An examination of attachment representations among child welfare professionals

• Published in: Children and youth services review Vol. 35; no. 9; pp. 1587 - 1591
• Main Authors: Hiles Howard, Amanda R., Call, Casey D., McKenzie, L. Brooks, Hurst, Jamie R., Cross, David R., Purvis, Karyn B.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Ltd 01.09.2013
• Subjects: Attachment; Child welfare; Child Welfare Services; Classification; Client–worker relationships; Decision Making; Foster care; Intervention; Morality; Whites; Child welfare; Attachment; Foster care; Client–worker relationships
• ISSN: 0190-7409; 1873-7765
• DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.06.010

Research has documented a relationship between adult attachment representations and client relationships and outcomes for professionals in relationship-based fields (e.g., Bernier & Dozier, 2002; Blakely, Chappell, & Dziadosz, 2011; Dozier, Cue, & Barnett, 1994; Romano, Fitzpatrick, & Janzen, 2008; Tyrrell, Dozier, Teague, & Fallot, 1999; White, 2004; Zegers, Schuengel, van Ijzendoorn, & Janssens, 2006), but has not examined the child welfare professionals specifically. The current study examined attachment representations of 54 child welfare professionals. The Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) was administered to participants prior to attending a professional workshop. Results indicated significant differences between the AAI distribution of child welfare professionals and a non-clinical norm sample (AAI four-way distribution: Goodness of fit χ2=23.63, p<.01; Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 2009). Dismissing classifications were overrepresented and free-autonomous classifications were underrepresented. Results may indicate challenges in the child welfare system that could alter the effectiveness and decision-making processes of child welfare professionals. Further research is needed to evaluate whether these differences are typical for samples of child welfare professionals and if so, the impact it could have on families who are being served. Effective interventions, focused on shifting attachment from insecure to secure, for child welfare professionals also should be explored through further research. •We examined attachment representations in a sample of child welfare professionals.•We found differences between child welfare professionals and non-clinical samples.•Dismissing representations were overrepresented among child welfare professionals.•Secure representations were underrepresented among child welfare professionals.