See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257791942

Conceptualizing Attachment Trauma: Exploring Emotional Vulnerabilities

among Disaster Affected Children of Gujarat

Article  in  Psychological Studies · March 2011

DOI: 10.1007/s12646-011-0114-x

CITATIONS READS

2 188

2 authors:

Manasi Kumar Peter Fonagy

University College London University College London
180 PUBLICATIONS   6,713 CITATIONS    913 PUBLICATIONS   46,715 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Psychotherapy in Kenya View project

Mentalizing Initiative View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Manasi Kumar on 14 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Psychol Stud (January–March 2012) 57(1):9–21
DOI 10.1007/s12646-011-0114-x
RESEARCH IN PROGRESS
Conceptualizing Attachment Trauma: Exploring Emotional
Vulnerabilities among Disaster Affected Children of Gujarat
Manasi Kumar & Peter Fonagy
Received: 9 March 2011 / Accepted: 8 August 2011 / Published online: 8 September 2011
# National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India 2011
Abstract This study compares attachment trauma and
psychological adjustment of child survivors of an earthquake
and social violence in Gujarat (n=127). In particular it
explores attachment style/s associated with the two disaster
traumas and tries to explicate, what these tell us about the
particular vagaries of trauma. Results show larger number of
insecurely attached children in the disaster trauma sample
and the dismissing attachment style dominates particularly in
the earthquake sample whereas in the riots sample one can
see a presence of what can be termed as a ‘mixed
attachment’ style-vacillation between dismissing and preoc-
cupied states of mind. The implications of these findings for
a conceptualization of attachment trauma are discussed in
details.
Keywords Attachment trauma . Gujarat earthquake . Social
violence . Dismissing attachment . Child attachment
interview . Mixed attachment
Introduction
Disasters impact at many levels. One of these is the
burgeoning psychological cost of living through material,
social and personal losses, injuries and rebuilding these
M. Kumar (*)
Research Fellow, Research Institute for Health and Social Change,
Manchester Metropolitan University,
Manchester M13 0JA, UK
e-mail: manni_3in@hotmail.com
P. Fonagy
Psychoanalysis Unit, Research Department of Clinical,
Health and Educational Psychology, University College London,
London WC1E 7HB, UK
resources from scratch. When speaking of disasters, we are
talking of events which disturb and disorganize the social and
interpersonal fabric of individuals. Disasters are frequently
associated with acute and long-term adversities and secondary
stresses (Pynoos et al. 2005). It is a common understanding
today amongst the behavioural sciences that the short- and
long-term consequences of this extreme stress in the disaster-
affected communities can be comparable to organized
violence (or vice-a-versa) (Norris et al. 2006). Different
trauma sources (agents) may have somewhat predictable,
although might have wide-ranging psychological implica-
tions for individuals and vulnerable groups such as children
(Catani et al. 2009; Neuner et al. 2006).
This paper compares two traumatic events that took
place in Gujrat, a north western province of India. The
January 26th, 2001 Gujarat earthquake the second
largest recorded in India, the largest being in 1737,
and was the worst natural disaster in India in more than
50 years (Mehta 2001) (although since 2001, India has
experienced two large scale natural disasters, Indian
Ocean Tsunami and Kashmir earthquake in 2004 & 2005
respectively). The seismic waves spread out in a 700-kilometer
circumference from the epicentre, and within this area the
devastation was immense. There were more than 20,000 deaths
and 167,000 people injured. Four districts of Gujarat lay in ruin
and altogether, 21 districts were affected. It is estimated that
around 300,000 families and at least 3 million children aged 14
and under were affected. Around 600,000 people were left
homeless.
Nearly a year after the earthquake, communal violence
broke out in the capital city of Ahmedabad and other places
in 2002, to the anger of the Hindus over the gruesome
burning of Hindu activists (travelling in the train to another
city) in the town of Godhra (Gujarat) in the early morning
of 27th February 2002 and continued for next four months.
10
Literature points out that the carnage this time had
surpassed all previous instances of communal riots in
Gujarat (1969, 1985, 1989 or 1992) both in terms of loss
of lives, as well as in terms of the barbarism involved. Over
2000 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed; 2,00,000
Muslims and about 10,000 Hindus were displaced. It is
reported that property worth 5 million rupees was
destroyed. Human Rights Watch Report (2002) noted that
over 1,000 cases of rapes and mutilations of women and
children were recorded by the Commission (for a further
commentary on socio-psychological implications of these
events, see Kumar 2007 and 2010). Attachment trauma of
the child survivors of these events was studied using the
child attachment interview amongst other tools.
The Child Attachment Interview
The child attachment interview (CAI) was developed by the
research team of Anna Freud Centre in 2003 (see, Shmueli-
Goetz 2001; Target et al. 2003). The interview protocol is
conceptually based on the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI)
(George et al. 1985) however there are some striking
differences. These include the following: (a) the CAI activates
the attachment system in the course of the interviewing to
elicit relevant attachment information and interpersonal
behavior and strategies; (b) since CAI focuses on children
exclusively, the interview works within a semi-structured
format in order to accommodate a more flexible interviewing
style to allow narrative variations to emerge (depending on
individual personality of the child); (c) an interesting way in
which CAI differs from AAI and similar tools is that it taps the
past experiences and attachment context in light of the current-
ongoing relationships and children’s representations of these
(see, Target et al. 2003: 173–74).
Specific Approach Taken Towards CAI in the Context
of this Research
The information reported by the children in their CAI
responses provides an uncanny insight into their internal
working models and these models in turn provide a glimpse
into familial and cultural ‘meta-theories of parenting or
caregiving’. Extending this idea, a hypothesis could be
extended here: a child who is better able to narrate (along
with the difficulties, turmoil, and or disruptions in) the
attachment context with a depiction of her state of mind in
conjunction with her primary caretakers’—would have
more internal resources and be equipped to metabolize
difficult external situations. Apart from that in the oral
cultures, storytelling (even though not entirely from a self-
introspective stance, Shweder 1991; Kakar 2001) is a
culturally congruous quality in individuals and the child
attachment interview looks at this ability to generate a family-
Psychol Stud (January–March 2012) 57(1):9–21
attachment centric discourse (based on intentionality)—the
inability to narrate is then symptomatic of gaps and difficulties
in family communication and interpersonal matrix or in the
child’s construction—which in itself indicates an implantation
of some sort of psychological trauma. Social sharing of
difficult emotions and their containment is crucial in the
immediate or extended family settings for negative feelings to
become less potent (and for a sense of sharing and
togetherness to prevail) (Rimé 2009). For children, various
attachment contexts such as immediate family, friends and
extended networks are places where trauma mainly gets
enacted and prevented as well. So it becomes important to
look at attachment ties in the aftermath of trauma even when
these events are actually collective and occurred on a large
scale. Another factor under consideration here is the socio-
economic background of the sample which adds another
layer of complexity in terms of understanding their narratives
and coding them.
Objectives This particular study assessing the impact of
trauma on attachment representations of the earthquake and
riots child survivors is of an exploratory kind. Three
propositions are extended here.
a. We predict that children from the two trauma groups
would show considerably higher insecure attach-
ments to both parents than their (no trauma)control
counterparts.
b. Whilst one predicts that there will be greater insecurity
in riots than earthquake group, no directional hypoth-
eses are being extended as to what kind of attachment
insecurity prevails in the two groups of children (i.e.
whether there will be greater numbers of insecure-
dismissing, insecure-preoccupied or disorganized
types). Judging from the interview content itself one
can conjecture that there may be many more instances
of dismissing attachment styles than others (Kumar and
Fonagy 2011).
c. Third, the CAI findings would also provide some
indicators for conceptualizing attachment trauma and
try to address whether children from the two trauma
groups employ different defensive strategies in their
attachment narratives.
Method
Participants
The CAIs were conducted with a sample of 150 Gujarati
children. The 150 participants were representative of the
larger sample that comprised of two disaster populations
Psychol Stud (January–March 2012) 57(1):9–21 11

and a control sample. The interviews were conducted Child Attachment Interview (CAI1)
keeping three groups in mind. The first group was the
earthquake sample (n=48), the second the riots sample (n= (1) Description of the tool: the majority of the scales of
37) and finally a control sample (n=42) adding up to a total CAI aimed to assess the child’s overall current state of
of 127 participants on whom the CAI was administered. mind with respect to attachment, a state of mind which
Nearly 22 interviews could not be used for the final data is assumed to be reflected in the narrative as a whole.
analysis for various reasons; for some it was the sound All scores ranged from 1 to 9 (low to high score) and
quality of the tapes, background noise and at least ten four scales, namely, Preoccupied Anger, Idealization,
interviews couldn’t be used as the mini-DV tapes got Dismissal & Level of security (or general security) are
damaged and the remaining were either not long or rated separately for mother as well as father. The Use
coherent enough to be coded. Table 1 indicates the of examples, Balance of +/− references to attachment
distribution of age and gender across sample. figures, Emotional Openness, Resolution of conflicts
& Overall coherence are referred to as five ‘state of
mind’ scales (Target et al. 2003: 175–177).
Tools (2) Internal consistency of CAI scales: the five ‘state of
mind’ scales were highly intercorrelated, with a
Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire standardized item alpha of 0.92 implying that they
were statistically tapping into a single construct (Target
The SDQ is a short behavioral screening questionnaire et al. 2003: 177). The association between the four
consisting of 25 items. The SDQ version that was used was scales rated separately for mother & father and the
filled out by children themselves. They rated the presence standardized item alphas for these scales were moderate:
of certain behaviors on a 3-point scale (0 _ not true, 1 _ in relation to mother 0.65 and father 0.55 indicating that
somewhat true, and 2 _ certainly true). The time period was when examined for representations of mother & father
the last 6 months. The 25 items were divided between the separately the three types of ‘insecure’ narrative, along
following 5 scales: emotional symptoms, conduct problems, with the general security, did not cohere such that it
hyperactivity, peer problems, and prosocial behavior. The tapped into a single entity.
first 4 scales were also added together to generate a total
difficulties score (referred to as TDS). Cases were allocated
Cross-cultural Applicability and Coding The CAI as a tool
to a reference range, a borderline range, or a clinical range
has other unique features which can enable a cross-cultural
of the scoring distributions based on the British normative
comparison such its flexible and comprehensive interview
sample. Cutoffs were set at the 90th percentile for the
format; the tool offers possibilities of research on cultural
clinical problems and at the 80th percentile for the
elaborations of attachment mechanisms and opens a
borderline problems (Goodman 1997, 1999).
repertoire of studying facial emotions and non-verbal
behavior. Attachment and research on socialization in
children in different cultures have pointed to characteristic
features of secure attachment which need to include
proximity, security, safety & reciprocity etc. These features
Table 1 Age and gender distribution of the sample
might be preferred in varying proportions in different
cultures. The security of attachment and indicators for
Demographic Trauma exposure (in%) Trauma type: insecurity during infancy and childhood have been areas of
characteristics earthquake/riots (in%)
research interest (Sroufe 1982; van IJzendoorn 1992; van
Trauma No Trauma Earthquake Riots (N IJzendoorn 1995; Fonagy et al. 1996; van IJzendoorn and
(N=85) (N=42) (N=48) =37) Bakermans-Kranenburg 1997; van IJzendoorn and Sagi
1999; Weinfield et al. 2000; Fonagy 2004; Sharp et al. 2006
Age to name a few). Insecure attachment with the primary
8–<10 1.2 2.5 2.1 0 caregiver(s) in infancy and childhood and poor social
10–<12 21.2 28.6 29.2 10.8 competence and peer relations, increased aggression are
12–<14 57.6 50.0 64.6 48.6 associated with each other.
Above 14 20.0 19.0 4.2 40.5
Gender
Female 50.6 54.8 41.7 62.2
Male 49.4 45.2 58.3 37.8
1
See, Table 8 at the end of the paper for CAI questionnaire.
12
Data Collection Procedure
The researcher conducted, coded and rated all the 127
interviews herself. Most of the interviews were conducted
at the schools or at the residence of the participants. For
some interviews, that is about 25 or so, they were held at a
third place, such as the community centre or residence of
the social worker or office of the NGO SEWA in
Ahmadabad. The interview had to be organized at a third
place since the participants either lived too far away or in
very poor conditions where the interview might not proceed
smoothly (Table 9).
Case Studies of Children I
Four case studies are presented here to illuminate the
backgrounds and concerns that the children from the trauma
sample seen to present.
Earthquake Survivors
The one of the participants, EQ.6.K.13F, is 13 years old
Muslim girl from the city of Bhuj. She is visibly
uncomfortable during the interview and replies to the
researcher’s probes in monosyllables. When asked about
herself she says she does not think anything about herself
(!). On her relationship with her mother she says she likes
everything the mother does and says that the mother really
dotes on her brother and the only time mother gets angry
with her is when she scolds or hits the brother. She says
whatever she asks from her father he gets for her and he
loves her a lot. She couldn’t think of any wishes she has for
herself but wanted to excel in all domestic chores she does
now for her parents.
The another participant EQ.3.M.12M is a 12 years old
Hindu boy who lives with his aunt in Lodai since he
belongs to a nomad tribe with his parents travelling to
different places grazing their herd of 200-odd sheep and
cows. He saw a lot of damage during the quake and he was
alone when it occurred and distressed after many of their
cattle died in the earthquake. He struggled to understand the
first half of the interview and said that there was nothing
which differentiated him from others when asked to
describe his personality and that everyone is alike. He
missed his parents a lot and felt he was more happy and
carefree in their presence though he had immense freedom
in their absence too. He missed his mother more than the
father. He shared that in the days following the quake he
remained quite troubled. When probed about parental fights
he said that he felt he doesn’t know his parents well enough
to answer that (!). He wishes that he gets a good job and
shares that he is already engaged to be married with
someone in his tribe.
Psychol Stud (January–March 2012) 57(1):9–21
Riots Survivors
One of the riots group participants R.5.N.15F is a 15 years
old Muslim girl from the FD School in Ahmadabad. She
lives with her parents and two sisters. She shares a very
close relationship with her mother and wants to be a doctor.
While describing herself she says that she likes to be alone
and feels that one’s laughter and happiness should be
carefully contained. She had a cousin who was earlier very
lively and has now become very quiet since her mother’s
death and seeing her condition now she feels disheartened
and lonely. Since riots, she has become even more quiet and
reflective. She was sent away to her grandmother’s place
during the riots though she saw the burnt houses and
helpless people from the train.
Another participant from this group is a 12 years old
Muslim boy, R.4.Z.12M, who lost his father during the riots
and lives with his mother, two sisters, two brothers and
grandmother. He begins his self-description by saying that
he does not fight with people and has deep sympathy for
those children who have lost their fathers. One of the
experiences he shared was that there was nothing to eat for
a month during riots and that his family went hungry for
several days altogether barely able to survive. His elder
brother looked after the family and R.4.Z.12M’s narrative is
replete with instances when the brother got sweets and
fruits, gave money to him when he needed it. He lost both
his grandparents in succession immediately following
father’s death in 2002 riots. His family lost their goat and
farm (snatched by Hindus) in the violence. His wishes are
to build a bakery shop on his father’s land, buy a small car
and get his sister married.
Statistical Analysis
All of the statistical analyses were performed using SPSS
16.05 for Windows (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). Descriptives
were calculated and tabulated here for trauma/no trauma
and EQ/R groups across CAI and SDQ measures. Frequencies
and corresponding percentages were calculated for Security of
Attachment to both parents for each group. Descriptives were
calculated for the CAI subscales for various groups. Effect size
denoted by r was calculated manually using the following
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
formula: t 2 =ðt 2 þ df ÞÞ. For group comparisons, Pearson’s
chi-square and Kendall’s tau-b were used for categorical data.
T-tests were done for comparing the 9 mean subscale scores
of CAI. One-way ANOVA was computed to detect within
group differences (between the earthquake, riots and control
samples). Multiple comparisons using Scheffe’s post hoc test
further enabled an analysis of differences between the groups.
Pearson’s correlations for the three clinical scales—Idealiza-
tion, Dismissal & Preoccupied Anger are drawn TDS (SDQ
Psychol Stud (January–March 2012) 57(1):9–21 13

total difficulties score) for the two trauma groups—earth- p<0.01. The mean values (Table 2) show that children who
quake and riots. were not exposed to trauma tended to be more emotionally
open in their approach and responses than those who were
exposed to trauma. Significant difference was also found on
Results and Discussion Balance of positive/negative emotions subscale with t (124)=
3.924, p<0.01 and looking at the mean values (6.07 vs. 5.07)
The first level at which these differences can be understood are those not exposed to trauma show greater balance of
the CAI subscales scores for children who were exposed to emotions. On the Use of examples subscale, the mean values
trauma and those who were not exposed to any trauma (either again point to better illustrations and details (5.46 vs. 5.41)
earthquake or riots). There were 84 participants in total in the for the no trauma group in comparison to the trauma group
trauma group (47 from the earthquake and 37 from the riots with t (125)=4.275, p<0.01. On the Dismissal subscale,
sample) and the remaining 43 belonged to the control sample. significant differences between the two groups were seen
with t (112)=−2.127, p<0.05. The mean values show that the
CAI Subscale Scores for the Disaster Trauma Exposed trauma group has slightly higher value of 2.80 in comparison
vs. No Trauma Control Groups to the 2.12 of the no trauma group. On Resolution of conflicts
subscale, again significant differences were detected with the
The combined trauma group includes both the earthquake trauma group with lesser mean value than the no trauma
and riots samples. As seen in Table 2, the mean values for group (5.36 vs. 6.35), with t (122) =4.424, p<0.01. Similar
the No trauma group are higher than that of the combined trend was seen in Overall Coherence subscale, the mean
Trauma group on Emotional openness, Balance of positive values were 6.74 and 5.80 for the no trauma and trauma
and negative emotions, Use of examples, Resolution of groups respectively and significant difference between the
conflicts & on Overall coherence subscales. However, the two were found with t (124) =4.086, p<0.01. Looking at the
Trauma group has higher mean values on clinical scales effect sizes, medium effect sizes can be seen except for
such as Preoccupied anger, Idealization as well as on dismissal where the size of the effect remains small.
Dismissal. Table 3 provides the T-test values along with the
respective 95% confidence intervals and the corresponding CAI Subscale Scores for Earthquake vs. Riots Group
effect sizes denoted by r.
Apart from Idealization and Preoccupied Anger, the two CAI subscales mean values for both the groups can be
groups differ significantly on the other subscales. In cases of found in Table 5. T-tests detected significant differences on
preoccupied anger and idealization, the mean values suggest most of the subscales with the exception of preoccupied
that the former is almost similarly low values (mean of 1.49 anger (both towards mother & father), dismissal (mother)
vs. 1.51) in no trauma vs. trauma group and in the idealization
subscale the values are somewhat closer to each other with no Table 3 T-tests on CAI subscales for No trauma and Trauma groups
trauma group slightly less than the trauma group (mean of 3.11 (combined)
vs. 3.49).
CAI subscales T Sig. CI (95%) R
Significant difference between the no trauma and trauma
groups was found on emotional openness, with t (125)=4.291, Emotional openness 4.291 0.000 0.52–1.45 0.33a
Balance of +/− 3.924 0.000 0.51–1.54 0.33a
Table 2 Mean values of No Trauma vs (combined) Trauma children
emotions
on CAI subscales
Use of examples 4.275 0.000 0.57–1.54 0.35a
CAI subscales No trauma group Trauma group Preoccupied anger 0.005 NS – –
towards mother
N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Preoccupied anger −0.386 NS – –
towards father
Emotional openness 42 6.67 (1.06) 84 5.71 (1.44) Idealization of −1.846 0.067 −0.12–0.04 0.16
mother
Balance of +/− emotions 42 6.07 (1.09) 83 5.04 (1.52)
Idealization of father −0.973 NS – –
Use of examples 42 5.46 (1.22) 84 5.41 (1.36)
Dismissal of mother −2.476 0.015 −1.34 to −0.01 0.28b
Preoccupied angera 41 1.49 (0.81) 69 1.51 (1.02)
Dismissal of father −1.585 NS – –
Idealizationa 42 3.11 (1.21) 71 3.49 (1.91)
Resolution of 4.424 0.00 0.55–1.43 0.37a
Dismissala 42 2.12 (1.49) 71 2.80 (1.19) conflicts
Resolution of conflicts 42 6.35 (1.17) 81 5.36 (1.19) Overall coherence 4.086 0.00 0.48–1.39 0.34a
Overall coherence 42 6.74 (1.14) 84 5.80 (1.24) a
0.3 as medium effect size
a b
Mean scores for both parents 0.2 and less as small effect size
14
and resolution of conflicts. The children in the riots group
have a higher mean score on Emotional Openness
subscale, (6.44 vs. 5.19) in comparison to the earthquake
group. T-test detected a significant difference in the two
groups with t(83)=− 4.634, p<0.001. On balance of
positive/negative emotions, the riots group has a mean
score of 5.51 and the earthquake group is 4.73 and t-test
detected a significant difference between the two with t
(82)=−2.351, p<0.05. The mean score of the riots group
was higher in comparison to that of the earthquake group
on the Use of examples subscale (5.92 vs. 5.05) and t-test
once again detected a significant difference there with
t(83)=−3.047, p<0.005. The earthquake group has signif-
icantly higher mean score on Idealization towards mother
than the riots counterpart (4.02 vs. 3.15) with t(82)=2.525,
p<0.05 and the same significant difference, t(70)=3.831,
p<0.001 was found for Idealization towards father with
earthquake mean score of 3.95 and a slightly lower mean
score of 3.29 seen in case of riots group. Dismissal of father
was also found to be significant across the two groups with
the riots group reporting a lower score than the earthquake
(1.55 vs. 3.30) with t(71)=4.090, p<0.001. On Overall
coherence subscale, the riots group report a higher mean
score than the earthquake (6.13 vs. 5.61) and significant
difference between the two groups was detected with
t(83)=−1.880, p<0.10. On resolution of conflicts subscale,
the mean values suggest that the riots group has higher
score than the earthquake group though the two means were
not significantly different. The effect sizes reported above
are from medium to small and seem to point towards
sizeable differences between the two groups on various CAI
dimensions. Table 4 provides frequency and percentages of
children with secure/insecure attachment for the three
groups.
The earthquake group has 16.7% of children with secure
attachment to one parent in comparison to 59.5% of those
from the riots group and 9.5% from the control group. The
control sample reported the highest numbers (69%) of
children with secure attachments to both parents followed
by 29.7% of the riots affected and 29.2% of the earthquake
affected who were securely attached to both parents. The
earthquake group had the highest percentage of those
insecurely attached to both parents (54.2%) followed by the
control group with 21.4% and 10.8% of the riots children who
were insecurely attached to both parents. Chi-square detected
significant differences between the three groups on general
security of attachment, χ2 (3, N=127) =46.202, p<0.001.
The Tables 5 and 6 presents group comparisons for both the
Trauma (combined) and No trauma and Earthquake and
Riots groups
Attachment Security in Trauma/No Trauma Groups Chi-
square test detected significant differences on general
Psychol Stud (January–March 2012) 57(1):9–21
Table 4 Attachment Security across the Research Groups
N (N%) Earthquake Riots No trauma
Secure attachment
With one parent 8 (16.7) 22 (59.5) 4 (9.5)
Both parents 14 (29.2) 11 (29.7) 29 (69.0)
Insecure attachment
Both parents 26 (54.2) 4 (10.8) 9 (21.4)
χ2 =46.202, p=0.000
security, χ2 (3, N=127) =19.119, p<0.000. Amongst a total
of 127 children, the trauma group had about 29.4% (25)
securely attached to both parents while 69% (29) of the no
trauma group were securely attached to both parents. There
were 35.3% (30) insecurely attached to one parent from the
trauma group and 9.5% (4) children from the no trauma
group were securely attached to one parent. 35.3% (30)
were insecurely attached to both parents in the trauma
group while 21.4% (9) were insecurely attached to both
parents from the no trauma group. Chi-square tests detected
differences between the trauma and no trauma group on
secondary classification for mother, χ2 (3, N=127) =7.626,
p<0.10. Out of 127 children, the trauma group 29.4% (25)
showed dismissing attachment towards mother, 8.2% (7)
showed preoccupied attachment to the mother while 14.1
(12) had a mixed attachment-dismissal with features of
preoccupied attachment (29.4% (25) out of the about 48.2%
were securely attached to both and remaining had lost their
mothers). Whereas in the no trauma group, 14.3% (6)
showed dismissing attachment to the mother, 9.5% (4)
showed preoccupied attachment while 4.8% (2) showed
features of mixed attachment (69% (29) out of the 71.4%
were securely attached to both in this group with only one
child whose mother had passed away).
Breaking the trauma group further down into earthquake and
riots subgroups, a significant difference between the earthquake
and riot groups on general security of attachment was found with
χ2 (2, N=85) =21.971, p<0.001. In terms of percentage &
frequency of attachment security, in the earthquake group (n=
48) 29.2% (14) were securely attached with both parents,
16.7% (8) were securely attached to one parent and 54.1% (26)
were insecurely attached to both parents. In contrast the riots (n=
37) there were 29.7% (11) participants securely attached to both
mother & father, 59.5% (22) who were securely attached to one
parent and 10.8% (4) insecurely attached to both parents.
Looking at the secondary classification, in the earthquake
sample of those who were insecurely attached, 43.8% (21)
showed dismissing attachment, 8.3% (4) who appeared
preoccupied in their attachment to the mother and 12.5% (6)
who showed mixed attachment (dismissal along with preoccu-
pied characteristics) whereas in the riots group amongst those
who were insecurely attached 10.8% (4) showed dismissing
Psychol Stud (January–March 2012) 57(1):9–21 15

Table 5 Mean values and T-test results of Earthquake vs. Riots sample on CAI subscales

CAI subscales Earthquake Riots T Sig. CI (95%) r (ES)

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD)

Emotional openness 48 5.19 (1.28) 37 6.44 (1.37) −4.634 0.000 −1.83 to −0.69 0.45a
Balance of +/− emotions 47 4.73 (1.61) 37 5.51 (1.37) −2.351 0.021 −1.44 to −0.12 0.25b
Use of examples 48 5.05 (1.17) 37 5.92 (1.45) −3.047 0.003 −1.43 to −0.30 0.32a
Preoccupied anger—Mother 46 1.51 (1.02) 35 1.71 (1.81) −0.640 NS – –
Preoccupied anger—Father 43 1.53 (1.21) 28 1.41 (1.31) 0.409 NS – –
Idealization—Mother 48 4.02 (1.60) 37 3.15 (1.50) 2.525 0.014 0.18–0.15 0.27b
Idealization—Father 44 3.95 (1.58) 28 3.29 (1.84) 3.831 0.000 0.75–2.37 0.42a
Dismissal—Mother 48 3.23 (2.04) 35 2.54 (2.03) 1.517 NS – –
Dismissal—Father 45 3.30 (2.14) 28 1.55 (1.50) 4.090 0.000 0.89–2.60 0.44a
Resolution of conflicts 45 5.23 (1.07) 37 5.55 (1.33) −1.207 NS – –
Overall coherence 48 5.61 (1.25) 37 6.13 (1.29) −1.880 0.064 −1.07 to −0.30 0.20b
a
0.4–0.3 as medium effect size
b
0.2 as small effect size

attachment, 8.1% (3) showed preoccupied attachment and
16.2% (6) showed mixed attachments to their mothers. Chi-
square test confirmed a significant difference between the two
groups on sub-classification of mother, χ2 (3, N=85) =11.670,
p<0.010. A significant difference was also found between the
two groups on the secondary classification for the father with
χ2 (4, N=85) =12.027, p<0.05. In the earthquake sample,
amongst those with insecure attachment, 45.8% (22) displayed
dismissing attachment, 2.1% (1) showed preoccupied attach-
ment, 12.5% (6) showed mixed attachment and 2.1% (1)
displayed disorganized attachment to their fathers whereas in
the riot group, 13.5% (5) displayed dismissing attachment,

Table 6 Group comparisons on general security & secondary classifications on CAI

CAI classifications Trauma group (combined) No trauma τb/χ2 Sig. Earthquake Riots τb/χ2 Sig.
N (N%) N (N%)

General security of attachment

Securely attached with both 25 (29.4) 29 (69.0) 19.119 0.000 14 (29.2) 11 (29.7) 21.971 0.000
Securely attached with one 30 (35.3) 4 (9.5) 8 (16.7) 22 (59.5)
Insecurely attached to both 30 (35.3) 9 (21.4) 26 (54.1) 4 (10.8)
Secondary classification-attachment
representation of parents
Classification for mother
Mother—Dismissing 25 (29.4) 6 (14.3) 7.626 0.054 21 (43.8) 4 (10.8) 11.670 0.009
Mother—Preoccupied 7 (8.2) 4 (9.5) 4 (8.3) 3 (8.1)
Mother—Mixed 12 (14.1) 2 (4.8) 6 (12.5) 6 (16.2)
Classification for father
Father—Dismissing 27 (31.8) 5 (11.9) 13.205 0.010 22 (45.8) 5 (13.5) 12.027 0.017
Father—Preoccupied 1 (1.2) 3 (7.1) 1 (2.1) 0
Father—Mixed 11 (12.9) 2 (4.8) 6 (12.5) 5 (13.5)
Father—Disorganized 2 (2.4) 0 1 (2.1) 1 (2.7)
Presence of major violations
No 32 (37.6) 25 (59.5) 5.438 0.016 13 (27.1) 19 (51.4) 5.242 0.019
Yes 53 (62.4) 17 (40.5) 35 (72.9) 18 (48.6)
Presence of minor violations
No 19 (22.4) 14 (33.3) NS 7 (14.6) 12 (32.4) 3.835 0.045
Yes 66 (77.6) 28 (66.7) 41 (85.4) 25 (67.6)
16
none showed preoccupied attachment though 13.5% (5)
showed mixed attachment (dismissing with preoccupied
characteristics) and 2.7% (1) with disorganized attachment to
the father.
Further Comparisons—Correlations of CAI Subscales
with SDQ-TDS
Correlations Correlations between the CAI subscales and
the SDQ TDS for the earthquake sample did not yield any
significant results. However, significant correlations be-
tween CAI subscales and SDQ TDS were seen in the case
of riots sample. Table 7 highlights the correlations results
for the riots sample (Tables 8 and 9).
Synthesizing the Findings
Beginning with the CAI subscales mean scores of the No-
Trauma and Trauma groups, it can be seen that the former
consistently reports higher mean values in comparison to
the Trauma exposed sample. Strictly following the formal
CAI scoring, this indicates that the No Trauma group
performs better as the participants elaborate well, providing
vivid and emotionally balanced narratives. Values of the
three clinical scales, which include, Preoccupied Anger,
Idealization and Dismissal that feed into general attachment
security are lower in the no trauma group in comparison to
the riots group (see, Tables 2 and 3). Significant group
differences are detected on almost all scales with the
exception of Preoccupied Anger (mother & father), Ideal-
ization of the father and Dismissal of the mother.
Preoccupied Anger values have been low for the entire
sample indicating that there may be a cultural issue around
expressing negative emotions or anger vis-à-vis authority
figures such as parents or grandparents (elders in general)
(see, work on ‘filial piety’ by Shweder 1991; Kakar 2001
amongst others who argue on similar lines). In the
Table 7 CAI subscales and TDS correlations for the Riots group
CAI subscales* SDQ TDS (N=32) Pearson’s
correlation
Emotional openness * SDQ TDS −0.438*
Balance of +/− references to attachment −0.536**
figures * SDQ TDS
Use of examples * SDQ TDS −0.449**
Dismissal * SDQ TDS 0.448*
Resolution of conflicts* SDQ TDS −0.412*
Overall coherence * SDQ TDS −0.436*
**P<.01, 2 tailed, *P<.05, 2 tailed
Psychol Stud (January–March 2012) 57(1):9–21
Table 8 The child attachment interview (CAI) protocol
1) Can you tell me about the people in your family?
- The people living together in your house (then ask about extended
family)
2) Tell me three words that describe yourself, that is what sort of
person you are?
- 3 examples
3) Can you tell me three words to describe your relationship with your
mum, that is, what it’s like to be with your Mum?
- Examples for each
4) What happens when your Mum gets cross with you or tells you off?
- Story—questions within it. How you feel, how she feels etc.
[3 and 4 repeated for Dad, or other main caregivers]
5) Can you tell me about a time when you were really upset and
wanted help?
- Story
6) Do you ever feel that your parents don’t really love you?
- When? Do they know you feel that?
7) What happens when you’re ill?
- Example
8) What happens when you get hurt?
- Example
9) Have you ever been hit or hurt by an older child or a grown up in
your family?
- Story
- Have you been badly hurt by someone outside your family?
10) (Elementary school aged children:) Have you ever been touched in
the private parts of your body by someone much older than you?
(For older children:) Have you ever been touched sexually by
someone, when you didn’t want them to do it?
- Story
11) Has anything [else] really big happened to you that upset, scared
or confused you?
- Story
12) Has anyone important to you ever died? Has a pet you cared about
died?
- Story, what did you feel and others feel?
13) Is there anyone that you cared about who isn’t around anymore?
14) Have you been away from your parents for longer than a day? [If
child not living with parents, e.g. foster care, ask about time when
they left parents]
- Story, how did you and parents feel, what was it like when you saw
them again?
15) Do your parents sometimes argue?
Sig. - Story, how do you feel?
16) In what ways would you like/not like to be like your mum/dad?
0.012 17) If you could make three wishes when you are older what would
they be?
0.002
0.010
0.032
Earthquake and Riots subgroups, a statistically significant
0.019
difference on the general attachment security on exposure
0.013
to trauma can be seen. The riots group reported lesser
numbers of insecure attachments to both parents. This was
Psychol Stud (January–March 2012) 57(1):9–21 17

Table 9 Timeline of data collection and analysis

Time period Preparation of materials Work accomplished

Jan 2006
Jan 2006–June 2006
July 2006–September 2006
Sept 2006–Jan 2008
August 2007–Dec. 2008
Jan 2009–August 2009
Training for CAI instrument at Anna Freud
Centre
Mastering use of CAI Adaptation in Gujarati
CAI piloted on two Gujarati children in
London and Ahmedabad
Field work in Gujarat with intermittent breaks
CAI transcribed from videos in worddoc
format and translated in English
Building conceptual model of attachment
trauma using CAI data
Accredited user of CAI
Liaison with two independent attachment researchers and
co-supervisor, plus two psychologists from Gujarat in the
adaptation process
Successfully coded and analysed the transcripts
CAI used to interview 127 children from Gujarat
Simultaneous coding of a few interviews and discussion with
CAI experts in AFC and UCL for their feedback
Presentation of initial findings with a group of psychoanalytic
researchers in IPA’s empirical research workshop in August
2007 in London and to child psychologists in Delhi and in
Indian Family therapists group in 2008
All CAIs ready for SPSS and Atlas-Ti analysis (for quantitative
& qualitative analysis with the help of three graduate students
from Delhi University)
Group differences via ANOVA and multiple comparisons using
post hoc tests such as Scheffe
Logistic regression due to presence of several binary variables
in data
Simultaneous qualitative analysis using Interpretive
Phenomenological approach, Framework analysis and finally
arriving at an independent scheme for analysis

the case because there were greater numbers of deaths of
fathers in this group. Overall, the higher proportion of
secure attachments to both parents could be seen in cases of
those not exposed to trauma while the figures were nearly
the same for both the riots and earthquake group with the
riots reporting slightly higher percentage (29.7% vs.
29.2%).
The Riot sample reports significantly higher mean scores
on almost all subscales with the exception of Idealization
where the earthquake sample seems to be idealizing both
mother and father more than the former. Similar results
were seen on Dismissal where the Earthquake sample
seems to show greater dismissal of both mother and father
in comparison to their riots counterpart (see Table 5). In the
case of Preoccupied anger, interestingly, the earthquake
sample’s mean score is higher for preoccupied anger against
the father while the riots sample seems to have higher mean
score for preoccupied anger against the mother in comparison
to their riots counterpart. Statistically though, there is a non-
significant difference between the two groups on Preoccupied
anger against both parents, Dismissal of mother as well as
Resolution of conflicts.
Locating Specific Group Differences
Multiple comparisons between the No Trauma (control),
Earthquake and Riots group means on Dismissal and
Idealization subscales were carried out to further examine
the group-differences. One way ANOVA along with
multiple comparisons of Earthquake, Riots and Control
(No trauma) groups taking Idealization and Dismissal
scores for both mother and father were performed. It
showed that Idealization was significant with F(2,113)=
9.35, p=0.000 for Idealization of mother and F(2, 125)=
5.13, p=0.006 for Idealization of father. Further analyses
using the Scheffé post hoc criterion for significance indicated
that the mean score of Idealization towards father in case
of the earthquake group was significantly higher (M=
3.95, SD=1.58) in comparison to the riots (M=2.39, SD=
1.84) or the no trauma (control) group (M=3.03, SD=1.65).
The same result was found on Idealization for mother where
the Scheffé test indicated that the mean score of the
Earthquake group (M=4.02, SD=1.60) was significantly
higher to that of the No trauma (M=3.12, SD=1.31) or the
Riots (M=3.15, SD=1.50) group.
Significant differences were found for Dismissal of
Mother and Father with F(2, 124)=3.948, p=0.022 for
Dismissal of Mother and F(2, 114)=9.751, p=0.000 for
Dismissal of father. Scheffé post hoc criterion for signifi-
cance indicated that the mean score of the earthquake group
(M=3.23, SD=2.04) was significantly higher than that of
the control group (M=2.12, SD=1.58) while the difference
between earthquake and riots group was a non-significant
one in case of Dismissal of mother subscale. Post hoc
18
comparisons for Dismissal of father indicated a pattern
similar to one seen in case of Idealization above, where the
mean score of Dismissal of father for the earthquake group
(M=3.30, SD=2.14) was significantly different from that of
the Riots (M=1.55, SD=1.49) or the Control group (M=
2.05, SD=1.49).
In summary, the Earthquake sample appears to set itself
apart from the Riots and the No trauma (control) group as far
as scales scores for Idealization towards both parents as well
as Dismissal for father are concerned. This interesting pattern
might indicate not only how the rural sample of Earthquake
affected children is more likely to adhere to traditional values
of ‘filial piety’ but they might also be somewhat less critical or
mentalizing about their relationships. By contrast, the urban
samples of the Control- no trauma and Riots groups might be
less idealizing of their parents and perhaps more vocal about
their experiences and attachments.
Secondary Classifications on CAI In the Trauma/No Trauma
group, the most predominant attachment category was found
to be Dismissing (forboth parents). This is followed by
Preoccupied, where the Trauma group shows, 8.2% (7) and
No-Trauma 9.5% (4) of children in this category. There were
many more children in the Mixed attachment category in the
Trauma group 14.1% (12) vs. 4.8% (2) of the No-trauma
group. Looking at attachment classifications for fathers, the
same pattern was repeated here with 31.8% (27) of the
Trauma group in the dismissing category vs. 11.9% (5)
of the No-Trauma group whereas 1.2% (1) of the
trauma group with preoccupied attachment to the father
vs. 7.1% (3) from the No-trauma group. In the mixed
category, 12.9% (11) were from the Trauma group as
opposed to 4.8% (2) of the No-trauma group. Only
2.4% (2) from the Trauma-group were found to be showing a
disorganized attachment to their fathers. While the Dismissing
category predominates for both mother and father in general
for the entire sample, it is also clear that those exposed to
trauma show more dismissing features than those not exposed.
The higher numbers of those showing mixed attachment to
mother and father in the Trauma group also show that mixed
emotions- ambivalence and avoidance continues to dominate
their relationships and indicate how their expectations,
memories and thoughts have been affected in the process.
While the strong presence of mixed attachment style (i.e.
presence of preoccupied and dismissing characteristics) might
indicate a certain (inevitable) composite of emotions vis-à-vis
caregivers, for the trauma group it becomes critical to
understand whether conflicting internal objects implies more
raucous & chaos than stability and maturity of attachments.
Looking at how the Earthquake and Riots fare in
secondary classification, Table 6 indicates that the
Earthquake group shows many more children with
Dismissing attachments to their Mothers and fathers vis-
Psychol Stud (January–March 2012) 57(1):9–21
à-vis their Riots counterpart. Almost equal numbers of
children show Preoccupied attachments to their mothers in
both groups, whereas none from the Riots group and only
one participant from the Earthquake group showed
Preoccupied attachment to their father. Overall, the
Earthquake and Riots samples show almost equitable
numbers of Mixed attachments to their parents. While
there are no individuals showing disorganized attachment
to mother, one participant in each of the Trauma group had
disorganized attachment to the father.
Looking at the presence of major and minor
violations in overall narrative coherence, the Trauma
group has far more violations in both major and minor
violations than the No-trauma group. In the Earthquake
and Riots sample, the former shows greater major and
minor violations that may suggest a range of possible
reasons: poor comprehension and verbal skills to begin
with, notwithstanding that, there is a message for the
kind of impact the trauma event makes on the narrative
state of mind of the children. It appears that those
exposed to human-induced violence might have a more
emotionally broken, at times discontinuous narrative yet
their ability to articulate their strains and experiences
might be more nuanced than those exposed to the
natural disaster where a symbolic articulation—capacity
to narrate—itself gets implicated and imbued, thus
compromised in the trauma.
Using the results above to draw implications for attachment
trauma, there is, as the results suggest, a dominance of
dismissing and mixed attachment ties to both parents in the
trauma groups. Clearly many more of the earthquake
exposed show dismissing patterns than those exposed to
riots. And almost equal numbers of mixed attachments to
both parents in both groups. The mixed pattern suggests
ways in which both events might have the same trajectories.
So in order to look for the roots of Attachment trauma,
Dismissal and predominance of mixed attachment styles
need to be better understood in the context of the two events.
Secondly, the overall coherence is compromised by the
presence of major and minor violations in speech. There are
greater numbers of violations made by the Trauma group in
comparison to the No Trauma and within the Trauma group;
the Earthquake group appeared to resort to more defensive
maneuvers and cognitive strategies that impede the coher-
ence and clarity of their narrative.
Non-verbal Indicators of Attachment Trauma While the
non-verbal indicators require further examination in terms
of understanding emotions underpinning the reactions of
children, the Trauma group appeared to be more fazed by
the interview as a result a number of abrupt behavioral
changes and shifts in attention and anxiety could be
spotted.
Psychol Stud (January–March 2012) 57(1):9–21
Focusing on the Earthquake and Riots trauma groups
here, the marked anxiety results show that the Earthquake
sample showed marked changes which were higher than the
Riots sample (22.2% vs. 11.4% for moderate level). A
majority of children did not show disorganized behavior
however, amongst those who did show, 12.5% (5) belonged
to the Earthquake sample vs. 8.1% (3) from the Riots
sample. Marked behavioral change was seen more in the
case of the Riots sample though the difference was not a
statistically significant one. A number of participants did
not show behavioral change such as change in tone or
voice, anxiety, facial expressions etc. on questions which
may have warranted some change such as those about death
of parent, protracted separation or loss etc. Despite the
difference not being statistically significant, about similar
numbers of the children from both Earthquake and Riots
sample (60.4% (29) vs. 56.8% (21)) of participants
remained unfazed (at least in their outward behavior) by
such questions. Consistent with expected behavioral change
findings reported above, the Riots sample showed major as
well as greater instances of minor tonal changes during
their interview. At one level this could imply that their
verbal and non-verbal emotions were in sync, it could also
be that there were many more experiences of disturbing
kinds interspersed in their narrative therefore more tonal
changes were encountered. This difference was statistically
significant in the case of Trauma/No Trauma group where
the No Trauma sample appeared to express feelings & make
gestures in consonance with their narrative.
The Riots group participants maintained better eye
contact during the interview than those in the Earthquake.
There were many children in the Earthquake sample that
would show intermittent good eye contact and then
suddenly take eyes off somewhere else or look on the
down suggesting either exhaustion, boredom or even
anxiety. The Trauma group appeared to show greater
discrepancies between the behavior & content of narrative
than the No-Trauma group. However, in the two Trauma
samples, the Riots group appeared to show greater discrep-
ancies than the Earthquake. The discrepancies were in the
form of longer pauses, sudden changes of facial expres-
sions, facial twitches or dysfluent and repetitive discourse
at times. Overall, the Trauma sample experienced more
difficulties in understanding the first three questions on the
CAI. These questions are three words to describe one’s self/
personality, three words to describe relationship with
mother & the same for the father. Within the Trauma
sample, the Earthquake sample had greater difficulties than
the Riots sample. As elaborated above, some of these
difficulties could stem from poor verbal or comprehension
abilities, others might have encountered these questions as
difficult as these could be more ‘urban or Western centric’
approach to looking at one’s relationship, and for some
19
others particularly the rural poor Gujarati context provided
very little exposure and stimulation to assimilate psycho-
logical sophistication of this kind—involving a self-
introspective approach to looking at self & others.
In summary, the non-verbal behavioral pattern which
emerges for the Trauma groups is such that the Riots
sample appeared to be allowing and undergoing more
visceral bodily/facial changes than the Earthquake sample.
The Earthquake sample despite showing more anxiety signs
appeared to have remained somewhat distanced from the
kind of ‘internal world & memories activation’ that CAI
purports to achieve. This dismissing strategy indicated this
distancing which could both be a result of trauma or
cognitive distancing that may arise from a certain lack in
mentalizing and other verbal and emotional abilities
(Fonagy 2004; Fonagy and Target 1997).
Indicators for Attachment Trauma
A few indicators of attachment trauma are developed here
utilizing the findings above. There are two relational patterns
which dominate the Trauma exposed children’s representa-
tions of their parents and other caregivers: dismissing and
mixed attachment styles. Other indicators include non-verbal
maneuvers that can be seen as defensive strategies adopted by
body/mind (in what can be seen as interpersonal and social
expression of their feelings) to ward off anxiety reactions.
Relational Mechanisms These mechanisms can be seen in
the Secondary Classifications of CAI accorded to the
children. Two significant patterns emerge from the analysis
above, the dominance of dismissing attachment as well as a
more eclectic-mixed style which combines preoccupied and
avoidant mechanisms at the same time.
Dismissing Attachment
A boy who lost his father in riots says, ‘no, nothing
like that’ when asked if there has been any major
event in his life that caused him pain (P4.12.B)
Dismissing attachment also known as restricted or avoidant
attachment style is in general commonly found in trauma
exposed samples in other studies (see, Shmueli-Goetz et al.
2008; Kaplan 2006). The dismissing attachment suggests
predominance of dismissal as a strategy and is typically
marked by impoverished narrative elaboration. Dismissal is
also seen when the child overrules or overlooks his/her care
needs or significance of warmth, security and caregiving in
his primary relationships. Research points out that often
20
children resort to dismissal as a defense due to poor or
negligent caregiving as a tool to prevent the self from further
pain or emotional assault. It becomes a pathological albeit
adaptive mechanism to tolerate disturbing affects and abuse or
lack of parental warmth or care. In the Trauma samples in this
study, the Earthquake sample shows higher incidence of
Dismissing attachments to both parents in comparison to the
Riots sample, though, as a category dismissal stands out even
within the Riots sample. There was greater incidence of
Dismissal vis-à-vis the Mother while in case of Father
Dismissal equaled the Mixed category for the Riots group.
Two contrasting features of dismissal were discerned during
the interview coding process; it was noticed that the two
trauma groups were employing different kinds of dismissal
strategies: a) In the Earthquake group, the avoidance was
more in narrative elaboration (‘thin’ descriptions) and inability
to construe or adduce the parent–child relationships in their
entirety during the interview. In effect, it was the potential
of elaboration, exploration of parental care and provision of
care which appeared impoverished. b) Whilst in the Riots
sample the avoidance or dismissal was not in the
elaboration or in the narrative potential but in the children’s
denial of their needs. Hence, neither group denied the value
of their relationship context as such but one (earthquake)
sketched before the researcher the limited domain of their
perception or was it the actuality of their relationships—that
were quite limited, concrete and unnourished itself while
the other group kept denying its need for more attention
and care (riots)!
Mixed Attachment Style—Between Dismissal and
Ambivalence This category was developed in order to include
and do justice to CAIs of those children who resorted to both
dismissing and ambivalent strategies in describing their
relationships and putting them into either of the two categories
would have not been appropriate. There were nearly equal
numbers of children in the Earthquake/Riots group who
showed mixed attachment to their mothers and fathers.
However, for the Trauma/No trauma groups, clearly the former
had a larger representation of mixed category indicating that
trauma as such could account for this fused attachment. In
many ways, the presence of mixed emotions or relationship
schemas suggested that the child battled two realities or splits in
the internal world at the same time. It also showed how the
defense mechanism gave intermittent opening to anger,
resentment and general sense of neediness along with a general
dismissing strategy. In thinking about how different this
category is to the two dismissing strategies described above:
& The mixed category shows a strong presence of conflict
which comes up and goes down. As a result it is marked
by some denigration, resentment or preoccupation with
the caregiving figure or the caregiving context and then
Psychol Stud (January–March 2012) 57(1):9–21
momentarily it gets phased out to be replaced by a
dismissing outlook which (perhaps?) seeks to resolve or
suppress the conflict.
& One can conjecture that a mixed attachment style might
be more adaptive than the dismissing style where the
ability to hold negative thought, feelings or anger is
denied and scotomized. However, the problem with the
former might be in the frequency of swings between the
two states of mind (ambivalent/restricted) or their
presence in the narrative. The constant moving-back-
and-forth between these two states of mind/being are
itself indicative of a traumatized self. So one could then
argue that trauma mutes self knowledge/elaboration
(presence of dismissal/denial) as well as splits/fractures
the self (upsurge of conflicting states/objects) in various
ways.
& This category could also help understand how needs/
attachment dichotomy is enacted by the children. Do
children dismiss their physical needs more and respond
slightly openly (judgmentally?) by adopting ambivalent
postures to the parental provision of care/attachments?
In the CAI, the non-verbal behaviors seen in the videos
helped define what sort of strategies children employed
and at what junctures during the interview.
Distortion of Affect
A boy who lost his father in riots says, ‘no, nothing
like that’ when asked if there has been any major
event in his life that caused him pain (P4.12.B)
There were greater instances of poor and distracted eye
contact with the researcher in the Trauma group participants
during the interview. Amidst these, the Earthquake sample
showed more instances of breaks in eye-contact or poor
contact than the Riots group. There were very few voice or
tonal changes seen with the Earthquake sample and their
affect at times appeared flat in comparison to the Riots
counterpart. In the Riots sample, there were higher
instances of discrepancies between affect, behavior and
content of the narrative. For this group, the affective
distancing became necessary for narrative elaboration and
coherence and at other times, the opposite had to be done to
vent out disturbing feelings.
Concrete Representation Dominance of the dismissing style
by gestures such as vigorously shaking head to say no,
repeated no or don’t remember phrases, or long pause and
reiteration of same thing said before, made the narrative
quite ‘thin’ (in terms of maxims of quantity, quality as well
Psychol Stud (January–March 2012) 57(1):9–21
as relevance). As the actual elaboration kept thinning out,
whatever remained of the child’s representations were
actually quite concrete in nature. Clearly this was more
prevalent in the Earthquake sample. The dominance of
Idealization as a strategy further substantiates how concrete
their representations become in the absence of adequate
elaboration.
References
Catani, C., Schauer, E., Elbert, T., Missmahl, I., Bette, J.-P., & Neuner,
F. (2009). War trauma, child labor and family violence: life
adversities and PTSD in a sample of school children in Kabul.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 22(3), 163–171. doi:10.1002/
jts.20415.
Fonagy, P. (2004). The roots of social understanding in the attachment
relationship: an elaboration on the constructionist theory. Behavior
and Brain Sciences, 27(1), 105–106. doi:10.1017/
S0140525X04320030.
Fonagy, P., & Target, M. (1997). Attachment and reflective
function: their role in self-organization. Development and Psycho-
pathology, 9(4), 697–700. Retrieved from http://www.journals.
cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=43496.
Fonagy, P., Leigh, T., Steele, M., Steele, H., Kennedy, R., & Mattoon,
G. (1996). The relation of attachment status, psychiatric
classification, and response to psychotherapy. Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 22–31. Retrieved from
h t t p : / / w w w. l i n k i n g h u b . e l s e v i e r. c o m / r e t r i e v e / p i i /
S0022006X0200935X.
George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1985). The adult attachment
interview. Unpublished protocol: University of California, Berkeley.
Goodman, R. (1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a
research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38,
581–596. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x.
Goodman, R. (1999). The extended version of the strengths and
difficulties questionnaire as a guide to child psychiatric caseness
and consequent burden. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 40, 791–801. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00494.
Human Rights Watch Report (Internet). ‘We have no orders to save
you’ PUCL Bulletin 2002, [Accessed on 22 January 2009]
Weblink: http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Religion-communalism/
2002/hrw.htm
Kakar, S. (2001). The essential writings of Sudhir Kakar. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Kaplan, S. (2006). Children in genocide: extreme traumatization and
the ‘affect propellor’. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis,
87, 725–746. doi:10.1516/9C86-H1RG-K3FF-DRAH.
Kumar, M. (2007). A journey into the bleeding city: following the
footprints of the rubble of riots and the violence of the earthquake
in Gujarat. Psychology and Developing Societies, 19(1), 1–37.
doi:10.1177/097133360701900101.
Kumar, M. (2010). Politics of exclusion and social marginalization of
Muslims in India: case study of Gujarat. Journal of Applied
Psychoanalytic Studies, 7(3), 209–218. doi:10.1002/aps.256.
Kumar, M., & Fonagy, P. (2011). Understanding trauma of Gujarati child
survivors of two disasters: reviewing ‘attachment trauma’ using
Child Attachment Interview material. Manuscript submitted to
International Journal of Psychoanalysis.
View publication stats
21
Mehta, L. (2001). Reflections on Kutch earthquake. Economic and
Political Weekly. 4 August, pp. 2931–2936, http://www.epw.org.in/.
Neuner, F., Schauer, E., Catani, C., Ruf, M., & Elbert, T. (2006).
Post-tsunami stress: a study of posttraumatic stress disorder in
children living in three severely affected regions in Sri Lanka.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 19(3), 339–347. doi:10.1002/
jts.20121.
Norris, F. H., Galea, S., Friedman, M. J., & Watson, P. J. (Eds.).
(2006). Methods for disaster mental health research. New York:
Guildford.
Pynoos, R. S., Goenjian, A. K., Walling, D., Steinberg, A. M.,
Karayan, I., & Najarian, L. M. (2005). A prospective study
of posttraumatic stress and depressive reactions among
treated and untreated adolescents 5 years after a catastrophic
disaster. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 2302–
2308. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.162.12.2302.
Rimé, B. (2009). Emotion elicits the social sharing of emotions:
theory and empirical review. Emotion Review, 1, 60–85.
doi:10.1177/1754073908097189.
Sharp, C., Fonagy, P., & Goodyer, I. M. (2006). Imagining your child’s
mind: psychosocial adjustment and mother’s ability to predict
their children’s attributional response styles. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 24, 197–214. doi:10.1348/
026151005X82569.
Shmueli-Goetz, Y. (2001). Child attachment interview: Development
and validation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University
College London.
Shmueli-Goetz, Y., Target, M., Fonagy, P., & Datta, A. (2008). The
child attachment interview: a psychometric study of reliability
and discriminant validity. Developmental Psychology, 44(4),
939–956. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.4.939.
Shweder, R. A. (1991). Thinking through cultures: Expeditions in
cultural psychology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sroufe, L. A. (1982). The organization of emotional development.
Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 1, 575–599. Retrieved from http://www.
pep-web.org/document.php?id=pi.001.0575a.
Target, M., Fonagy, P., & Shmueli-Goetz, Y. (2003). Attachment
representations in school-age children: the development of the
child attachment interview (CAI). Journal of Child Psychotherapy,
29, 171–186. doi:10.1080/0075417031000138433.
Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1995). Adult attachment representations,
parental responsiveness, and infant attachment: a meta-
analysis on the predictive validity of the adult attachment
interview. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 387–403. Retrieved
from http://www.linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/
S0033290902002666.
Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1992). Intergenerational transmission of
parenting: a review of studies in nonclinical populations.
Developmental Review, 12, 76–99. doi:10.1016/0273-2297(92)
90004-L.
Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (1997).
Intergenerational transmission of attachment: A move to the
contextual level. In L. Atkinson & K. J. Zucker (Eds.), Attachment
and psychopathology (pp. 135–170). New York: Guilford.
Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Sagi, A. (1999). Cross-cultural patterns
of attachment: Universal and contextual dimensions. In J.
Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment:
Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 713–733). New
York: Guilford.
Weinfield, N. S., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2000). Attachment
from infancy to early adulthood in a high risk sample: continuity,
discontinuity and their correlates. Child Development, 71(3),
695–702. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/pss/1132388.