Schuengel 2006

People with Mental Retardation and
Psychopathology: Stress, Affect Regulation

and Attachment: A Review
CARLO SCHUENGEL AND CEES G. C. JANSSEN
DEPARTMENT OF CLINICAL CHILD AND FAMILY STUDIES

VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT, AMSTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS
I. INTRODUCTION
Psychopathology and challenging behavior are widespread in people with

mental retardation (MR), including a substantial number of individuals
with both problems. Many persons with mild MR and challenging behavior
are dually diagnosed with conduct disorders (45%) and depression (22%),
for example, and aggressive behavior and sexual oVending are not uncommon
(Dagnan & Sandhu, 1999; Dykens, 2000; Gillberg et al., 1986; Maughan,
Collishaw, & Picklel, 1999; McBrien, 2003). Challenging behavior may there-
fore not only be an educational and social problem but also part of the mental
health problems of people with MR. Although precise estimates of the preva-
lence of challenging behavior in people with moderate and severe MR are still
being debated (Deb & Bright, 2001), most figures vary between 30% and 60%.
The more severe the retardation, the higher the prevalence of challenging
behavior. This prevalence is judged to be about three to five times as high as in
normative populations (Došen, 1990). This chapter is concerned with and
tries to explain the inordinately high risk for people with MR of the often
comorbid problems of challenging behavior and mental health, problems that
severely limit their quality of life (Janssen, Schuengel, & Stolk, 2005) and
which tend to pose limits on the potential for a normalized existence within
the general community.
The high prevalence of challenging behavior and psychopathology in
people with MR continues to call for explanatory frameworks oVering ad-
ditional options for intervention. Furthermore, the widespread acceptance
of the claim that human development rests on biological, psychological, as
INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH IN 229 Copyright 2006, Elsevier Inc.

MENTAL RETARDATION, Vol. 32 All rights reserved.
0074-7750/06 $35.00 DOI: 10.1016/S0074-7750(06)32008-3
230 Carlo Schuengel and Cees G. C. Janssen
well as social processes that are interrelated as they unfold over time calls for
theorizing that takes multiple levels of functioning into account. As Emerson
(2001) puts it:
While there may be compelling evidence that both behavioral and biological processes
may be involved . . . models of development and maintenance of challenging behavior have
been advanced within, rather than across, these potentially complementary frameworks
(p. 156).
Developmental psychopathology is gaining prominence as an overarching

approach to developing theoretical explanations for problem behavior and
mental health problems in children as well as adults (Cummings, Davies, &
Campbell, 2000). In this theoretical framework individuals are perceived to
develop in transaction with their environment and research is done analyzing
this developing transactional relation. Within this framework the abundant
research into attachment relationships and into the development of physio-
logical and biopsychological stress or aVect regulation is found to be suc-
cessful and may also be relevant for understanding the high risk for
psychopathology in people with MR. In this chapter, the interrelated pro-
cesses of aVect regulation and attachment will be discussed, and research will
be reviewed pertaining to aVect regulation and attachment in persons with
MR. This chapter is led by the hypothesis that people with MR are at risk
for developing psychopathology because of exposure to chronic dysregu-
lated aVective arousal. Under stressful circumstances, they may have insuY-
cient resources to deal with stressors on their own; the fall‐back option of
turning to attachment figures as a safe haven may however also be less
available because people with MR may be more often insecurely attached.
The link between stress and psychopathology forms a basic premise of the
model put forward in this chapter. This link is moderated by the personal as
well as environmental resources that a person can command to deal with a
given stressor. The functional limitations that characterize the group of
people with MR form another premise of this chapter. Learning to solve
everyday social problems is a diYcult challenge even for people with mild
MR, due to the complex functional abilities needed to process social infor-
mation and to learn from experience. Handicaps in this area may be com-
pensated by extra support from the environment. Attachment relationships
are a basic species‐wide adaptation to dealing with weakness and vulnera-
bility in the face of threats and dangers. Furthermore, early attachment
relationships provide a developmental context for the development of strate-
gies for aVect regulation. In this regard, answers are needed to questions
such as: How do people with MR cope emotionally with the many stress-
ful (social) situations? Can aggression, depression, destructive behavior, or
MENTAL RETARDATION, STRESS, AND ATTACHMENT 231
sexual oVending also be interpreted as maladaptive ways of coping? Are

children with MR at risk for developing insecure attachment, and how may
this strengthen the association between exposure to stressors and the devel-
opment of psychopathology? These questions will guide our review of the
literature about stress, aVect regulation and coping in people with MR, and
the literature about the obstacles for environmental support and attachment.
On the basis of this review, avenues for further research are suggested, and
inferences are made concerning adequate interventions.
II. STRESS AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY
Bradley (2000) has argued that a failure to regulate stress is an important,

nonspecific factor in the development of psychopathology. Bradley did this
by showing that the same stress‐related risk factors are common to many
diVerent disorders. Loss, trauma, abuse, attachment diYculties, and sensi-
tivity to expressed emotion or familial conflict, all lead to increased arousal
and all are found to be strongly associated to many diVerent disorders.
Individuals diVer in their reactivity to negative arousal states. The so‐called
stress reactivity would have a constitutional basis (akin to the reactivity
concept of Rothbart, 1986) as well as an experiential basis. Prolonged states
of stress involve feedback‐loops of physiological, emotional, and behavioral
stress responses; in the process, easily accessible pathways are etched in the
brain, conditioning the brain to fear states and at the same time using
working memory resources, thereby limiting cognitive abilities for adaptive
functioning. This transactional process perspective, which is shared by the-
orists, such as Schore (2001a,b) and Panksepp (2001), may explain a com-
mon developmental pathway to increasing vulnerability to stress, which may
engender increasingly maladaptive ways of regulating negative arousal as a
result of this vulnerability. Gross (2002) and Gross and Levenson (1997)
found emotion dysregulation to be a prominent feature of many forms of
psychopathology. They found that half of the nonsubstance related Axis I
clinical disorders and all of the Axis II personality disorders involve some
form of emotion dysregulation.
Bradley (2000) furthermore has argued that aVect regulation is not only
relevant to understanding the development of psychopathology but also to
understanding the eVectiveness of psychotherapeutic interventions: (1) Many,
not to say all, therapeutic interventions focus on general distress relieving
elements, either by stress‐reducing medication, or by changing client’s stress‐
inducing internal working models, schemata, attributions, or defenses.
(2) Most therapeutic interventions try to induce reduction of client’s distress
by using desensitization by means of step by step exposure to the stress events
or feelings. (3) The warmth, caring, and understanding by therapists all are
meant to share client’s feelings and to protect the client from distress. This
conclusion further underscores the important links between psychopathology,
aVect regulation and the environment.
The specific type of psychopathology may depend on a biologically or
experientially mediated diathesis, or, according to Bradley, may depend on
the individual’s biologically or experientially mediated coping strategies. It may
not be dependent on the characteristics of the stressor. An avoidant coping
strategy, for example, may ultimately result in depression if a person experi-
ences chronic and/or severe stress; a resistant strategy may lead to aggression.
III. AFFECT REGULATION, STRESS, AND COPING IN

PEOPLE WITH MR
Stress is defined as a feeling of inescapable helplessness in a situation in

which the individual’s well‐being is under threat (Lovallo, 1997). Lovallo
argued that coping with stress proceeds in two phases, which we tried to
visualize in Fig. 1.
A. Primary Appraisal
In the first phase of coping, that of primary appraisal, individuals appraise
in what way a situation may endanger their well‐being by instantaneous
referencing to their implicit memory, beliefs, and former experiences in
FIG. 1. Two phases of coping with stress.

comparable situations (Fig. 1). According to Porges (2003) and Bradley

(2000) frightening former experiences are represented in the brain as easily
accessible neural pathways. Stimuli and feelings bearing resemblance to
these neurally represented frightening experiences instantly will activate
these neural pathways, a phenomenon dubbed by Porges as neuroception
of safety, danger, or threat. This is a basically automatic and unconscious
response, mediated by the amygdala, the brain’s generating center of emo-
tions, leading to a feeling of undiVerentiated arousal. If ‘‘no threat’’ is
appraised the situation can be ignored and, according to Porges, the social
engagement system can be used. Now the individual is free to engage and
explore in social interactions. If on the other hand ‘‘threat’’ is appraised and
the undiVerentiated arousal felt, the body’s physiological systems automati-
cally prepare energy resources for a fight or flight response by sending neural
and hormonal messages across the nervous system and across the blood-
stream. The results are noticeable in the body’s peripheral systems: acceler-
ated heart rate, blood pressure, respiration, muscle tone, transpiration, and
endocrine output. Clark and Wilson (2003), using the Reiss rating scale in
people with Down syndrome, found levels of lacking self‐control and impul-
sivity to be high, which may be an indication that primary appraisals
(neuroception) of threat may be very common in this group. Because under-
controlled and impulsive responses to threat may actually exacerbate the
threat and result in experiences of failure, proneness to primary appraisal of
a stimulus as a threat may tend to increase.
B. Secondary Appraisal
In the second phase of managing stress, the secondary appraisal, the
individual appraises the availability of problem‐solving skills. The outcome
of this appraisal is a function of both the actual skills the person has at his or
her disposal as well as explicit memories about comparable situations, feel-
ings, beliefs, self‐esteem, cognitive internal working models, or schemata
concerning these skills. For instance, the belief of learned helplessness, in
which the individual thinks and feels totally out of control, will negatively
influence the outcome of this secondary appraisal, independent of the actual
level of problem‐solving skills (Lovallo, 1997). Apart from learned helpless-
ness, Bradley (2000) points to the additional concepts of maintenance of
perspective, self‐esteem, and self‐eYcacy influencing this secondary appraisal
by adding meaning to the formerly undiVerentiated aVect. In this respect
she describes the diVerence between aVect, as a rather undiVerentiated nega-
tive or positive state, and emotion, which is meaning coupled with aVect.
An undiVerentiated negative aVect may evolve into the meaningful emo-
tion of anger and a positive aVect may become the emotion of joyfulness.
The development of an emotion is a process in which the aVect generating

limbic centers of the brain, mainly the amygdala with its implicit memory of
the mere association between situation and aVect, interacts with emotions
generating (pre)frontal circuits, cortical centers with their explicit memory of
helplessness, perspective, and self‐eYcacy (Gross, 2002). In this process of
secondary appraisal, the undiVerentiated negative or positive aVect of the
primary appraisal can become a well‐diVerentiated emotion like anger, sad-
ness, or pride. Emotions are regarded as ‘‘time‐tested responses to recurrent
adaptive problems’’ (Gross, 2002, p. 281), therefore mediated by phylogen-
etically ‘‘old’’ parts of the brain, and the assignment of emotions to an
aroused state proceeds largely outside of conscious awareness.
If the secondary appraisal turns out to be negative, that is, when the
person draws the conclusion that the stressor exceeds the person’s skills,
the perception of threat will actually increase because now the self is per-
ceived as vulnerable on a more conscious emotional level compared to the
neuroception mechanism in the primary appraisal. Negative secondary
appraisals are also associated with physiological responses preparing the orga-
nism for fight or flight, building up a state of hyperarousal. Actually, many
forms of challenging behavior may require this hyperarousal. Especially
prolonged states of hyperarousal are found to be strongly related to psycho-
pathology because these prolonged experiential and physiological states are
both a cause and a result of a deterioration of aVect regulation in a circular
loop, again etching in easily accessible maladaptive neural pathways.
People with MR have been noted to engage more frequently in fight or
flight behavior (aggression, destruction, avoidance) than people without dis-
abilities (Bihm, Poindexter, & Warren, 1998; Dykens, 2000). Under extreme
circumstances hyperarousal can change into hypoarousal. This may mani-
fest itself in the form of freezing or stilling in life threatening situations
(Porges, 2003). In hypoarousal, corticosteroid stress hormones will continue
to be elevated and the related increase of endogenous opiates causes blunting
of sensory experiences like pain, a phenomenon that may lower the threshold
for and facilitate continuation of self‐injurious behavior in people with
MR (Emerson, 2001). The hormonal chain of biological reactions in hyper-
arousal and hypoarousal, if prolonged, is held responsible for damaging the
immune system in the long run, explaining the association found between
psychosocial stress and health, ranging from asthma to cancer (Gross, 2002;
Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt‐Glaser, 1996). For example, the death rate in
inhibited heart attack survivors with high scores on distress is found to be
significantly higher than in the other attack survivors (Denollet et al., 1996).
In the long run prolonged states of hyperarousal can even damage explicit
memory, adaptive cognitive interpretations of situations, and former adap-
tive coping (Bradley, 2000). This may be the reason that depressive clients
frequently fail to remember things and have manic periods of maladaptive

behavior.
C. Coping Strategies and Affect Regulation

If, on the other hand, the secondary appraisal is positive and the individ-
ual perceives his coping resources to be suYcient, the question becomes
whether the problem is solved using an emotion‐oriented or a problem‐
oriented strategy (Lovallo, 1997). In the emotion‐oriented strategy the indi-
vidual reappraises the stress situation by making use of defense mechanisms
like sublimation, perseveration, or self‐delusion. The use of these defensive
emotional coping styles, frequently called avoidant coping, has been found
to occur in people with mild MR, particularly in social situations. Hartley
and Maclean (2005) found frequent avoidant coping in people with mild MR
and noticed feelings of helplessness to be responsible for this coping style.
Avoidant defenses seem to be the only coping strategies available when
feeling helpless. The weaker positive relationship found by Elias (2005)
between perceived competence and actual competence in children with mild
MR, as compared to typically developing children matched on school grade,
may be another illustration that emotion‐oriented coping strategies (i.e., self‐
delusion) occur more often, because in spite of actual lower competence on
several domains (as rated by teachers), perceived own competence was com-
parably high between the groups. Nothing about the actual stressor is actually
changed by using emotion‐oriented coping, which means that this form of
coping has to remain active while the stressor itself may continue to exist and
even increase. An emotion‐oriented coping strategy may take initially less
eVort than problem‐oriented coping, but if used indiscriminately will be more
costly in the long run. Although some stressors may go away and leave not
much harm, other stressors may pile up like unpaid bills, and self‐deceptions
used to avoid the stressors need to become increasingly elaborated and may
hinder flexible functioning even more, while growing increasingly fragile. One
example of such a process is the association between inflated self‐concept and
aggression (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996). Schuengel et al. (in press)
found that in adolescents with cerebral palsy, perceived competence was not
only significantly positively associated with actual competence as determined
by medical assessment but also with aggressive behavior problems as reported
by the parents. This suggests that some children and adults with disabilities
may entertain positive self‐concepts even with respect to aspects of function-
ing at which they objectively fail, at the cost of being easy to provoke, when
others challenge that positive self‐image.
A further potential negative by‐eVect of emotional coping may be that
children using emotional coping let pass important opportunities for learning
how to cope with stressful situations. Bradley (2000) reviews experimental

evidence that when in a state of hyperarousal people are unable to learn,
because they are caught and incarcerated in that extreme experiential and
physiological state, a phenomenon comparable to Porges’ (2003) conception
of a blocked social engagement system in situations of extreme stress.
This latter conception has important implications for interventions. For
instance, clients in a state of hyperarousal may be less amenable to cognitive
behavioral interventions.
A problem‐oriented strategy, on the other hand, means acting in the real
world to remove the stressor. Gross (2002) delineates several methods of
aVect regulation in the real world. By means of situation selection people may
select in advance low‐stressful situations to engage in; in situation modifica-
tion, for example, one may change the situation so as to make it less stressful,
such as steering a conversation away from a painful topic; in attentional
deployment one uses distraction of one’s own attention to nonstressful
actions or subjects; and in cognitive change one actually changes former
beliefs, cognitive representations, or schemata by cognitive reappraisals.
Gross refers to these four strategies as antecedent emotion regulation. He
showed these antecedent strategies to be far more adequate in the regulation
of emotions than problem‐oriented strategies that are response‐focused like
suppression of behavioral emotional responses. In the case of bullying, for
example, it turned out that a reappraisal of the perpetrator as someone to
feel sorry for, is more eVective and produces less psychological distress than
suppression of the anger and grief responses. Hence, in a problem‐oriented
strategy antecedent‐focused coping appears to be more eVective than
response‐focused coping. It is more eVective to avoid a potential‐aggression
evoking situation in advance, than to engage in that situation and count to
10. Again, this conception has important implications for interventions for
people with MR.
D. Deficient Skills in People with MR

Which functional limitations may explain why people with MR may be
confronted with stressful situations more, experience hyperarousal or hypo-
arousal more often, or develop more often maladaptive coping strategies?
A number of those limitations will be reviewed later because of their obvious
links to the stress‐coping model outlined earlier, based on research fin-
dings. However, other limitations may play a role also, including limitations
related to particular syndromes. The reviewed limitations with an obvious
relevance to the model advanced here are: limited short‐term memory,
deficient executive functions, problems in perspective taking and empathy,
and inadequate social skills.
1. LIMITED WORKING MEMORY AND DEFICIENT

EXECUTIVE VERBAL FUNCTIONS
Limitations in working memory capacity may limit the range of verbal
strategies to solve everyday problems (Hulme & Mackenzie, 1992; Jarrold,
Baddeley, Hewes, Leeke, & Phillips, 2004; Mahler & Hasselhorn, 1990;
Numminen et al., 2000). People with mild MR have been found to have
limited working memory capacity (Van der Molen, Van Luit, Jongmans, &
Van der Molen, in press). As pointed out by Bradley (2000) as well as Gross
(2002), aVect regulation is a great deal dependent on intact language. People
need words to perceive, understand, and regulate emotions. The deficient
executive verbal functions, for example, metaskills like self‐monitoring, may
make it diYcult to monitor aVects in the primary appraisal phase and to
monitor and select adequate solutions in the secondary appraisal (MoVatt,
Hanleymaxwell, & Donnellan, 1995). Besides, these deficient monitoring
functions make it diYcult to learn from failures.
2. PROBLEMS IN SOCIAL INFORMATION PROCESSING,

PERSPECTIVE TAKING, AND EMPATHY
Problems in perspective taking and in empathy that may hamper accurate
perceptions of the motives behind other people’s social behavior can often lead
to situations of conflict and stress (Benson, Abbeduto, Short, Nuccio, & Maas,
1993). MoVat et al. (1995) showed perspective taking and empathy to be
associated with challenging behavior in people with MR. Van Nieuwenhuijzen
et al. (2003) found problems in social information processing to be strongly
associated with challenging behavior in people with mild MR.
3. INADEQUATE SOCIAL RELATIONS

Inadequate social skills of people with MR and the problems encountered
by others to interact with people with MR may result in a lack of supporting
friendships. The social network of people with mild MR has a mean of two
persons, consisting of a professional caretaker (83%), family member (72%),
or a peer (30%) (Robertson et al., 2001). Jarama and Belgrave (2002) con-
cluded their thorough research among African‐Americans with physical and
learning disabilities that the balance between functional limitations, stres-
sors, and the degree of social support and active coping emerged as a major
determinant of adjustment. This appears to be in line with Groomes and
Leahy (2002). Their study indicates that subjective meanings attributed by
people with disabilities to stressful situations are related to coping problems
and especially to levels of acceptance of the disability. In particular, social
situations with peers and others appear to be stressful and have a greater
frequency among people with mild MR compared to the general population
(Hartley & MacLean, 2005). People with even mild MR experienced more
stress and less support from peers and this stress was associated with
challenging behavior (Wenz‐Gross & Siperstein, 1998). Chaney (1996), also
studying the relation between stress and challenging behavior, found ordi-
nary social situations to be stressful for people with severe MR. Most of the
subjects showed extreme psychophysiological reactions in daily and com-
mon situations, and these reactions were found to be strongly related to
challenging behavior. A strong relation has been found between the frequent
social stress of people with mild MR and their depressive symptoms and
physical complaints (Lunsky & Benson, 2001). There may be a circular loop:
social situations are stressful for people with MR and the resulting social
stress may also be the cause of inadequate social behavior. Porges (2003)
explains the strong relation between perceived stress and problems in social
behavior by pointing to the structure of human neurophysiology. Because of
the specifics of the neurophysiological architecture, stress will obstruct the
development and use of the social engagement system. This neurophysiolog-
ical architecture is the reason, according to Porges, that social behavior can
develop only in a context of minor distress.
In sum, we hypothesized that challenging behavior and psychopathology
in people with MR may be explained by distress as a negative outcome of
inadequate aVect regulations and inadequate coping with the many (social)
stressors encountered as a consequence of deficient skills. There is reason to
hypothesize that in situations of excessive and prolonged distress the use of
the cognitive skills available may be blocked and existing adaptive cognitive
neural pathways may be even damaged.
Further, in addition to their problems in coping with stress, people with MR
may lack the external buVering eVect of support from significant others,
especially support from attachment figures that are trusted by the person to
be dependable, strong, and wise. In the next section, we review literature that
indicates that many people with MR may frequently face stress without refer-
ring to a comforting, stress‐buVering attachment figure. Furthermore, disorga-
nized or disordered attachment may give rise to maladaptive developmental
pathways of aVect regulation.
IV. ATTACHMENT AND AFFECT REGULATION IN PEOPLE

WITH MR
Attachment is the phenomenon that humans from infancy onward seek

out a familiar, trusted person as a haven of safety in times of distress, and
derive security from knowing the attachment figure or attachment figures
are nearby, capable, and available (Bowlby, 1984). Bowlby argued that the
attachment behavioral system serves to restore homeostasis when a per-

ceived threat or a separation leads to a negative emotion of fear or distress.
The response of this goal‐corrected system may consist of showing attach-
ment behavior, such as looking, crying, or locomotion, to bring about more
proximity to the attachment figure. However, the attachment system may
also lead to other responses that at first glance do not seem to maintain or
increase contact with the attachment figure but which do serve the goal of
achieving a (relatively) calm aVective state. Children may minimize their
attention to their attachment figures or their absence, for example, if they
believe that their call for attention will be rejected, which would lead to
further upset. Children may also learn to delay their attachment behavior,
for example, when they perceive that their attachment figures are not readily
available but later will be an appropriate time to call attention to their
emotional experience. These examples show that the attachment system is
not regarded as a static system governing a fixed set of behaviors, but a
dynamic system that adapts to the peculiarities of the caregiving situation as
to optimize the attachment figures’ eVectiveness as a secure base from which
to explore as well as a safe haven in times of danger.
Meaningful individual diVerences in patterns of attachment behavior
have been demonstrated to exist across families (e.g., showing that quality
of attachment is predicted by diVerences in parental sensitive caregiving
behavior; De WolV & Van IJzendoorn, 1997, for a meta‐analytic review) as
well as within families (e.g., there is only modest concordance within fami-
lies between quality of attachment relationships between mother and child
and between father and child; Van IJzendoorn & De WolV, 1997, for a meta‐
analysis). Furthermore, attachment behaviors change with age, while the
underlying organization of attachment behavior also reveals some significant
continuity from infancy to adulthood (Fraley, 2002, for a meta‐analysis). A
considerable body of research has linked aVect regulation to individual diVer-
ences in quality of attachment in infancy (Hertsgaard, Gunnar, Erickson,
& Nachmias, 1995; Nachmias, Gunnar, Mangelsdorf, & Parritz, 1996;
Spangler & Grossmann, 1993; Spangler & Schieche, 1994, 1998; Van Bakel &
Riksen‐Walraven, 2004), adolescence (Kobak et al., 1994; Zimmermann,
Maier, Winter, & Grossmann, 2001), as well as in adulthood (Dozier & Kobak,
1992).
Bradley (2000) is very explicit in showing the relevance of an attachment
relationship for aVect regulation. She emphasizes that in their early years
children need the physical proximity of their parents to help them deal with
demanding and stressful situations. The sensitive and responsive attachment
figure buVers the stress felt by the child, for example, by an immediate
protective response to the baby’s gaze aversion when facing a stranger. Little
by little the sensitive attachment figure while interacting with the infant
allows stress to enter the child’s life, in a way using the principles of desen-
sitization by gradual exposures to stress. Another frequently used parental
response is mirroring. The parent imitates the infant’s emotional behavior
and reactions to stress, showing the child that emotions are shared and
worthwhile. In later years more verbal strategies are used by parents in
discussing and labeling the child’s aVects and emotions and in the teaching
of coping skills. In this way, the child gradually learns to regulate aVects.
In addition to research on attachment from a developmental behavioral
perspective, such as described earlier, other research has approached attach-
ment and bonding from a psychoneuroendocrinological perspective (Carter,
1998). This literature rests heavily on the study of animal models, which
facilitates the integrative study of behavior, neuroendocrinological activity,
and experimentally controlled environmental stimulation. This field of study
is important because it suggests that processes underlying attachment forma-
tion and transactions between attachment relationships and emotional func-
tioning are to a degree similar between humans and animals lacking the
cognitive functions associated with the neocortex, such a rodents and priarie
voles (Carter, 1998, for a review) as well as primates lacking the more advanced
neocortical functions of humans such as rhesus monkeys (Suomi, 2005). Fur-
thermore, studies in which animals are deprived of a mother figure or exposed
to harsh mothering have shown that lower cognitive functioning can be a
consequence of attachment experiences (De Kloet, Sibug, Helmerhorst, &
Schmidt, 2005). That such findings also apply to humans is suggested by the
low intellectual functioning of severely neglected children from orphanages,
which recovers after adoption in families in most children but persists in a
substantial minority of children (Rutter, O’Connor, & English and Romanian
Adoptees (ERA) Study Team, 2004).
While documenting the importance of attachment relationships for the
development of regulatory functions, these studies also suggest that caution
should be exercised when interpreting studies on associations between quality
of attachment and intellectual disabilities. This caution regards the direc-
tion of eVects, as well as explanations for attachment risks based on a
unidimensional conceptualization of intellectual disability as low cognitive
capacity.
A. Empirical Studies of Attachment

Empirical studies on attachment in samples of persons identified with MR
have predominantly been focused on young children, most often children
with Down syndrome. Furthermore, almost all of these studies have used
one or both of two instruments to assess individual diVerences in the quality
of attachment relationships, the Strange Situation Procedure (SSP) with
its associated coding systems and the Attachment Q‐Sort (AQS). Both
instruments will be briefly described.
The SSP (Ainsworth & Wittig, 1969) is a laboratory‐based protocol for
children between 12 and 18 months old and their caregivers (most often
parents). The procedure is conducted in an unfamiliar room with several
toys, and consists of a series of episodes in which the child is with the
caregiver, is joined by a stranger, and experiences two separations from the
caregiver (first time left with the stranger, second time left alone) as well as
two reunions. The mildly stressful conditions (unfamiliar room, unfamiliar
person) as well as the two separations are assumed to activate the children’s
attachment behavioral system. Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978)
discovered that individual diVerences in the patterns of children’s behaviors
during the SSP, especially immediately after the two reunions with the
caregiver, were predicted by extensively observed interactions between
mothers and infants in the year preceding the SSP assessment.
Ainsworth et al. (1978) developed a scoring and classification system for
infant behavior during the SSP, permitting the classification of attachment
relationships into three categories. The secure category is for children who
may or may not be overtly distressed by the separation from their attach-
ment figure, but who quickly reestablish contact on reunion, recover quickly
from their distress, and recontinue with exploration of the toys. This pattern
was predicted in Ainsworth’s study by maternal caregiving at home char-
acterized by consistent display of sensitive responsiveness. The insecure‐
avoidant category is for children who do not ostensibly show distress during
separations from their attachment figure, and show little regard for the
attachment figure on his or her return. The child may fail to greet, or may
only give a cursory greeting and then focuses on the toys instead. This
pattern was predicted in Ainsworth’s study by maternal rejection and ignor-
ing of the infant’s emotional needs. The insecure‐resistant category is for
children who are focused on their attachment figure throughout the proce-
dure, protest against his or her departure strongly, remain distressed
throughout the separation (separation episodes are shortened if a child is
more than mildly distressed), and remain distressed or angry throughout the
reunion episodes as well. These infants do not instantly settle from distress
if they are picked up by the attachment figure, unlike securely attached
children. Ainsworth identified a history of inconsistent sensitive respon-
siveness for these children. Later studies have shown that the associa-
tion between sensitive caregiving and attachment classification is robust,
although the average eVect size is fairly modest (combined r ¼ .25; De WolV
& Van IJzendoorn, 1997). Furthermore, controlled intervention studies
have yielded experimental evidence for the causal link between sensitivity
and attachment by showing that experimentally induced eVects on parental
sensitive responsiveness are related to eVects on attachment security

(Bakermans‐Kranenburg, Van IJzendoorn, & JuVer, 2003).
In early studies with the SSP and the Ainsworth et al. (1978) classification
system, not all children fitted the descriptions of the three categories, in
particular children from at‐risk populations such as maltreated children.
A third insecure category was identified by Main and Solomon (1986) as
disorganized/disoriented in directing attachment behavior to the attachment
figure. Their attachment behavior during the SSP may reveal opposing
attachment styles (i.e., avoidance and resistance) simultaneously or in se-
quence, may show interference of behavior incompatible with an attachment
strategy (such as backward approach), may contain stereotypical behavior,
stilling, freezing, or fright specifically during moments of reunion with the
attachment figure (Main & Solomon, 1990). Antecedents of disorganized
attachment include maltreatment and parental discord (Van IJzendoorn,
Schuengel, & Bakermans‐Kranenburg, 1999, for a meta‐analysis) as well as
direct observations of frightening as well as frightened maternal behavior
(Schuengel, Bakermans‐Kranenburg, & Van IJzendoorn, 1999) or hostile‐
helpless maternal behavior (Goldberg, Benoit, Blokland, Madigan, 2003;
Lyons‐Ruth, Bronfman, & Parsons, 1999). More so than for the other
insecure patterns of attachment, disorganized attachment has been found
to predict psychopathology directly, in particular externalizing behavior
problems (Van IJzendoorn et al., 1999, for a meta‐analysis).
Even with the addition of the disorganized category, there are still children
who cannot be classified in one of the four attachment categories. Examples
include children who do not display attachment behavior at all across the
SSP, but do not particularly avoid contact with the attachment figure either.
Also assigned to this category are children who would otherwise be classified
as disorganized, except that the interpretation of infant behavior as disorga-
nized attachment behavior is compromised by a physical or neurological
condition that might produce behavior that is similar to behavior noted in
the coding system as disorganized attachment behavior (Main & Solomon,
1990). Pipp‐Siegel, Siegel, and Dean (2001) have listed several behaviors in
the disorganized attachment coding system that may be confounded with
neurological signs, such as freezing (could be indicative of petit mal seizures)
or hitting at the face of the attachment figure (may result from dyspraxia).
This list has been used by most researchers of disorganized attachment in
populations such as children with Down syndrome, autism, or cerebral
palsy, to exclude these confounded behaviors from consideration for classi-
fying children with MR as disorganized. Nevertheless, only in the Vaughn,
Goldberg, Atkinson, and Marcovitch (1994) study (described later) was
the recommendation of Main and Solomon followed to assign children
showing these confounded behaviors to the unclassifiable category; other
studies reserved the unclassifiable category for children not fitting the secure,
avoidant, resistant, or disorganized patterns.
The strange situation paradigms and coding systems have also been
adapted for children in the preschool age period (Cassidy, Marvin, & The
Working Group of the John. D. and Catherine. T. MacArthur Foundation
on the Transition from Infancy to Early Childhood, 1992). Categories for
this age group are somewhat similar to the secure, avoidant, and resistant
groups in infancy (although resistant attachment in infancy corresponds to
ambivalent attachment in preschoolers), but the disorganized pattern gives
way to a preschool classification of controlling attachment (with punitive
and caregiving subgroups), and insecure‐other (including disordered attach-
ment subgroups). Evidence supports the validity of this coding system
(Moss, Bureau, Cyr, Mongeau, & St. Laurent, 2004; Stevenson‐Hinde &
Shouldice, 1995). At age 6, a similar procedure and coding system has been
developed and used, and the results have been found associated with lon-
gitudinal attachment assessment from infancy as well as concurrent mea-
sures of caregiving and parent–child relationships (Main & Cassidy, 1988;
Solomon, George, & De Jong, 1995). For the infant as well as the preschool
attachment classification systems, training opportunities exist for researchers
to attain reliability with expert coders, and to demonstrate reliability on a
standardized set of tapes. In addition to reliability between researchers
working on the same study, researchers of attachment are required to also
demonstrate reliability between researchers working in diverse research
centers and diVerent countries (Van IJzendoorn & Kroonenburg, 1990, for
a review of cross‐cultural consistency of coding attachment).
The AQS (Waters & Deane, 1985) was developed for the observation of
attachment behavior of children from age 12 to 48 months in their natural
environment such as the home. The AQS is a set of items printed on cards
(75, 90, or 100). Each item consists of a description of a particular behavioral
characteristic that children may display in their home situation. A consider-
able proportion of the items describe so‐called secure base behaviors, which
are the behaviors children use to achieve felt security as well as to allow
exploration of the environment (Vaughn & Waters, 1990). The items are
sorted by an observer into a fixed number of piles labeled from ‘‘most
descriptive of the subject’’ to ‘‘least descriptive of the subject.’’ A security
score is calculated by correlating the resulting profile to a hypothetical
profile based on expert judgments as to which ranking of the items corre-
sponds to the prototypically secure child. On the basis of robust associations
with classifications derived from the SSP as well as with parental sensitive
responsiveness, a meta‐analytic review by Van IJzendoorn et al. (2004)
concluded that the AQS is a valid instrument to assess security of attach-
ment. However, the AQS only yields (continuous) scores of attachment
along the dimension of security–insecurity. It does not identify disorganized

attachment.
B. Empirical Studies of Attachment and Mental Retardation

Several studies have been conducted on attachment between parents and
children with MR. The topics of these studies have predominantly concerned
the validity of the SSP for children from atypical populations. The following
review of studies focuses first on studies of children with Down syndrome
and second on studies of children with MR who were not specifically selected
on the basis of a genetic syndrome.
Early studies by Cicchetti and Serafica (1981) on 42 children with Down
syndrome, aged 30–42 months, and by Thompson, Cicchetti, Lamb, and
Malkin (1985) on 26 children with Down syndrome, aged 19 months, reported
that Down syndrome infants responded diVerently to the SSP than other
children. In a study by Thompson et al. (1985) they seemed less distressed
by the separation from their mothers, took longer to become distressed but
shorter to settle, and their range of responding was smaller in comparison
to a group of 43 infants aged 12 and 19 months. Nevertheless, despite these
diVerences, there was also similarity in the patterning or organization of res-
ponses across the SSP. For example, the intensity of distress was positi-
vely correlated with maintaining contact. Amounts of attachment‐related
behaviors during the SSP were similar. However, in both studies the authors
refrained from reporting attachment classifications according to the Ainsworth
et al. (1978) coding scheme because they deemed the support for the validity
of these classifications in this population lacking.
A similar conclusion was reached by Vaughn et al. (1994), on the basis of
an analysis of SSP classifications of 138 children with Down syndrome, from
three separate samples. The ages ranged from 14 to 54 months: developmen-
tal age ranged from 8.5 to 36 months. The attachment distribution of the
Down syndrome group was compared to the distribution of a comparison
group of 146 nonhandicapped infants between 1 and 12 months of age. The
SSPs were classified using the Ainsworth et al. three‐category system, with-
out using the disorganized category that was not yet regarded as an accepted
category at the time of that study. Significantly fewer children with Down
syndrome were classified as securely attached to their mothers than non-
handicapped children (46% compared to 60%), which was primarily due to
the high percentage of unclassifiable cases in the Down syndrome group
(42% versus 3%). Vaughn et al. interpreted these results as evidence that the
SSP elicits less stress in children with Down syndrome than in nonhandi-
capped children. They observed that children with Down syndrome rarely
became visibly distressed in the SSP, even during the separation episodes,
showed less maintenance of physical contact if they sought such contact, and
required little or no comforting. These authors referred to earlier findings
that children with Down syndrome display a ‘‘dampening of aVect’’ (Emde
& Brown, 1978) and concluded that the attachment behavioral system in
children with Down syndrome may not fulfill the same function as in
nonhandicapped children.
Ganiban, Barnett, and Cicchetti (2000) studied 30 infants with Down
syndrome at 19 and 27 months of age in order to investigate whether
negative reactivity might be a temperamental trait of children with Down
syndrome that limits the activitation of the attachment behavioral system.
Negative reactivity was assessed on the basis of structured observations of
distress during each episode of the SSP. In contrast to the Vaughn et al.
(1994) study, Ganiban et al. (2000) included the disorganized category. No
consistent associations were found between negative reactivity and attach-
ment behaviors scored within the SSP nor classifications of attachment
quality. The authors therefore failed to find evidence in support of Vaughn
et al.’s (1994) suggestion that negative reactivity might regulate the activa-
tion of the attachment behavioral system during the SSP. Secure attachment
was found in 53% of the infants at 19 months and 43% at 27 months,
whereas disorganized attachment was found in 23% at 19 months and 30%
at 27 months. These distributions compare somewhat unfavorably to the
normative distribution derived from averaging low‐risk, community‐based
studies of attachment in the United States (62% secure, 15% disorganized;
Van IJzendoorn et al., 1999).
Still, the important question remained whether attachment classifications
of children with Down syndrome can be considered as a valid indicator of the
quality of their attachment relationships. To demonstrate validity, attach-
ment classifications should be associated with sensitive responsiveness of
caregivers as well as with attachment quality rated through other means than
the SSP, such as with the AQS. Atkinson et al. (1999) conducted such a study,
using a longitudinal design, with 53 infants with Down syndrome, aged 14–30
months and mental age 12–23 months at the first assessment. In this study,
infants were classified as secure, avoidant, resistant, disorganized, or unclas-
sifiable. When assessed at 26 months of age, 40% of the infants were classified
as secure, 2% disorganized, and 47% unclassifiable. The rest were classified as
insecure‐avoidant or insecure‐resistant. At 42 months, the percentage secure
had risen somewhat to 47.5%, 12.5% were classified as disorganized, and 32.5%
as unclassifiable. Both distributions were significantly associated with ratings of
maternal sensitive responsivity in the home as well as during laboratory tasks.
Mothers of unclassifiable infants and mothers of the combined group of
unclassifiable and insecure infants were significantly less sensitive than
mothers of secure children. However, at 42 months unclassifiable infants and
the combined group of unclassifiable and insecure infants were also found
more mentally delayed at 26 and 42 months. Both eVects (of sensitivity and
mental development) were qualified by a significant interaction eVect, indicat-
ing that the combination of relatively high cognitive competence and mater-
nal sensitivity was most strongly associated with secure attachment (as
opposed to unclassifiable and insecure attachment). Furthermore, the study
showed that secure infants obtained significantly higher scores on the AQS
than unclassifiable infants and the combined group of unclassifiable and
insecure infants. Mental development was also significantly and positively
associated with AQS security, and the average AQS security score for infants
classified as secure in the SSP was lower than typically found in low‐risk
samples. Taken together, the authors concluded that secure base behavior
is less readily shown by children with Down syndrome, that this is not due
to method artifacts and that this reflects important diVerences between
attachment relationships of children with and without Down syndrome.
Finally, two other, somewhat smaller studies have been reported on
infants with Down syndrome. Oates, Moore, Goodwin, Hobson, and
George (2000) studied 10 infants with Down syndrome in the SSP and found
that 4 out of 10 were classified as disorganized. Attachment classifications
were, however, not associated with maternal sensitivity during a face‐to‐face
interaction task. Rauh and Calvet (2004) studied 16 infants (mental age
13–15 months) with Down syndrome and found that secure attachment
significantly predicted social‐cognitive achievements on the Bayley test.
Research on attachment in other populations of children with MR
than Down syndrome is more scattered. In their meta‐analysis on autism
and attachment, Rutgers, Bakermans‐Kranenburg, Van IJzendoorn, and
Berckelaer‐Onnes (2004) discussed findings on the association between men-
tal development and security of attachment in samples of children with
autism or pervasive developmental disorder (PDD). They found that mental
development (dichotomized on the basis of the quotient of mental to chro-
nological age greater than or below .70) moderated the association between
the presence of autistic symptoms and security of attachment such that only
in samples with mentally delayed children, autism was associated with
insecure attachment. Furthermore, they also reviewed multiple studies
showing that within samples of children with autism or PDD, developmental
delay was significantly and negatively associated with attachment security.
Most of these studies did not use the disorganized attachment category.
With respect to disorganized attachment, Willemsen‐Swinkels et al. (2000)
found that the percentage of disorganized attachment (but not unclassifiable
attachment) was elevated in the group of children both with PDD and
with MR (54%), whereas a normal percentage was found in the group of
children with PDD only (16%). They were also able to show, using heart rate
measures during the SSP, that children with autism and/or MR showed a
similar pattern of physiological arousal during separation and reunion as
nonhandicapped children. Moran et al. (1992) reported a study on 19 infants
who were developmentally delayed, ranging between 10 and 31 months
chronological age and 4.5–22 months mental age. Diagnosis of children
included genetic disorders, prematurity, and neurological problems. The
average security score on the AQS was rather low, indicating considerable
insecurity, but was significantly associated with observer ratings of maternal
sensitivity. Finally, De Schipper, Stolk, and Schuengel (2006) reported on
observations of secure base interactions between a small sample (N ¼ 6) of
children with MR and their professional caregivers in specialized day care
centers. Attachment behavior was observed by independent researchers,
using the AQS, as well as by the professional caregivers themselves, using
a behavioral rating scale. Findings suggested that professional caretakers
are a target for attachment behavior from children with MR in day care
and that variations in the strength of attachment behavior can be reliably
observed by both independent observers as well as professional caregivers
themselves.
C. Conclusions on Attachment in Children with

Mental Retardation
Taken together, studies on children with MR and Down syndrome reveal
atypical attachment both at the level of attachment behavior as well as at the
level of distributions across attachment categories. Children with Down
syndrome were found less often to display clear attachment behavior, both
in the natural setting as well as in the laboratory environment of the SSP,
than nonhandicapped attached children. This was true even for children who
could be classified as secure, in comparison to nonhandicapped securely
attached children. Furthermore, studies found an underrepresentation of
secure attachment and an overrepresentation of disorganized or unclassifi-
able attachment. On several grounds, these findings cannot be dismissed
as artifacts from applying attachment measures developed for nonhandi-
capped children to children with MR. When attachment behavior was
shown by children with MR, it followed similar patterns as in nonhandi-
capped children, albeit to a lower degree: distress on separation was lower
and therefore less approach behavior was shown, accompanied by less
aVective signals resulting in less comforting by the attachment figure, and
requiring less contact maintaining behavior. DiVerences in attachment qual-
ity have been found to be associated with maternal sensitivity in two studies
(except in a small study of 10 children) and have been found to converge
across measures of attachment quality as well as settings. Nevertheless, also
within samples of children with MR, attachment security was associated

with measures of mental development, revealing the paradox that although
most infants were advanced enough to develop attachment relationships on
the basis of understanding of cause‐and‐eVect as well as person permanence,
intellectual disabilities still seemed to influence attachment.
These findings raise two important questions. The first regards the expla-
nation of atypical attachment in children with MR. Atkinson et al. (1999)
reviewed the possibility that aVective signaling may be compromised in
children with developmental disabilities. They pointed to a host of deficits
found with respect to communication and attachment behaviors such as
looking, eye contact, vocalizations, crying, smiling, turn taking, social refer-
encing, initiative taking, approach, and language. When aVective signals are
fewer and harder to interpret, caregivers may also provide less aVective
feedback, hindering the development of smoothly patterned emotional com-
munication such as found in secure attachment relationships. This may even
mean that ‘‘the attachment system fails to achieve its set goal of contact and
arousal reduction’’ (Vaughn et al., 1994, p. 105). Another explanation put
forward by Atkinson et al. is motivational in nature. Especially for those
children low in cognitive functioning within the population of children with
Down syndrome, it may be very diYcult to develop shared meanings with
parents, which is regarded as a prerequisite for intimacy, which is the
motivational basis for the partnership between parent and child. This may
explain why reunion with a parent might not stimulate aVective display
in these children, which in turn explains why there are few observations
of comforting or close physical contact within these reunion episodes. Of
course, both explanations may be true, which could mean that a consider-
able proportion of children with MR are deprived not only from the aVect
regulatory function of attachment relationships but also from experiencing
comforting and intimacy. Furthermore, both explanations suggest that the
associations found between maternal sensitive responsivity and attachment
quality might reflect causal pathways in both directions. On the one hand
children with MR may develop atypical attachment as a result of insuYcient
sensitive responding from the part of the parents. On the other hand children
with MR may show atypical attachment behavior that impedes sensitive
responding on the part of the parents.
The second question regards the consequences of atypical attachment for
the development of adaptive and maladaptive behavior. None of the studies
on attachment in children with MR have reported follow‐up associations with
mental health outcomes. Nonetheless, the review of research in this chapter
suggests that part of the association between MR and psychopathology
and challenging behavior may be mediated by the development in infancy
of atypical attachment to primary caregivers. The overrepresentation of
disorganized and unclassifiable attachment means that a considerable pro-

portion of children with MR, or at least with Down syndrome, do not show
patterns of interaction with their caregiver, which are organized around the
function of regulating behavior and aVect in stressful situations. In terms of
the aVect regulation strategies outlined by Gross (2002 see earlier section),
these children seem to use less problem‐oriented coping, such as modifying
the situation by signaling the caregiver, to repair the alarming separation
that occurred. These children use instead more response‐focused coping,
such as suppression of behavioral emotional responses, which if completed
successfully would result in the absence of attachment behavior and if partly
successfully would result in muted or unclear attachment behavior. Inhibi-
tion of attachment behavior under conditions of stress as well as indiscrimi-
nate display of attachment behavior (lack of a preferred figure for contact)
are hallmark behaviors for disorders of attachment (American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2005). These disorders are usually only
found in children subject to extreme deprivation of attachment (such as
Romanian orphanages; O’Connor & Zeanah, 2003; Rutter et al., 2004;
Zeanah, Smyke, Koga, & Carlson, 2005) or maltreatment (Boris et al.,
2004; Zeanah et al., 2004). Disorders of attachment are considered as
mediators of influence on the development of childhood mental disorders
as well as a form of psychopathology in itself (AACAP, 2005). The research
reviewed here suggests that the threshold to develop disorders of attachment
may be lower for children with MR.
Further research is needed to unravel the causes of atypical attachment,
and to determine the role of caregiving. If ineVective aVective signaling, lack
of intimacy, and sensitive responsive caregiving are connected by a vicious
circle resulting in atypical forms of attachment, interventions aimed at
parenting may halt this deleterious process and may even contribute to
improvement on these three areas. Bakermans‐Kranenburg et al. (2003)
have shown meta‐analytically that short‐term interventions focused on
parental sensitive behavior not only improve caregiving but also attachment
security. One controlled experimental study on adopted children has even
reported that such an intervention resulted in less disorganized attachment
(JuVer, Bakermans‐Kranenburg, & Van IJzendoorn, 2005) but other studies
have failed to find such eVects (Bakermans‐Kranenburg, Van IJzendoorn, &
JuVer, 2005). This indicates that disorganized (and presumably unclassifi-
able) attachment should be prevented using specific methods geared toward
the anteceding parental behaviors. Findings of lower sensitive responsive
behavior and other behaviors conducive to secure attachment of parents of
children with disabilities are equivocal, both regarding the issue whether
these parents really are less sensitively responsive than parents of nonhandi-
capped children (Pelchat, Bisson, Bois, & Saucier, 2003) as well as regarding
the question of whether parents of children with disabilities display a diVer-

ent kind of sensitivity (McConachie, 1989). Nevertheless, children with MR
may need extraordinary sensitively responsive caregiving to compensate for
the risk factors they bring to the attachment relationship (Atkinson et al., 1999;
Ganiban et al., 2000; Von Tetzchner, 2004), and they may be more vulnerable
when confronted with inconsistent, frightening, hostile, or helpless caregiving.
Dyadic interventions with caregivers of deaf–blind children have, however,
shown promise in improving the quality of parent–handicapped child interac-
tions using both video‐based feedback and attachment interventions (Janssen,
Riksen‐Walraven, & Van Dijk, 2003).
For some parents, heightened sensitive responsivity may be more diYcult
than for others, and there are indications that these diVerences may be related
to the parents’ own attachment background (Oates et al., 2000; Pelchat et al.,
2003). This situation is somewhat similar as the situation of foster parents,
who have to build attachment relationships with children who enter with
highly insecure expectancies of caregiving and insecure or atypical strategies
of attachment. Dozier, Stovall, Albus, and Bate (2001) have shown that the
foster parents’ own mental representation of attachment determines the quality
of attachment with the foster child, presumably by enabling some foster
parents to be sensitive to the emotional needs underlying the often negative,
disturbing, or unclear attachment behavior of the children. Another factor
may be unresolved feelings and thoughts that parents hold about having a
child with MR (Baxter, Cummins, & Polak, 1995; Stolk & Kars, 2000), and
which may diminish their resources for sensitive caregiving and increase
the risk for frightening, hostile, or helpless caregiving, especially during the
important early years. For children with cerebral palsy, independent studies
have shown that maternal resolution of diagnosis was significantly associated
with security of attachment (Barnett et al., 2006; Marvin & Pianta, 1996).
These findings have led to the development of an intervention program aimed
at helping parents to adapt to their child with special needs, in order to support
the development of secure attachment and family well‐being (Barnett et al.,
2003). In all, successful intervention to prevent the development of atypical
attachment between parents and children with MR may require multimodal
programs. Controlled studies might not only show the eVectiveness of such
preventive interventions programs but might also elucidate questions about
the causality of caregiving‐attachment associations in this population.
Further research on atypical attachment in children with MR should
also address the mental health aspects of atypical attachment. In order for
this research to move forward, atypical attachment may need to be studied
more from a clinical perspective of developmental psychopathology than
from the perspective of normal development. The high percentages of atypi-
cal attachment as well as the discrepancies across studies in assigning
atypical attachment behavior to the disorganized or the unclassifiable cate-

gory suggest that the current coding system for the quality of attachment
relationships may fail to comprehensively capture clinically relevant varia-
tion. Despite the many advantages of using standardized and empirically
thoroughly tested instruments, such as the SSP and AQS, for the study of
children at risk (Van IJzendoorn & Bakermans‐Kranenburg, 2003), there are
also important downsides, resulting in inconsistencies between studies and
lack of discrimination of clinically meaningful patterns within the broad
category of unclassifiable or disorganized attachment (O’Connor & Zeanah,
2003). Furthermore, the SSP and its current coding systems are ill‐suited for
longitudinal studies and experimental studies requiring pre‐ and posttests
due to qualitative diVerences in patterns of attachment across age periods,
and they are ill‐suited for epidemiological studies and screening of large
numbers of children. Promising developments are protocols, based on but
not identical to the SSP, for diagnosing disorders of attachment as well as
caregiver interview protocols for screening for disorders of attachment.
These instruments enable the identification of diVerent forms of disordered
attachment, such as emotionally withdrawn/inhibited attachment, indiscrim-
inately social/disinhibited attachment, and various other disordered patterns.
Studies have emerged, which indicate that these instruments can be reliably
used in research (Boris et al., 2004; Zeanah et al., 2004, 2005). Although low
cognitive development did not impede the use of the screening instrument for
disorders of attachment in a sample of children reared in social deprivation in
Romanian orphanages (Zeanah et al., 2005), these instruments still await
testing in the population of children with congenital MR.
More insight into processes determining attachment quality as well as into
disorders of attachment may also be important for the study of adaptation
to the challenge of living away from home for children and adults with MR
(Došen, 2005a,b). Institutionalized people with mild MR have been found to
display a more insecure attachment style than those who stayed in their
original environment (Muris & Maas, 2004; it should be noted that while
attachment style is conceptually related to attachment theory, it has not
yet been longitudinally related to patterns of attachment in childhood).
Although institutionalization may lead to seeking out new attachment relation-
ships (Schuengel & Van IJzendoorn, 2001), stable alternative attachment
figures within institutions may not be available because professional care
often is discontinuous. Professional care is also given by many caregivers, each
with diVerent levels of sensitivity. This is an additional risk for adequate and
well‐organized attachment. It is believed that insecure attachment of people
with even mild MR may be an important reason for their deficient exploration
and learning in new (social) situations (Clegg & Lansdallwelfare, 1995). On the
other end of the spectrum, Clegg and Sheard (2002) reported that in young
adults with severe MR, a form of insecure attachment called by the authors
‘‘overinvesting in one or a few relationships that become a source of jealousy’’
was associated with challenging behavior.
D. Conclusions on Interventions in Psychopathology in

People with Mental Retardation
Promising clinical interventions have been developed for children with
severe and multiple disabilities and severe challenging behavior, whose his-
tories show an association between challenging behavior and histories of
maltreatment, neglect, or caregiving instability (Došen, 2005a,b; Sterkenburg,
2004). These interventions await further empirical research, which might also
reveal more about the supposed links of psychopathology in these children
with attachment and aVect regulation (Janssen, Schuengel, & Stolk, 2002). We
hypothesized that interventions will be most eVective if they build on a secure
attachment relationship, because attention, trust, and motivation are needed
by the person with MR to be able to take advantage of interventions aimed at
developing adaptive problem‐solving skills and coping styles. In our research
(Sterkenburg, 2004; Sterkenburg, Janssen, & Schuengel, 2005) we found
support for this hypothesis in a series of single case experiments with children
with severe MR and a severe visual handicap and comorbid severe and
persistent challenging behavior. All clients experienced early pathogenic care.
In this intervention, behavior modification was given only after an intensive
and systematic attachment‐based therapy, based on Bowlby’s (1984) descrip-
tion of the phases in the development of attachment. The hypothesis was that
approval and disapproval given by an attachment therapist would be more
eVective than that given by a control therapist in the later phase of behavior
modification. The success of the attachment‐based therapy, the first phase,
was shown by significant increases in attachment behavior over time, signifi-
cantly more attachment behavior to the attachment therapist than to a control
(only attention) therapist, and by a significant reduction of psychophysiologi-
cally assessed stress reactivity [the preejection period (PEP) and the respiratory
sinus arrhythmia (RSA) of the heart rate] over the course of the therapy in the
presence of the attachment therapist, not in the presence of a control therapist.
We found a significant reduction and for some behaviors total fading of
previously persistent challenging behaviors not only during the sessions of
the therapy but also in the group home outside the therapy settings. We were
surprised that the start of a significant fading of formerly persistent challeng-
ing behavior already took place in the first phase of building the attachment
relationship, while no systematic attention was yet given to this behavior. This
decrease of challenging behavior may be the result of the stress‐buVering eVect
of an attachment relationship with the therapist. The cognitive representation
of this comforting relationship may be the reason why we also found a
significant decrease in problem behavior in the group home. In the second

phase of behavior modification only some residual challenging behavior had
to be treated. These preliminary results show, at least in our atypical clients,
that psychopathology and challenging behavior may be strongly related with
the client’s problematic aVect regulation and may be solved by initial external
aVect regulation induced by a sensitive and responsive attachment figure.
In earlier sections of this chapter we revealed two more important princi-
ples for intervention in psychopathology. First of all, in clients in a state of
hyperarousal therapists should not start interventions by teaching them new
behavior because excessive arousal may block a person’s capability to learn,
and if prolonged, may even damage these cognitive systems (Bradley, 2000).
This may imply that (cognitive) behavior modification or therapeutic or
intuitive ways of teaching these clients new insight or beliefs are only eVective
after arousal reduction. This issue supports two‐phased intervention, like
the integrative therapy of Sterkenburg, described earlier.
Second, antecedent‐focused coping appeared to be more eVective than
response‐focused coping in preventing distress and arousal (Gross, 2002).
Interventions aimed at earlier processes in coping are more eVective. To give
some examples, it may be more eVective to avoid a potential‐aggression
evoking situation in advance, than to engage in that situation and count to
10. It may be more eVective to change maladaptive beliefs than to invest in
detailed coping skills for every diVerent situation. These insights might find
their way further into the care for people with MR.
Having acknowledged this all, it is striking that attachment issues receive
only scant attention in the scientific literature and in the practice‐based
literature on people with MR. Even so, attachment behavior by people with
MR is to be observed frequently, also within the context of professional care,
for instance day care for children with MR (De Schipper et al., 2006). One of
the topics for further research might be to clarify intuitive notions of
professionals and parents with respect to attachment. Sometimes attachment
theory is misunderstood as focusing on dependence instead of independence
(Bowlby, 1984). On the contrary, the research literature is consistently
showing that nothing is more empowering than venturing out in the world
knowing that one may fall back on a trusted person as a safe haven.
V. CONCLUSIONS
We hypothesized some important risks that may be responsible for the

high prevalence of psychopathology in people with MR: frequent and large
amounts of distress, insecure attachment, and attachment‐related problems
in aVect regulation. In this area of research in MR the focus of attention is
mainly on behavioral dynamics with functional analysis of challenging
behavior and assessment of here‐and‐now contingencies as important key

words. Contingencies and behavioral analyses are important to unravel in
what situations challenging behavior occurs, but frequently this behavior
may be driven and explained by a problematic aVect regulation. Future
research on psychopathology should focus more on developmental issues
regarding aVect regulation. The research so far suggests that attachment
may underlie aVect dysregulation from early on in development, except
for children of extraordinarily sensitive caregivers. Further research in the
area of attachment and MR may lead to important insights not only in
intervention programes but also in prevention.
Research is needed as to the role of stress in challenging behavior and
psychopathology. The use of nonintrusive ambulantory devices, measuring
stress by means of sympathetic and parasympathetic control of heart rate
is promising. Psychophysiological stress measurement may make it possible
to do functional stress analyses of challenging behavior and to establish
the relation between stressful situations, problematic aVect regulation, and
psychopathology. In this way ambulatory stress measurement may give
nonverbal clients a ‘‘voice,’’ indirectly communicating what matters in
their life.
REFERENCES
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (2005). Practice parameter for the
assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with reactive attachment disorder of
infancy and early childhood. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 44, 1206–1219.
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’’
(pp. 113–136). London: Methuen.
Atkinson, L., Chisholm, V. C., Scott, B., Goldberg, S., Vaughn, B. E., Blackwell, B. E., et al.
(1999). Maternal sensitivity, child functional level, and attachment in Down syndrome. In
J. I. Vondra & D. Barnett (Eds.), ‘‘Atypical attachment in infancy and early childhood
among children at developmental risk. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development’’ 64(3, Serial No. 258), 45–66.
Bakermans‐Kranenburg, M. J., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & JuVer, F. (2003). Less is more: Meta‐
analyses of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood. Psychological
Bulletin, 129, 195–215.
Bakermans‐Kranenburg, M. J., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & JuVer, F. (2005). Disorganized
infant attachment and preventive interventions: A review and meta‐analysis. Infant Mental
Health Journal, 26, 191–216.
Barnett, D., Clements, M., Kaplan‐Estrin, M., & Fialka, J. (2003). Building new dreams—
supporting parents’ adaptation to their child with special needs. Infants and Young
Children, 16, 184–200.
Barnett, D., Clements, M., Kaplan‐Estrin, M., McCaskill, J. W., Hill Hunt, K., Butler, C., et al.
(2006). Maternal resolution of child diagnosis: Stability and relations with child attachment
across the toddler to preschooler transition. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 100–107.
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence
and aggression: The dark side of high self esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5–33.
Baxter, C., Cummins, R. A., & Polak, S. (1995). A longitudinal study of parental stress and
support: From diagnosis of disability to leaving school. International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 42, 125–136.
Benson, G., Abbeduto, L., Short, K., Nuccio, J. B., & Maas, F. (1993). Development of a
theory of mind in individuals with mental‐retardation. American Journal on Mental
Retardation, 98(3), 427–433.
Bihm, E. M., Poindexter, A. R., & Warren, E. R. (1998). Aggression and psychopathology in
persons with severe or profound mental retardation. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 19, 423–438.
Boris, N. W., Hinshaw‐Fuselier, S. S., Smyke, A. T., Scheeringa, M. S., Heller, S. S., & Zeanah,
C. H. (2004). Comparing criteria for attachment disorders: Establishing reliability and
validity in high‐risk samples. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 43, 568–577.
Bowlby, J. (1984). Attachment and loss. Volume 1: Attachment. London, United Kingdom:
Penguin Books (first published in 1969).
Bradley, S. J. (2000). AVect regulation and the development of psychopathology. London:
Psychology Press.
Carter, C. S. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attachment and love.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23, 779–818.
Cassidy, J., Marvin, R. S., & The Working Group of the John D. and Catherine, T. MacArthur
Foundation on the Transition from Infancy to Early Childhood. (1992). Attachment
organization in three‐ and four‐year‐olds: Coding guidelines. University of Virginia
Unpublished manuscript.
Chaney, R. H. (1996). Psychological stress in people with profound mental retardation. Journal
of Intellectual Disability Research, 40(4), 305–310.
Cicchetti, D., & Serafica, F. C. (1981). Interplay among behavioral systems: Illustrations from
the study of attachment, aYliation, and wariness in young‐children with Down’s
syndrome. Developmental Psychology, 17, 36–49.
Clark, D., & Wilson, G. N. (2003). Behavioral assessment of children with Down syndrome using the
reiss psychopathology scale. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 118A(3), 210–216.
Clegg, J. A., & Lansdallwelfare, R. (1995). Attachment and learning‐disability—a theoretical
review informing 3 clinical interventions. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 39(4),
295–305.
Clegg, J., & Sheard, C. (2002). Challenging behavior and insecure attachment. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research, 46, 503–506.
Cummings, E. M., Davies, P. T., & Campbell, S. B. (2000). Developmental psychopathology and
family process: Theory, research, and clinical implications. New York: Guilford Press.
Dagnan, D., & Sandhu, S. (1999). Social comparison, self‐esteem and depression in people with
intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 43, 372–379.
Deb, S., & Bright, C. (2001). Mental disorder in adults with intellectual disability. 2: The rate of
behavior disorders among a community‐based population aged between 16 and 64 years.
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 45, 506–514.
De Kloet, E. R., Sibug, R. M., Helmerhorst, F. M., & Schmidt, M. (2005). Stress, genes and the
mechanism of programming the brain for later life. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral
Reviews, 29, 271–281.
Denollet, J., Sys, S. U., Stroobant, N., Rombouts, H., Gillebert, T. C., & Brutsaert, D. L.
(1996). Personality as independent predictor of long term mortality in patients with
coronary heart disease. The Lancet, 347, 417–421.
De Schipper, J. C., Stolk, J., & Schuengel, C. (2006). Professional caretakers as attachment
figures in day care centers for children with intellectual disabilities and behavior problems.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 27, 203–216.
De WolV, M. S., & Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A meta analysis
on parental antecedents of infant attachment. Child Development, 68, 571–591.
Došen, A. (1990). Psychische en gedragsstoornissen bij zwakzinnigen. Meppel: Boom.
Došen, A. (2005a). Applying the developmental perspective in the psychiatric assessment and
diagnosis of persons with intellectual disability: Part II—diagnosis. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 49, 9–15.
Došen, A. (2005b). Psychische stoornissen, gedragsproblemen en verstandelijke handicap: Een
integratieve benadering bij kinderen en volwassenen. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Dozier, M., & Kobak, R. R. (1992). Psychophysiology in attachment interviews: Converging
evidence for deactivating strategies. Child Development, 63, 1473–1480.
Dozier, M., Stovall, K. C., Albus, K. E., & Bates, B. (2001). Attachment for infants in foster
care: The role of caregiver state of mind. Child Development, 72, 1467–1477.
Dykens, E. M. (2000). Annotation: Psychopathology in children with intellectual disability.
Journal of Child Psycholology and Psychiatry, 41(4), 407–417.
Elias, C. (2005). The development of perceived competence in children with mild intellectual
disabilities. The Netherlands: Doctoral thesis, Utrecht University.
Emde, R. N., & Brown, C. (1978). Adaptation after birth of a Down’s syndrome infant. Journal
of American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 17, 299–323.
Emerson, E. (2001). Challenging behavior. Analysis and intervention in people with severe
intellectual disabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta‐analysis and dynamic
modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 123–151.
Ganiban, J., Barnett, D., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). Negative reactivity and attachment: Down
syndrome’s contribution to the attachment‐temperament debate. Development and
Psychopathology, 12, 1–21.
Gillberg, C., Persson, E., Grufman, M., & Themner, U. (1986). Psychiatric disorders in mildly
and severely mentally retarded urban children and adolescents: Epidemiological aspects.
British Journal of Psychiatry, 149, 68–74.
Goldberg, S., Benoit, D., Blokland, K., & Madigan, S. (2003). Atypical maternal behaviour,
maternal representations and infant disorganized attachment. Development and
Psychopathology, 15, 239–257.
Groomes, D. A. G., & Leahy, M. J. (2002). The relationships among the stress appraisal
process, coping disposition, and level of acceptance to disability. Rehabilitation Counseling
Bulletin, 46, 15–24.
Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: AVective, cognitive and social consequences.
Psychophysiology, 39, 281–291.
Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute eVects of inhibiting negative
and positive emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106(2), 95–103.
Hartley, S. L., & Maclean, E. (2005). Perceptions of stress and coping strategies among adults
with mild mental retardation: Insight into psychological distress. American Journal on
Mental Retardation, 4, 285–297.
Hertsgaard, L., Gunnar, M., Erickson, M. F., & Nachmias, M. (1995). Adrenocortical
responses to the strange situation in infants with disorganized disoriented attachment
relationships. Child Development, 66, 1100–1106.
Hulme, C., & Mackenzie, S. (1992). Learning memory and severe learning diYculties. London:
Erlbaum.
Janssen, C. G. C., Schuengel, C., & Stolk, J. (2002). Understanding challenging behavior in
people with severe and profound intellectual disability: A stress‐attachment model. Journal
of Intellectual Disability Research, 46(6), 445–453.
Janssen, C. G. C., Schuengel, C., & Stolk, J. (2005). Perspectives on quality of life of people
with intellectual disabilities: The interpretation of discrepancies between clients and
caregivers. Quality of Life Research, 14, 57–69.
Janssen, M. J., Riksen‐Walraven, J. M., & Van Dijk, J. P. M. (2003). Contact: EVects of an
intervention program to foster harmonious interactions between deaf‐blind children and
their educators. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 97, 215–229.
Jarama, S. L., & Belgrave, F. Z. (2002). A model of mental health adjustment among African‐
Americans with disabilities. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21(3), 323–343.
Jarrold, C., Baddeley, A. D., Hewes, A. K., Leeke, T., & Phillips, C. (2004). What links verbal
short‐term memory performance and vocabulary level? Evidence of changing relationships
among individuals with learning disability. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 134–148.
JuVer, F., Bakermans‐Kranenburg, M. J., & Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2005). The importance of
parenting in the development of disorganized attachment: Evidence from a preventive
intervention study in adoptive families. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46,
263–274.
Kobak, R. R., Ferenz‐Gillies, R., Everhart, E., & Seabrook, L. (1994). Maternal attachment
strategies and emotion regulation with adolescent oVspring. AVective processes in
adolescence [Special issue]. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4, 553–566.
Lovallo, W. R. (1997). Stress and health. Biological and psychological interactions. London: Sage
Publications.
Lunsky, Y., & Benson, B. A. (2001). Association between perceived social support and strain,
and positive and negative outcome for adults with mild intellectual disability. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research, 45, 106–114.
Lyons‐Ruth, K., Bronfman, E., & Parsons, E. (1999). Maternal frightened, frightening, or
atypical behavior and disorganized infant attachment patterns. Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development, 64, 67–96.
Mahler, C., & Hasselhorn, M. (1990). Gedaechtnis defizite bei Lernbehinderten Kindern:
Entwicklungsverzoegerung oder strukturdiVerenz? Zeitschrift fuer Entwicklungspsychologie
und paedagogische Psychologie, 22, 345–366.
Main, M., & Cassidy, J. (1988). Categories of response to reunion with the parent at age 6:
Predictable from infant attachment classifications and stable over a 1‐month period.
Developmental Psychology, 24, 415–426.
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of a new, insecure‐disorganized/disoriented
attachment pattern. In M. Yogman & T. B. Brazelton (Eds.), ‘‘AVective development in
infancy’’ (pp. 95–124). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented
during the Ainsworth strange situation. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M.
Cummings (Eds.), ‘‘Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention’’
(1st ed., pp. 121–160). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Marvin, R. S., & Pianta, R. C. (1996). Mothers’ reactions to their child’s diagnosis: Relations
with security of attachment. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 436–445.
Maughan, B., Collishaw, S., & Pickles, A. (1999). Mild mental retardation: Psychosocial
functioning in adulthood. Psychological Medicine, 29, 351–366.
McBrien, J. A. (2003). Assessment and diagnosis of depression in people with intellectual
disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47, 1–13.
McConachie, H. (1989). Mothers and fathers interaction with their young mentally‐
handicapped children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 12, 239–255.
MoVatt, C. W., Hanleymaxwell, C., & Donnellan, A. M. (1995). Discrimination of emotion,
aVective perspective‐taking and empathy in individuals with mental‐retardation. Education
and training in mental retardation and developmental disabilities, 30(1), 76–85.
Moran, G., Pederson, D. R., Petite, P., & Krupka, A. (1992). Maternal sensitivity and infant‐mother
attachment in a developmentally delayed sample. Infant Behavior and Development, 15, 427–442.
Moss, E., Bureau, J. F., Cyr, C., Mongeau, C., & St. Laurent, D. (2004). Correlates of
attachment at age 3: Construct validity of the preschool attachment classification system.
Developmental Psychology, 40, 323–334.
Muris, P., & Maas, A. (2004). Strengths and diYculties as correlates of attachment style in
institutionalized and non‐institutionalized children with below‐average intellectual
abilities. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 34(4), 317–328.
Nachmias, M., Gunnar, M., Mangelsdorf, S., & Parritz, R. H. (1996). Behavioral inhibition and
stress reactivity: The moderating role of attachment security. Child Development, 67,
508–522.
Numminen, H., Service, E., Ahonen, T., Korhonen, T., Tolvanen, A., Patja, K., et al. (2000).
Working memory structure and intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research, 44, 579–590.
Oates, J., Moore, D. G., Goodwin, J., Hobson, R. P., & George, R. (2000). Attachment and
intersubjectivity in infants with Down syndrome. Brighton, UK: Poster presented at the
International Conference of Infant Studies (ICIS).
O’Connor, T. G., & Zeanah, C. H. (2003). Attachment disorders: Assessment strategies and
treatment approaches. Attachment and Human Development, 5, 223–244.
Panksepp, J. (2001). The neuro‐evolutionary cusp between emotions and cognitions:
Implications for understanding consciousness and the emergence of a unified mind
science. Evolution and Cognition, 7, 141.
Pelchat, D., Bisson, J., Bois, C., & Saucier, J. F. (2003). The eVects of early relational
antecedents and other factors on the parental sensitivity of mothers and fathers. Infant and
Child Development, 12, 27–51.
Pipp‐Siegel, S., Siegel, C., & Dean, J. (2001). Neurological aspects of the disorganized/
disoriented attachment classification system: DiVerentiating quality of the attachment
relationship from neurological impairment. In J. I. Vondra & D. Barnett (Eds.), ‘‘Atypical
attachment in infancy and early childhood among children at developmental risk’’ (pp. 25–
44). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 64.
Porges, S. W. (2003). Social engagement and attachment: A phylogenetic perspective. Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences, 1008, 31–47.
Rauh, H., & Calvet, C. (2004). Does secure attachment promote development in children with
Down syndrome? Kindheit und Entwicklung, 13, 217–225.
Robertson, J., Emerson, E., Gregory, N., Hatton, C., Kessissoglou, S., Hallam, A., et al. (2001).
Social networks of people with mental retardation in residential settings. Mental
Retardation, 39(3), 201–214.
Rothbart, M. K. (1986). Longitudinal home observation of infant temperament. Developmental
Psychology, 22, 356–365.
Rutgers, A. H., Bakermans‐Kranenburg, M. J., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Berckelaer‐Onnes,
I. A. (2004). Autism and attachment: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 45, 1123–1134.
Rutter, M., & O’Connor, T. G. English and Romanian Adoptees (ERA) Study Team (2004).
Are there biological programming eVects for psychological development? Findings from a
study of Romanian adoptees. Developmental Psychology, 40, 81–94.
Schore, A. N. (2001a). EVects of a secure attachment relationship on right brain
development, aVect regulation, and infant mental health. Infant Mental Health Journal,
22(1–2), 7–66.
Schore, A. N. (2001b). The eVects of early relational trauma on right brain development, aVect
regulation, and infant mental health. Infant Mental Health Journal, 22(1–2), 201–269.
Schuengel, C., Bakermans‐Kranenburg, M. J., & Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1999). Frightening
maternal behavior linking unresolved loss and disorganized infant attachment. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 54–63.
Schuengel, C., & Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2001). Attachment in mental health institutions:
A critical review of assumptions, clinical implications, and research strategies. Attachment
and Human Development, 3(3), 304–323.
Schuengel, C., Voorman, J., Stolk, J., Dallmeijer, A., Vermeer, A., & Becher, J. (in press). Self‐
worth, perceived competence, and behavior problems in children with cerebral palsy.
Disability and Rehabilitation.
Solomon, J., George, C., & De Jong, A. (1995). Children classified as controlling at age six:
Evidence of disorganized representational strategies and aggression at home and at school.
Development and Psychopathology, 7, 447–463.
Spangler, G., & Grossmann, K. E. (1993). Biobehavioral organization in securely and
insecurely attached infants. Child Development, 64, 1439–1450.
Spangler, G., & Schieche, M. (1994). Biobehavioral organization in one‐year‐olds: Quality of
mother‐infant attachment and immunological and adrenocortisol regulation. Psycholo-
gische Beitrage, 36, 30–35.
Spangler, G., & Schieche, M. (1998). Emotional and adrenocortical responses of infants to the
strange situation: The diVerential function of emotional expression. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 22, 681–706.
Sterkenburg, P. S. (2004). Testing a stress‐attachment model of severe challenging behavior
(CB) in a blind child with a severe intellectual disability (ID) and a history of aVective
neglect. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 48, 314.
Sterkenburg, P. S., Janssen, C. G. C., & Schuengel, C. (2005 unpublished manuscript).
Developing a therapeutic relationship with a blind child with a severe intellectual disability
and persistent challenging behaviour. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Stevenson‐Hinde, J., & Shouldice, A. (1995). Maternal interactions and self‐reports related to
attachment classifications at 4.5 years. Child Development, 66, 583–596.
Stolk, J., & Kars, H. (2000). Parents’ experiences of meaning. In J. Stolk, Th.A. Boer, & R.
Seldenrijk (Eds.), ‘‘Meaningful care. A multidisciplinary approach to the meaning of care for
people with mental retardation’’ (pp. 11–36). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Suomi, S. J. (2005). Mother‐infant attachment, peer relationships, and the development of
social networks in rhesus monkeys. Human Development, 48, 67–79.
Thompson, R. A., Cicchetti, D., Lamb, M. E., & Malkin, C. (1985). Emotional responses of
Down syndrome and normal infants in the strange situation: The organization of aVective
behavior in infants. Developmental Psychology, 21, 828–841.
Uchino, B. N., Cacioppo, J. T., & Kiecolt‐Glaser, J. K. (1996). The relationship between social
support and physiological processes: A review with emphasis on underlying mechanisms
and implications for health. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 488–531.
Van Bakel, H. J. A., & Riksen‐Walraven, J. M. (2004). Stress reactivity in 15‐month‐old infants:
Links with infant temperament, cognitive competence, and attachment security.
Developmental Psychobiology, 44, 157–167.
Van der Molen, M. J., Van Luit, J. E. H., Jongmans, M. J., & Van der Molen, M. W. (in press).
Verbal working memory in children with mild intellectual disabilities. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research.
Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans‐Kranenburg, M. J. (2003). Attachment disorders and
disorganized attachment: Similar and diVerent. Attachment and Human Development, 5,
313–320.
Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & De WolV, M. S. (1997). In search of the absent father: Meta analyses of
infant father attachment: A rejoinder to our discussants. Child Development, 68, 604–609.
Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Kroonenberg, P. M. (1990). Cross‐cultural consistency of coding the
strange situation. Infant Behavior and Development, 13, 469–485.
Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Schuengel, C., & Bakermans‐Kranenburg, M. J. (1999). Disorganized
attachment in early childhood: Meta‐analysis of precursors, concomitants, and sequelae.
Development and Psychopathology, 11, 225–249.
Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Vereijken, C. M. J. L., Bakermans‐Kranenburg, M. J., & Riksen‐
Walraven, J. M. (2004). Assessing attachment security with the attachment Q sort:
Meta‐analytic evidence for the validity of the observer AQS. Child Development, 75,
1188–1213.
Van Nieuwenhuijzen, M., Orobio de Castro, B., Wijnroks, L., Vermeer, A., & Matthys,
W. C. H. J. (2003 August 28). Social information processing in children with mild
intellectual disabilities: Validity of hypothetical measures, and relations between SIP and
aggression. Paper presented at the meeting of the European Society for Development
Psychology, Milan, Italy.
Vaughn, B. E., Goldberg, S., Atkinson, L., & Marcovitch, S. (1994). Quality of toddler‐mother
attachment in children with Down syndrome: Limits to interpretation of strange situation
behavior. Child Development, 65, 95–108.
Vaughn, B. E., & Waters, E. (1990). Attachment behavior in the home and in the laboratory:
Q‐sort observations and strange situation classifications of one‐year‐olds. Child Develop-
ment, 61, 1965–1973.
Von Tetzchner, S. (2004). Early intervention and prevention of challenging behavior in children
with learning disabilities. Perspectives in Education, 22(2), 85–100.
Waters, E., & Deane, K. E. (1985). Defining and assessing individual diVerences in attachment
relationships: Q‐Methodology and the organization of behavior in infancy and early
childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 41–65.
Wenz‐Gross, M., & Siperstein, G. N. (1998). Students with learning problems at risk in middle
school: Stress, social support, and adjustment. Exceptional Children, 65(1), 91–100.
Willemsen‐Swinkels, S. H. N., Bakermans‐Kranenburg, M. J., Buitelaar, J. K., Van
IJzendoorn, M. H., & van Engeland, H. (2000). Insecure and disorganised attachment
in children with a pervasive developmental disorder: Relationship with social interaction
and heart rate. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 41,
759–767.
Zeanah, C. H., Scheeringa, M., Boris, N. W., Heller, S. S., Smyke, A. T., & Trapani, J. (2004).
Reactive attachment disorder in maltreated toddlers. Child Abuse and Neglect, 28,
877–888.
Zeanah, C. H., Smyke, A. T., Koga, S. F., & Carlson, E. (2005). Attachment in institutionalized
and community children in Romania. Child Development, 76, 1015–1028.
Zimmermann, P., Maier, M. A., Winter, M., & Grossmann, K. E. (2001). Attachment and
adolescents’ emotion regulation during a joint problem‐solving task with a friend.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 331–343.

Schuengel 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schuengel 2006

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schuengel 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People with Mental Retardation and

Psychopathology: Stress, Affect Regulation

CARLO SCHUENGEL AND CEES G. C. JANSSEN

DEPARTMENT OF CLINICAL CHILD AND FAMILY STUDIES

Psychopathology and challenging behavior are widespread in people with

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH IN 229 Copyright 2006, Elsevier Inc.

Developmental psychopathology is gaining prominence as an overarching

sexual oVending also be interpreted as maladaptive ways of coping? Are

II. STRESS AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY

Bradley (2000) has argued that a failure to regulate stress is an important,

III. AFFECT REGULATION, STRESS, AND COPING IN

Stress is defined as a feeling of inescapable helplessness in a situation in

FIG. 1. Two phases of coping with stress.

comparable situations (Fig. 1). According to Porges (2003) and Bradley

The development of an emotion is a process in which the aVect generating

frequently fail to remember things and have manic periods of maladaptive

C. Coping Strategies and Affect Regulation

how to cope with stressful situations. Bradley (2000) reviews experimental

D. Deficient Skills in People with MR

1. LIMITED WORKING MEMORY AND DEFICIENT

2. PROBLEMS IN SOCIAL INFORMATION PROCESSING,

3. INADEQUATE SOCIAL RELATIONS

IV. ATTACHMENT AND AFFECT REGULATION IN PEOPLE

Attachment is the phenomenon that humans from infancy onward seek

attachment behavioral system serves to restore homeostasis when a per-

A. Empirical Studies of Attachment

sensitive responsiveness are related to eVects on attachment security

along the dimension of security–insecurity. It does not identify disorganized

B. Empirical Studies of Attachment and Mental Retardation

C. Conclusions on Attachment in Children with

within samples of children with MR, attachment security was associated

disorganized and unclassifiable attachment means that a considerable pro-

the question of whether parents of children with disabilities display a diVer-

atypical attachment behavior to the disorganized or the unclassifiable cate-

D. Conclusions on Interventions in Psychopathology in

significant decrease in problem behavior in the group home. In the second

We hypothesized some important risks that may be responsible for the

behavior and assessment of here‐and‐now contingencies as important key

You might also like