{"title":"依恋理论在儿童监护权决策中的可采性、研究与评估?是和不是!","authors":"Tommie Forslund, Mårten Hammarlund, Pehr Granqvist","doi":"10.1002/cad.20447","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Attachment theory, research, and assessments have become increasingly applied to settle child custody cases. We discuss such applications in relation to admissibility criteria for scientific evidence and testimony proposed by Faigman et al. (2014). We argue that attachment theory and research can provide valid \"framework evidence\"; group-based attachment research has yielded general principles suitable as a frame of reference for pertinent court decisions. In particular, child custody decision-making should generally be guided by research indicating that children benefit from attachment networks. In contrast, assessments of attachment quality fall short of providing valid \"diagnostic evidence\"; information that a specific individual/dyad is a \"true\" instance of a general group-level principle. In particular, such assessments do not yield valid information about whether a particular caregiver has better caregiving skills than another caregiver and will better support child development. We conclude that attachment theory and research should be admissible for framework but not for diagnostic testimony.</p>","PeriodicalId":47745,"journal":{"name":"New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development","volume":"2021 180","pages":"125-140"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Admissibility of attachment theory, research and assessments in child custody decision-making? Yes and No!\",\"authors\":\"Tommie Forslund, Mårten Hammarlund, Pehr Granqvist\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cad.20447\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Attachment theory, research, and assessments have become increasingly applied to settle child custody cases. We discuss such applications in relation to admissibility criteria for scientific evidence and testimony proposed by Faigman et al. (2014). We argue that attachment theory and research can provide valid \\\"framework evidence\\\"; group-based attachment research has yielded general principles suitable as a frame of reference for pertinent court decisions. In particular, child custody decision-making should generally be guided by research indicating that children benefit from attachment networks. In contrast, assessments of attachment quality fall short of providing valid \\\"diagnostic evidence\\\"; information that a specific individual/dyad is a \\\"true\\\" instance of a general group-level principle. In particular, such assessments do not yield valid information about whether a particular caregiver has better caregiving skills than another caregiver and will better support child development. We conclude that attachment theory and research should be admissible for framework but not for diagnostic testimony.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47745,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development\",\"volume\":\"2021 180\",\"pages\":\"125-140\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20447\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/12/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20447","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/12/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Admissibility of attachment theory, research and assessments in child custody decision-making? Yes and No!
Attachment theory, research, and assessments have become increasingly applied to settle child custody cases. We discuss such applications in relation to admissibility criteria for scientific evidence and testimony proposed by Faigman et al. (2014). We argue that attachment theory and research can provide valid "framework evidence"; group-based attachment research has yielded general principles suitable as a frame of reference for pertinent court decisions. In particular, child custody decision-making should generally be guided by research indicating that children benefit from attachment networks. In contrast, assessments of attachment quality fall short of providing valid "diagnostic evidence"; information that a specific individual/dyad is a "true" instance of a general group-level principle. In particular, such assessments do not yield valid information about whether a particular caregiver has better caregiving skills than another caregiver and will better support child development. We conclude that attachment theory and research should be admissible for framework but not for diagnostic testimony.
期刊介绍:
The mission of New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development is to provide scientific and scholarly presentations on cutting edge issues and concepts in the field of child and adolescent development. Each issue focuses on a specific new direction or research topic, and is peer reviewed by experts on that topic. Any topic in the domain of child and adolescent development can be the focus of an issue. Topics can include social, cognitive, educational, emotional, biological, neuroscience, health, demographic, economical, and socio-cultural issues that bear on children and youth, as well as issues in research methodology and other domains. Topics that bridge across areas are encouraged, as well as those that are international in focus or deal with under-represented groups. The readership for the journal is primarily students, researchers, scholars, and social servants from fields such as psychology, sociology, education, social work, anthropology, neuroscience, and health. We welcome scholars with diverse methodological and epistemological orientations.