantly different from the norm distribution. Parents of children with psychological problems were
less often secure and more often unresolved.
Italian Studies on Violence Within the Family
(e.g., Maltreating Parents)
The three-way distribution showed a significant deviation
from the norm, with an overrepresentation of Ds classifications (52%). In the four-way distribution 31% of the participants were classified as Ds, 12% as F, 15% as E, and 42%
European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):47–58
Attachment Distributions in Normal,
Nonclinical Italian Samples
This is the first meta-analysis of attachment distributions
from Italy. Attachment researchers and clinicians may
profit from insights into the distributions of patterns of
infant, adolescent, and adult attachment across the Italian
society in both clinical and nonclinical groups. For Italian
researchers as well as for the world-wide community of
researchers on (cross-cultural aspects of) infant-parent relationships, these meta-analytic data can constitute a useful
tool, a sort of ‘‘comparison group’’ for typical and atypical
samples in Italy and elsewhere.
The majority of nonclinical Italian infants were classified as securely attached (53%). Similarly, the majority of
nonclinical Italian adults were classified in the secure
attachment category (60%). Both in infants and in adults,
secure attachments characterize a majority of the typically
functioning individuals. The three-way distributions for
Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
R. Cassibba et al.: Attachment the Italian Way
infants as well as adults were remarkably similar to those in
the normative American group.
Although cross-cultural similarities provide evidence
for the universality hypothesis of attachment theory, our
meta-analysis revealed also interesting cultural specificities.
First of all, both nonclinical and clinical Italian infants’
distribution showed an overrepresentation of avoidant
attachments, compared to the normative distribution.
Differences between Italian and American childrearing
practices may be helpful to understand this finding. For
example, Italian mothers tend to think that child development is largely a natural process in which adults play little
role in fostering child growth (New, 1994), whereas American mothers assume their responsibility in promoting their
children’s development (New & Richman, 1996). As a consequence, Italian mothers tend to be less concerned about
investment in parenting, whereas American mothers’
investment in childrearing is high, and they consider child
developmental successes as a result of their parenting
efforts (Bornstein et al., 2008). At the same time, Italian
mothers display more parenting behaviors that are meant
to stimulate early independency and social adjustment
(Bornstein, Cote, & Venuti, 2001). More specifically, studies on mothers’ beliefs about the timing of child development show that Italian mothers expect high levels of
social maturity in their children (e.g., participating in the
social group, greeting, and responding to others’ requests)
(e.g., Gandini & Edwards, 2000), stressing the importance
of social-oriented interactions (Bornstein et al., 2001). By
contrast, American childrearing is more individualistic
and interactions between mothers and their children are
more focused on the dyad (Bornstein et al., 2008). Both relatively low investment in dyadic interaction and promotion
of social-oriented interaction aimed at early autonomy
might lead to more avoidant attachments.
Besides the relatively high percentage of dismissing
classifications that is characteristic of the Italian adult
attachment distribution in nonclinical and clinical samples,
the low percentage of unresolved classifications is noteworthy. We may speculate that the underrepresentation of unresolved attachments is a consequence of the high diffusion
of Catholic values among the Italian population (Barone,
2003; Barro & McCleary, 2003; EURISPES, 2010; Federici
& Giordan, 2007). Several studies examining the role of the
religion in adjustment to a negative life event such as the
loss of a child (McIntosh, Silver & Wortman, 1993), a terroristic attack (Fredrickson, Tugade, Waughn & Larkin,
2003), or a violent death (Thompson & Vardaman, 1997)
support the idea that religion plays an important role in cognitive and emotional coping processes. However, the role of
Catholicism has not been empirically analyzed or tested in
studies included in our meta-analysis, and various other
socio-cultural differences might have played a role as well.
In line with previous findings (Bakermans-Kranenburg &
van IJzendoorn, 2009a, 2009b; van IJzendoorn &
Bakermans-Kranenburg, 1996), the present meta-analysis
showed no overrepresentation of dismissing attachments
among males, that is, fathers. According to the evolutionary
Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing
53
model proposed by Del Giudice (2009), these differences
would emerge in middle childhood but are absent in early
infancy. In adulthood (but not in childhood), sexual selection
would favor gender differences in bond formation in which
males are more oriented to low-investment and short-term
relational strategies (e.g., avoidance) than females. Only
from middle childhood the organism would begin to reorganize its behavior in view of the future reproduction.
From a global perspective, gender differences in adult
attachments have been shown to be absent (BakermansKranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 2009a, 2009b), and it
should be noted that the sample size of nonclinical Italian
males, that is, fathers is small (N = 85). The overall distribution was somewhat different from the norm distributions
of both American and Italian nonclinical mothers, but the
slight overrepresentation of dismissing classifications
among Italian fathers was not statistically significant.
Instead of interpreting our finding of a tendency of Italian
males toward dismissiveness in terms of evolutionary theory, we are inclined to speculate about possible cultural
causes. Indeed gender differences in attachment might be
more evident in cultures which preserve rather skewed
and unequal gender roles, as seems to be the case in particular in Italy (Ciairano, Kliewer, Bonino, & Bosna, 2008).
Combining measures of the percentage of women in the
legislature, the male-female income gap, and the percentage
of women completing higher education, Wilkinson and
Pickett (2009) found Italy to be at the bottom of this index
of women’s status. This low status of females in Italian
society does not seem to be related to religion (predominantly Catholic countries like Spain and France score much
higher on the index) and it seems also independent of
income inequality in the general population (countries with
similar income inequalities like Israel, New Zealand,
Australia, and the UK score much higher on the index of
women’s status). A dominant status of males might be more
compatible with a dismissive stance toward intimate relationships. Females might be prepared for a society in which
they play a subordinate role, and in fact Italian parents have
been found to approach their children in a rather pronounced gender-specific way, emphasizing autonomy and
independency much less in girls than in boys (Bombi
et al., 2011; Bornstein et al., 2008; Venuti & Senese, 2007).
Limitations
Some limitations should also be mentioned. First the set of
Italian studies was rather heterogeneous which is reflected
in the speculative nature of the interpretations of differences
found between the Italian and global distributions of attachment. Second, comparisons of the Italian SSP distributions
could only be made with the 1992 North-American norm
distribution (van IJzendoorn et al., 1992) which fortuitously
was almost identical to the first published SSP distribution
(Ainsworth et al., 1978), and is considered in the field of
attachment research to be the standard distribution.
European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):47–58
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
54
R. Cassibba et al.: Attachment the Italian Way
Summary
In sum, the current meta-analysis suggests interesting lines
of research that deserve further consideration. First, our
findings indicate that avoidant infant-mother attachment
is more common among Italian nonclinical children compared to US children, which may be related to a parenting
style among Italian mothers that promotes early independence. It is an unanswered question whether the same is
true of father-infant attachment. Although attachment
theorists have only recently begun to pay more attention
to the father-infant bond (Bernier & Miljkovitch, 2009;
Grossmann et al., 2002), a lack of knowledge and research
regarding the role of the father as attachment figure still
persists for Italy. Indeed none of the Italian SSP studies
included fathers.
Second, the effect of the parenting style on potential
gender differences in attachment classifications needs further exploration, especially in early childhood. It has been
argued that gender differences in attachment become evident from middle childhood (Del Giudice, 2009), and
focusing on early childhood is thus necessary to examine
whether these differences are culturally rather than biologically determined. Unfortunately, in the current study we
could not test this hypothesis since the available SSP studies did not present separate distributions for males and
females.
Third, the underrepresentation of unresolved loss among
Italian nonclinical adults is noteworthy. It is as yet unclear
whether religious faith or other cultural factors play a protective role when Italian adults are confronted with loss or
other trauma. The processes of secularization that are also
reaching Italy may create opportunities to examine the role
of religion in coming to terms with loss and trauma in more
detail.
In conclusion, Italy presents an intriguing testing ground
for some of the core hypotheses in attachment theory. We
found universal trends as well as culture-specific features
in attachment development. Attachment the Italian way
shows more avoidance and less unresolved loss. A continuation of the rich tradition of Italian attachment research
will be helpful to understand the cultural causes of crosscultural specificities in attachment patterns, also within
the industrialized part of the world.
References1
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S.
(1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the
strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Wittig, B. A. (1969). Attachment and
exploratory behavior of one-year olds in a strange situation.
In B. M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of infant behavior (Vol.
4, pp. 113–136). London, UK: Methuen.
Ammaniti, M., Candelori, C., Dazzi, N., De Coro, A., Muscetta,
S., Ortu, F., . . . Zampino, F. (1990). IAL: Intervista
sull’Attaccamento nella Latenza [AICA, Attachment
1
Interview for Childhood and Adolescence]. Unpublished
manuscript, Roma University ‘‘La Sapienza’’.
*Ammaniti, M., Candelori, C., Pola, M., Speranza, A. M., &
Tambelli, R. (1994). Influenze culturali e dinamiche relazionali nell’attaccamento infantile: Indagine su un campione
italiano [Relational dynamics and cultural influences on
infant attachment: An Italian study]. Et Evolutiva, 47, 99–
109.
*Ammaniti, M., Cimino, S., Lucarelli, L., Speranza, A. M., &
Vismara, L. (2005). Anoressia infantile e relazione bambino-caregiver: Uno studio clinico-empirico sui modelli di
attaccamento. [Infantile anorexia and child-caregiver relationship: An empirical study on attachment patterns].
Funzione Gamma Journal, 14, 1–21.
*Ammaniti, M., Mancone, A., & Vismara, L. (2001). La qualit
dell’attaccamento nei disturbi alimentari [Quality of attachment and eating disorders]. Psichiatria dell’Infanzia e
dell’Adolescenza, 68, 525–542.
*Ammaniti, M., Pazzagli, C., Speranza, A. M., & Vimercati
Sanseverino, L. (1997). Attaccamento e Sistemi Regolativi
nelle Tossicodipendenze [Attachment and regulatory systems in drug addiction]. In G. Fava Vizziello & P. Stocco
(Eds.), Tra genitori e figli la tossicodipendenza (pp. 352–
372). Milano, Italy: Masson.
*Ammaniti, M., Sergi, G., Speranza, A. M., Tambelli, R., &
Vismara, L. (2002). Maternit a rischio, interazioni precoci
ed attaccamento infantile [Motherhood at risk, early motherinfant interactions and infant attachment]. Et Evolutiva, 72,
61–67.
*Ammaniti, M., & Speranza, A. M. (1995). Rappresentazioni
materne e attaccamento infantile disorganizzato. [Maternal
attachment representations and infant disorganized attachment]. Giornale di Neuropsichiatria dell’Et Evolutiva, 15,
27–34.
*Ammaniti, M., & Speranza, A. M. (2002). I modelli di
attaccamento dalla prima infanzia alla pre-adolescenza:
Uno studio longitudinale [Patterns of attachment from
infancy to pre-adolescence: A longitudinal study]. Psichiatria dell’Infanzia e della Adolescenza, 69, 5–18.
*Ammaniti, M., Speranza, A. M., & Candelori, C. (1996).
Stabilit dell’attaccamento infantile e trasmissione intergenerazionale dell’attaccamento [Stability of infant attachment
and intergenerational transmission of attachment]. Psichiatria dell’Infanzia e dell’Adolescenza, 63, 313–332.
*Ammaniti, M., Speranza, A. M., Tambelli, R., Odorisio, F., &
Vismara, L. (2007). Sostegno alla genitorialit nelle madri
a rischio: Valutazione di un modello di assistenza domiciliare sullo sviluppo della prima infanzia [Supporting
parenting in at risk mothers: Effects of a home-visiting
intervention on infant development]. Infanzia e Adolescenza, 6, 67–83.
*Ammaniti, M., Tambelli, R., Zavattini, G. C., Vismara, L., &
Volpi, B. (1999). Attaccamento e funzione riflessiva in
adolescenza [Attachment and reflective functioning in
adolescence]. Psicologia Clinica dello Sviluppo, 1, 155–175.
*Ardito, D., Williams, R., Ortu, F., & Dazzi, N. (2009,
September). La valutazione della stabilit e dei cambiamenti
rispetto alla qualit dell’attaccamento in adolescenza [Stability and change of attachment in adolescence]. Paper
presented at the XI National Meeting AIP, Chieti, Italy.
*Attili, G., & Vermigli, P. (2002). Attaccamento insicuro della
madre, temperamento difficile del bambino e costruzione
della relazione madre-figlio [Maternal insecure attachment,
infant difficult temperament and construction of motherchild relationship]. Psichiatria dell’Infanzia e dell’Adolescenza, 69, 29–41.
Asterisks (*) indicate studies included in the meta-analyses.
European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):47–58
Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
R. Cassibba et al.: Attachment the Italian Way
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H.
(2009a). The first 10,000 adult attachment interviews:
Distributions of adult attachment representation in non
clinical and clinical groups. Attachment & Human Development, 11, 223–263.
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H.
(2009b). No reliable gender differences in attachment across
the life-span. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 22–23.
*Barone, L. (2003). Developmental protective and risk factors in
borderline personality disorder: A study using the Adult
Attachment Interview. Attachment and Human Development, 5, 64–77.
*Barone, L., Euticchio, R., & Lionetti, F. (2010). Le rappresentazioni mentali d’attaccamento nella dipendenza da sostanze: Uno studio con la Adult Attachment Interview
[Attachment representations and drug addictions: A study
using the Adult Attachment Interview]. Giornale Italiano di
Psicologia 27, 421–438.
*Barone, L., & Frigerio, A. (2009). Qualit della disorganizzazione nelle rappresentazioni mentali d’attaccamento delle
madri: uno studio pilota nell’ambito del maltrattamento
[Maternal disorganized representations of attachment: a
pilot study with abusive mothers]. Maltrattamento e abuso
all’infanzia, 11, 39–50.
*Barone, L., & Guiducci, V. (2009). Mental representations of
attachment in Eating Disorders: A pilot study using the
Adult Attachment Interview. Attachment and Human Development, 11, 1–13.
Barro, R. J., & McCleary, R. M. (2003). Religion and economic
growth across countries. American Sociological Review, 68,
760–781.
Bernier, A., & Miljkovitch, R. (2009). Intergenerational transmission of attachment in father-child dyads: The case of
single parenthood. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 170,
31–51.
Bombi, A. S., Pastorelli, C., Bacchini, D., Di Giunta, L.,
Miranda, M. C., & Zelli, A. (2011). Attributions and
attitudes of mothers and fathers in Italy. Parenting, 11,
129–141.
Bornstein, M. H., Cote, L. R., & Venuti, P. (2001). Parenting
beliefs and behaviors in northern and southern groups of
Italian mothers of young infants. Journal of Family
Psychology, 15, 663–675.
Bornstein, M. H., Putnick, D., Heslington, M., Gini, M.,
Suwalsky, J. T. D., Venuti, P., . . . de Galpern, C. Z.
(2008). Mother-child emotional availability in ecological
perspective. Developmental Psychology, 44, 666–680.
*Calvo, V., Mazzeschi, C., Zennaro, A., & Lis, A. (2002).
Studio di alcuni aspetti di rischio connessi alle rappresentazioni di attaccamento di padri e madri [Risk factors related
to attachment representations of mothers and fathers]. Et
Evolutiva, 72, 68–73.
*Carli, L., & Traficante, D. (2007). Le determinanti intergenerazionali e relazionali della scelta genitoriale: Confronto tra coppie in attesa del primo figlio e senza figli
per scelta [Intergenerational and relational determinants
of attitude toward having children: A comparison
between couples expecting their first child and couples
without children by choice]. Psicologia Clinica dello
Sviluppo, 1, 55–74.
*Cassibba, R., Coppola, G., & Bruno, S. (2005). Applicazione
dell’intervento con videofeedback e discussione su un
campione di bambini italiani a rischio di attaccamento
insicuro [Intervention with videofeedback and discussion
(VIPP-R) in a sample of Italian children at risk of insecure
Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing
55
attachment]. In R. Cassibba & M. H. van IJzendoorn (Eds.),
L’intervento clinico basato sull’attaccamento. Promuovere
la relazione genitore-bambino (pp. 157–202). Bologna,
Italy: Il Mulino.
*Cassibba, R., & Costantino, E. (2007). Intervento con videofeedback e discussione (VIPP-R) con diadi madre-bambino
a rischiopsicosociale [Intervention with videofeedback and
discussion (VIPP-R) with mother-infant dyads at psychosocial risk]. Infanzia e Adolescenza, 6, 84–95.
*Cassibba, R., Granqvist, P., Costantini, A., & Gatto, S. (2008).
Attachment and God Representations Among Lay Catholics,
Priests, and Religious: A Matched Comparison Study Based
on the Adult Attachment Interview. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1753–1763.
*Cassibba, R., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Bruno, S., & Coppola,
G. (2005). Attachment to mothers and children with
recurrent asthmatic bronchitis. Journal of Asthma, 41,
419–431.
*Caviglia, G., & Pili, M. (2001). Attaccamento sicuro e sviluppo
delle competenze socio-emotive in bambini di et scolare
[Secure attachment and socio-emotional development in
school-age children]. Psichiatria dell’Infanzia e dell’Adolescenza, 68, 571–582.
*Ciairano, S., Kliewer, W., Bonino, S., & Bosna, H. A. (2008).
Parenting and adolescent well being in two European
countries. Adolescence, 43, 99–117.
*Coppola, G., Aureli, T., Grazia, A., & Concetta, M. C. (2008,
March). The dyadic quality during the still-face: Associations with maternal attachment and sensitivity and infant’s
attachment organization. Paper presented at the XVI
Biennial International Conference on Infant Studies.
Vancouver, Canada.
*Coppola, G., Aureli, T., Grazia, A., Ponzetti, S., & Garito,
M. C. (2008, September). Comportamenti regolatori nel
paradigma face to face-still face: La prospettiva dell’attaccamento [Regulatory behaviors during the face to face stillface paradigm: The attachment perspective]. Paper presented at the XXII National Meeting AIP, Padova, Italy.
*Coppola, G., Forte, A., Bascelli, E., & Costantini, A. (2008,
June). Adult’s attachment organization and automatic
thoughts in clinical and healthy conditions: The mediating
role of self-esteem. Paper presented at the VI International
Congress of Cognitive Psychotherapy, Roma, Italy.
*Costantini, A. (2006). Lo sviluppo linguistico ai 24, 30 e 36
mesi: Il ruolo della sensibilit materna e dell’attaccamento
infantile nei bambini prematuri e nati a termine [Language
development at 24, 30 and 36 months: The role of maternal
sensitivity and infant attachment in premature and full-term
babies] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of
Bari, Italy.
*Costantino, E. (2007). Sviluppo infantile in condizione di
disagio sociale: Ruolo dell’attaccamento e dell’intervento
con video-feedback e discussione [Infant development in a
social risk context: The role of attachment and intervention
with video-feedback and discussion] (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation), University of Bari, Italy.
*Dazzi, N., De Coro, A., Ortu, F., & Speranza, A. M. (1999).
L’intervista sull’attaccamento in preadolescenza: Un analisi
della dimensione della coerenza [The Attachment Interview
for Childhood and Adolescence: A study on the dimension
of the coherence]. Psicologia Clinica dello Sviluppo, 3,
129–153.
Del Giudice, M. (2009). Sex, attachment, and the development
of reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
32, 1–21.
European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):47–58
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
56
R. Cassibba et al.: Attachment the Italian Way
EURISPES. (2010). Rapporto Italia 2010. Retrieved from http://
www.eurispes.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article
&id=1095:rapporto-italia-2010&catid=47:rapporto-italia&
Itemid=222
*Evangelisti, P., Guarino, S., & Vismara, L. (2009, September).
Modelli di attaccamento e funzione riflessiva in adolescenti
autori di reato [Models of attachment and reflective
function in adolescent offenders]. Paper presented at the
XI National Meeting AIP Chieti Italy.
*Fava Vizziello, G., Burba, C., Calvo, V., & Simonelli, A.
(2003). Fattori di rischio psicosociale: Sfidare le premesse
[Psycho-social risk factors: To challenge the previous
conditions]. Psichiatria dell’Infanzia e dell’Adolescenza,
70, 167–178.
*Fava Vizziello, G., Calvo, V., & Simonelli, A. (2003).
Sicurezza ed insicurezza dell’attaccamento nella prima
infanzia in una prospettiva interculturale [Attachment security in infancy from a cross-cultural perspective]. Et
Evolutiva, 75, 36–50.
*Fava Vizziello, G., Ferrero, C., & Musicco, M. (2000). Parentchild sincrony of interaction. In P. Crittenden McKinsey &
A. Hartl Claussen (Eds.), The organization of attachment
relationships. Maturation, culture and context (pp. 150–
160). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
*Fava Vizziello, G., Invernizzi, R., Antonioli, M. E., &
Maestro, P. (1995). La struttura del cambiamento rappresentativo e narrativo della madre dalla gravidanza alla
maternit e modalit di attaccamento [Maternal representative and narrative changes from pregnancy to motherhood
and models of attachment]. Psichiatria dell’Infanzia e
dell’Adolescenza, 62, 185–199.
*Fava Vizziello, G., Penzavalli, A., & Peten, I. (2000). I
bambini adottati crescono [The adopted children grow].
Psicologia Clinica dello Sviluppo, 1, 145–152.
*Fava Vizziello, G., Rebecca, L., Calvo, V., Giaccherini, S.,
Nofri, F., Pazzagli, A., Benvenuti, P., & Guerrini Degl’Innocenti, B. (1995). Nascita pretermine: Rappresentazioni
materne, attaccamento e sviluppo del bambino [Preterm
birth: Maternal attachment representations, infant attachment and development]. In Bambini e genitori: Attaccamento e Psicopatologia (pp. 171–200). Firenze, Italy:
Loggia dei Lanzi.
*Fava Vizziello, G., Simonelli, A., & Peten, I. (2002).
Attaccamento e psicopatologia tra clinica e ricerca: Applicazione dell’Adult Attachment Interview ad un gruppo di
donne tossicodipendenti [Attachment and psychopathology
in research and clinical contexts: Using the Adult Attachment Interview with a group of drug-dependent women].
Retrieved from http:\\www.pol.it (psychiatry on line).
Federici, S., & Giordan, G. (2007). Cattolicesimi a confronto.
Note metodologiche su uno studio pilota [Comparisons
among catholic religions. Methodological notes on a pilot
study]. Religioni e Societ, 22, 91–99.
Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waughn, C. E., & Larkin,
G. R. (2003). What good are positive emotions in crises? A
prospective study of resilience and emotions following the
terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th,
2001. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,
365–376.
Gandini, L., & Edwards, C. P. (2000). Bambini: The Italian
approach to infant-toddler care teachers. New York, NY:
College Press.
Garelli, F. (2007). Between religion and spirituality: New
perspectives in the Italian religious landscape. Review of
Religious Research, 48, 318–326.
Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., Fremmer-Bombik, E.,
Kindler, K., Scheuerer-Englisch, H., & Zimmermann, P.
European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):47–58
(2002). The uniqueness of the child-father attachment
relationship: Fathers’ sensitive and challenging play as the
pivotal variable in a 16-year longitudinal study. Social
Development, 11, 307–331.
*Lavelli, M., & Carli, L. (2008, September). Pattern di
comunicazione madre-bambino e qualit dell’attaccamento
alla madre [Mother-infant communication patterns and
quality of attachment to mother]. Paper presented at the
XXII National Meeting AIP, Padova, Italy.
*Limonta, A., Riva Crugnola, C., Maggiolini, A., & Costantino,
E. (2009, September). Modelli di attaccamento e problematiche emotivo-comportamentali in adolescenza [Models of
attachment, behavioral and emotional problems in adolescence]. Paper presented at the XI National Meeting AIP,
Chieti, Italy.
*Longo, E., & Dazzi, N. (2009, September). Ostilit e
regolazione del conflitto nel contesto di attaccamento in
adolescenza [Hostility, conflict regulation and attachment in
adolescence]. Paper presented at the XI National Meeting
AIP, Chieti, Italy.
*Lorito, L., & Scrima, F. (2009, September). Verso una
definizione delle influenze multidimensionali dei contesti di
vita: Analisi delle relazioni tra stili di attaccamento ed
organizational commitment [Towards a definition of multidimensional influences on the life contexts: Analysis of the
relationship between attachment styles and organizational
commitment]. Paper presented at the XI National Meeting
AIP, Chieti, Italy.
Main, M. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of attachment organization: Recent studies, changing methodologies, and the
concept of conditional strategies. Human Development, 33,
48–61.
Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1991). Adult Attachment Classification system. Unpublished manuscript, University of
California, Berkeley.
Main, M., Goldwyn, R., & Hesse, E. (2003). The Adult
Attachment Interview: Scoring and Classification System,
Version 7.2 Unpublished manuscript, University of
California, Berkeley.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy,
childhood, and adulthood: A move to the representational
level. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of
attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development (Vol. 50, pp. 66–104).
Serial No. 209.
McIntosh, D. N., Silver, R. C., & Wortman, C. B. (1993).
Religion’s role adjustment to a negative life event: Coping
with the loss of a child. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65, 812–821.
Miyake, K., Chen, S. J., & Campos, J. J. (1985). Infant
temperament, mother’s mode of interaction and the attachment in Japan: An interim report. In I. Bretherton & E.
Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and
research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development (50, 1-2, Serial No. 209, pp. 276–297).
*Muscetta, S., Bovet, A. F., Candelori, C., Mancone, A., &
Speranza, A. M. (1999). Funzione riflessiva materna e stile
di attaccamento nei bambini [Maternal reflective function
and quality of infant attachment]. Psicologia Clinica dello
Sviluppo, 1, 109–128.
New, R. S. (1994). Child’s play-una cosa naturale: An Italian
perspective. In J. L. Roopnarine, J. E. Johnson, & F. H.
Hooper (Eds.), Children’s play in diverse cultures (pp. 123–
147). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
New, R. S., & Richman, A. L. (1996). Maternal beliefs and
infant care practices in Italy and the United States. In S.
Harkness & C. M. Super (Eds.), Parents’ cultural belief
Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
R. Cassibba et al.: Attachment the Italian Way
systems: The origins, expressions, and consequences (pp.
385–444). New York, NY: Guilford.
*Ongari, B., & Schadee, H. (2003). Adattamento e rappresentazioni dei rapporti interpersonali in adolescenti ospiti di
comunit residenziali [Adaptation and representations of
interpersonal relationships of adolescents in residential
care]. Psicologia Clinica dello Sviluppo, 1, 77–98.
*Ortu, F., Dazzi, N., De Coro, A., Pola, M., & Speranza, A. M.
(1992). Un contributo di ricerca sugli stili di attaccamento in
preadolescenza: La coerenza della verbalizzazione [A study
on attachment styles in pre-adolescence: The coherence of
the verbalization]. Adolescenza, 2, 62–79.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002).
Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of
theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological
Bulletin, 128, 3–72.
*Pace, C. S. (2008). La revisione dei pattern di attaccamento dei
bambini late-adopted ed il ruolo del modello di attaccamento
delle madri adottive [Changes of attachment patterns in the
late-adopted children and role of adoptive mothers’ attachment models]. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 35, 473–482.
*Pazzagli, C., Braga, M. E., Orelli, A., & De Coro, A. (2005,
September). Stati della mente relativi all’attaccamento e
percezione della qualit della vita in soggetti con infezione
da Hiv/Aids [Attachment states of mind and perceived
quality of life in individuals with HIV/AIDS]. Paper
presented at the VII National Meeting AIP, Cagliari, Italy.
*Pazzagli, C., & Dazzi, N. (2005). Stato della mente rispetto
all’attaccamento e organizzazione della memoria autobiografica: Uno studio preliminare su un gruppo di adolescenti
con storia infantile di abusi [Attachment state of mind and
autobiographical memory: A preliminary study on a group
of adolescents with a history of child abuse]. Infanzia e
Adolescenza, 3, 156–169.
*Pace, C. S., Santona, A., & Zavattini, G. C. (2009, September).
Modelli di attaccamento e coniugalit di fronte alle sfide del
parenting adottivo [Models of attachment and partnering in
the challenge of foster parenting]. Paper presented at the XI
National Meeting AIP, Chieti, Italy.
Posada, G., Gao, Y., Wu, E., Posada, R., Tascon, M.,
Schoelmerich, A., . . . Synnevaag, B. (1995). The securebase phenomenon across cultures: Children’s behavior,
mother’s preferences and experts’ concepts. In E. Waters,
B. E. Vaughn, G. Posada, et al. (Eds.), Caregiving, cultural
and cognitive perspectives on secure-base behavior and
working models: New growing points for attachment theory
and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development (60, 2–3, Serial No 244, pp. 27–48).
*Riva Crugnola, C., Albizzati, A., Caprin, C., Sagliaschi, S., &
Walder, M. (2007). Modelli di attaccamento e stili di
interazione nello sviluppo della relazione tra madre e
bambino: linee di un progetto di ricerca [Models of
attachment and styles of interaction in the development of
the mother-infant relationship: A research project]. In C.
Riva Crugnola (Ed.), Il bambino e le sue relazioni.
Attaccamento e individualit tra teoria ed osservazione.
Milano: Cortina Editore.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for
null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641.
*Rosso, M. (2009, September). Pattern di attaccamento e
correlati di personalit [Patterns of attachment and related
dimensions of personality]. Paper presented at the XI
National Meeting AIP, Chieti, Italy.
Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J., Pott, M., Miyake, K., & Morelli, G.
(2000). Attachment and culture. Security in the United
States and Japan. American Psychologist, 55, 1093–1104.
Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing
57
Sagi, A., Koren-Karie, N., Gini, M., Ziv, Y., & Joels, T. (2002).
Shedding further light on the effects of various types and
quality of early child care on infant-mother attachment
relationship: The Haifa study of early child care. Child
Development, 73, 1166–1186.
Sagi, A., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Scharf, M., Joels, T., KorenKarie, N., Mayseless, O., & Aviezer, O. (1997). Ecological
constraints for intergenerational transmission of attachment.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 20, 287–
299.
*Santona, A., & Zavattini, G. S. (2005). Partnering and
parenting expectations in adoptive couples. Sexual and
Relationship Therapy, 20, 309–322.
*Simonelli, A., & Bastianoni, P. (2001). Stili di attaccamento
individuali e di coppia: Due strumenti a confronto [Individual and romantic attachment styles: A comparison between
two assessment instruments]. Rassegna di Psicologia, 1, 27–
48.
*Simonelli, A., & Fava Vizziello, G. M. (2002). La qualit delle
rappresentazioni di attaccamento in madri tossicodipendenti
come fattore di rischio per lo sviluppo socio-affettivo del
bambino [Attachment representations of drug-dependent
mothers as risk factor of child socio-emotional development]. Et Evolutiva, 72, 54–60.
*Simonelli, A., Fava Vizziello, G. M., Bighin, M., & Petech, E.
(2006). La coppia nella transizione alla genitorialit tra
adattamento ed attaccamento [The transition to the parenthood: Adaptation and attachment]. Terapia Familiare, 82,
47–71.
*Speranza, A. M., Nicolais, G., & Ammaniti, M. (2002). I
modelli operativi interni dell’attaccamento nella trasmissione intergenerazionale dell’abuso [The role of the internal
working models of attachment in the intergenerational
transmission of abuse]. Maltrattamento e Abuso all’infanzia,
4, 55–81.
*Tagini, A., Pazzagli, C., Pravato, D., & Dazzi, N. (2009,
September). Attaccamento, lutto e trauma: Uno studio
sull’andamento dell’attivit referenziale [Attachment,
mourning and trauma: A study on the referential activity’s
trend]. Paper presented at the XI National Meeting AIP,
Chieti, Italy.
Takahashi, K. (1986). Examining the Strange Situation procedure with Japanese mothers and 12-month-old infants.
Developmental Psychology, 22, 265–270.
*Tambelli, R., Odorisio, F., & Notari, V. (2007, September). La
trasmissione dell’attaccamento e le rappresentazioni della
famiglia in un campione di adolescenti [Ttransmission of
attachment and representations of family in a sample of
adolescents]. Paper presented at the IX National Meeting
AIP, Perugia, Italy.
Thompson, M. P., & Vardaman, P. J. (1997). The role of
religion in coping with loss of a family member in homicide.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 44–51.
van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (1996).
Attachment representations in mothers, fathers, adolescents,
and clinical groups: A meta-analytic search for normative
data. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64,
8–21.
van IJzendoorn, M. H., Goldberg, S., Kroonenberg, P. M., &
Frenkel, O. J. (1992). The relative effect of maternal and
child problems on the quality of attachment. A meta-analysis
of attachment in clinical samples. Child Development, 63,
840–858.
van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Kroonenberg, P. M. (1988). Crosscultural patterns of attachment: A meta-analysis of the
Strange Situation. Child Development, 59, 147–156.
European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):47–58
Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)
58
R. Cassibba et al.: Attachment the Italian Way
Marinus H. van IJzendoorn is Professor of
Child and Family Studies at Leiden University, The Netherlands, and Professor of
Human Development at Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. His research is on parenting, attachment and
emotion regulation across the life-span,
and the neurobiology of socio-emotional
development.
van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Sagi-Schwartz, A. (2008). Crosscultural patterns of attachment: Universal and contextual
dimensions. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook
of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications
(2nd ed., pp. 880–905). New York: Guilford.
van IJzendoorn, M. H., Schuengel, C., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. (1999). Disorganized attachment in early childhood: Meta-analysis of precursors, concomitants, and
sequelae. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 225–250.
Venuti, P., & Senese, V. P. (2007). Un questionario di
autovalutazione degli stili parentali: Uno studio su un
campione italiano [A self report questionnaire on the
parenting style: A study on an Italian sample]. Giornale
Italiano di Psicologia, 3, 677–698.
Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level: Why more
equal societies almost always do better? London, UK:
Penguin.
Giovanna Sette received her PhD from
Bari University, Italy. Her research is on
child development in typical and atypical
conditions, intergenerational transmission
of attachment, parenting, and social competence across the life-span.
Received June 4, 2010
Accepted June 6, 2012
About the authors
Rosalinda Cassibba is Professor of
Developmental Psychology at Bari University, Italy. Her research interests are
attachment and child development, multiple attachments, and parenting interventions.
Rosalinda Cassibba
Department of Psychological and Educational Sciences
University of Bari
Palazzo Ateneo
Piazza Umberto I
70122 Bari
Italy
Tel. +39 080 571-4550
Fax +39 080 571-4643
E-mail cassibba@psico.uniba.it
Marian Bakermans-Kranenburg is Professor of Child and Family Studies at Leiden
University, The Netherlands, with a special focus on genetic and environmental
influences on parenting and child development. Her research interests are
attachment and emotion regulation across
the life-span, parenting interventions, and
the interplay between nature and nurture.
European Psychologist 2013; Vol. 18(1):47–58
View publication stats
Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing