Attachment, psychological health and interpersonal functioning: a comparison of clinical and non-clinical groups of people with intellectual disability

IF 1.2 Q4 PSYCHIATRY
Lucy Bateman, A. Flood, Deanna J. Gallichan, L. De Pascalis
{"title":"Attachment, psychological health and interpersonal functioning: a comparison of clinical and non-clinical groups of people with intellectual disability","authors":"Lucy Bateman, A. Flood, Deanna J. Gallichan, L. De Pascalis","doi":"10.1108/amhid-04-2023-0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nInsecure and unresolved attachments have been linked to poorer psychological health and interpersonal functioning for people with intellectual disabilities (IDs), but research in this area is limited, especially for adults. Studies using the Adult Attachment Projective (AAP) have been restricted to clinical samples, where insecure and unresolved attachments are typically more prevalent. The purpose of this study is to compare clinical and non-clinical groups of adults with IDs on the AAP, plus measures of psychological health and interpersonal functioning, to investigate whether group differences found in the typically developing population are also present for adults with IDs.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nA cross-sectional, between-group design was used. Adults with IDs (clinical group n = 11 and non-clinical group n = 13) completed measures of attachment, psychological distress/positive well-being and interpersonal functioning. Attachment classifications were compared in the clinical versus non-clinical groups. Measures of psychological distress, positive well-being and interpersonal functioning were compared between those with insecure-organised versus unresolved classifications.\n\n\nFindings\nNo participants were classified as secure, and there were high rates of unresolved attachment. There were no differences between clinical and non-clinical groups with regards to the distribution of insecure-organised (i.e. dismissing or preoccupied) versus unresolved classifications. There were no differences between groups with regards to psychological distress, positive well-being or interpersonal functioning. The authors consider limitations in the method of group differentiation and suggest further research to better understand the development of internal working models of attachment in this population.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is one of only three to examine attachment state of mind in adults with IDs using the AAP and the first to examine differences between clinical and non-clinical groups.\n","PeriodicalId":44693,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/amhid-04-2023-0011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose Insecure and unresolved attachments have been linked to poorer psychological health and interpersonal functioning for people with intellectual disabilities (IDs), but research in this area is limited, especially for adults. Studies using the Adult Attachment Projective (AAP) have been restricted to clinical samples, where insecure and unresolved attachments are typically more prevalent. The purpose of this study is to compare clinical and non-clinical groups of adults with IDs on the AAP, plus measures of psychological health and interpersonal functioning, to investigate whether group differences found in the typically developing population are also present for adults with IDs. Design/methodology/approach A cross-sectional, between-group design was used. Adults with IDs (clinical group n = 11 and non-clinical group n = 13) completed measures of attachment, psychological distress/positive well-being and interpersonal functioning. Attachment classifications were compared in the clinical versus non-clinical groups. Measures of psychological distress, positive well-being and interpersonal functioning were compared between those with insecure-organised versus unresolved classifications. Findings No participants were classified as secure, and there were high rates of unresolved attachment. There were no differences between clinical and non-clinical groups with regards to the distribution of insecure-organised (i.e. dismissing or preoccupied) versus unresolved classifications. There were no differences between groups with regards to psychological distress, positive well-being or interpersonal functioning. The authors consider limitations in the method of group differentiation and suggest further research to better understand the development of internal working models of attachment in this population. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is one of only three to examine attachment state of mind in adults with IDs using the AAP and the first to examine differences between clinical and non-clinical groups.
依恋、心理健康和人际功能:临床和非临床智力残疾者群体的比较
不安全和未解决的依恋关系与智力残疾者(id)较差的心理健康和人际功能有关,但这一领域的研究有限,尤其是对成年人的研究。使用成人依恋项目(AAP)的研究仅限于临床样本,其中不安全和未解决的依恋通常更为普遍。本研究的目的是比较临床和非临床的成年id患者在AAP上的差异,以及心理健康和人际功能的测量,以调查在典型发展人群中发现的群体差异是否也存在于成年id患者中。设计/方法学/方法采用横断面、组间设计。患有id的成年人(临床组n = 11,非临床组n = 13)完成了依恋、心理困扰/积极幸福感和人际功能的测量。比较临床组和非临床组的依恋分类。对不安全组织型和未解决型两组的心理困扰、积极幸福感和人际功能进行了比较。研究结果:没有参与者被归为安全型,未解决的依恋比例很高。临床组和非临床组在不安全组织(即解雇或全神贯注)与未解决分类的分布方面没有差异。在心理困扰、积极幸福感或人际功能方面,两组之间没有差异。作者考虑了群体分化方法的局限性,并建议进一步研究以更好地理解这一群体中依恋的内部工作模型的发展。原创性/价值据作者所知,这项研究是仅有的三个使用AAP检查id成人依恋心理状态的研究之一,也是第一个检查临床组和非临床组之间差异的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
18.20%
发文量
22
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信