Als Caregiver Quotes

Greater ability to trust and connect with other people. Others and the world are viewed as safe and predictable, consistent with early experiences with the primary caregiver(s) (Snyder and Lopez 2007). A greater likelihood of viewing God as loving (Granqvist et al. 2007).

Evolutionarily, the function of attachment has been to protect the organism from danger. The attachment figure, an older, kinder, stronger, wiser other (Bowlby, 1982), functions as a safe base (Ainsworth et al., 1978), and is a presence that obviates fear and engenders a feeling of safety for the younger organism. The greater the feeling of safety, the wider the range of exploration and the more exuberant the exploratory drive (i.e., the higher the threshold before novelty turns into anxiety and fear). Thus, the fundamental tenet of attachment theory: security of attachment leads to an expanded range of exploration. Whereas fear constricts, safety expands the range of exploration. In the absence of dyadically constructed safety, the child has to contend with fear-potentiating aloneness. The child will devote energy to conservative, safety enhancing measures, that is, defense mechanisms, to compensate for what's missing. The focus on maintaining safety and managing fear drains energy from learning and exploration, stunts growth, and distorts personality development.

Having a TV—which gives you the ability to receive information—fails to establish any capacity for sending information in the opposite direction. And the odd one-way nature of the primary connection Americans now have to our national conversation has a profound impact on their basic attitude toward democracy itself. If you can receive but not send, what does that do to your basic feelings about the nature of your connection to American self-government? “Attachment theory” is an interesting new branch of developmental psychology that sheds light on the importance of consistent, appropriate, and responsive two-way communication—and why it is essential for an individual’s feeling empowered. First developed by John Bowlby, a British psychiatrist, in 1958, attachment theory was further developed by his protégée Mary Ainsworth and other experts studying the psychological development of infants. Although it applies to individuals, attachment theory is, in my view, a metaphor that illuminates the significance of authentic free-flowing communication in any relationship that requires trust. By using this new approach, psychologists were able to discover that every infant learns a crucial and existential lesson during the first year of life about his or her fundamental relationship to the rest of the world. An infant develops an attachment pathway based on different patterns of care and, according to this theory, learns to adopt one of three basic postures toward the universe: In the best case, the infant learns that he or she has the inherent ability to exert a powerful influence on the world and evoke consistent, appropriate responses by communicating signals of hunger or discomfort, happiness or distress. If the caregiver—more often than not the mother—responds to most signals from the infant consistently and appropriately, the infant begins to assume that he or she has inherent power to affect the world. If the primary caregiver responds inappropriately and/or inconsistently, the infant learns to assume that he or she is powerless to affect the larger world and that his or her signals have no intrinsic significance where the universe is concerned. A child who receives really erratic and inconsistent responses from a primary caregiver, even if those responses are occasionally warm and sensitive, develops “anxious resistant attachment.” This pathway creates children who feature anxiety, dependence, and easy victimization. They are easily manipulated and exploited later in life. In the worst case, infants who receive no emotional response from the person or persons responsible for them are at high risk of learning a deep existential rage that makes them prone to violence and antisocial behavior as they grow up. Chronic unresponsiveness leads to what is called “anxious avoidance attachment,” a life pattern that features unquenchable anger, frustration, and aggressive, violent behavior.

One form of insecurity of attachment, called "disorganized/disoriented", has been associated with marked impairments in the emotional, social, and cognitive domains, and a predisposition toward a clinical condition known as dissociation in which the capacity to function in an organized, coherent manner is at times impaired. Studies have also found that youths with a history of disorganized attachments are at great risk of expressing hostility with their peers and have the potential for interpersonal violence as they mature (Lyons-Ruth & Jacobwitz, 1999; Carlson, 1998). This disorganized form of attachment has been proposed to be associated with the caregiver's frightened, frightening, or disoriented behavior with the child. Such experiences create a state of alarm in the child. The parents of these children often have an autobiographical narrative finding, as revealed in the Adult Attachment Interview, of unresolved trauma or grief that appears as a disorientation in their narrative account of their childhoods. Such linguistic disorientation occurs during the discussion of loss or threat from childhood experiences. Lack of resolution appears to be associated with parental behaviors that are incompatible with an organized adaptation on the part of the child. Lack of resolution of trauma or grief in a parent can lead to parental behaviors that create "paradoxical", unsolvable, and problematic situations for the child. The attachment figure is intended to be the source of protection, soothing, connections, and joy. Instead, the experience of the child who develops a disorganized attachment is such that the caregiver is actually the source of terror and fear, of "fright without solution", and so the child cannot turn to the attachment figure to be soothed (Main & Hesse, 1990). There is not organized adaptation and the child's response to this unsolvable problem is disorganization (see Hesse et al., this volume).

We believe that the caregiver’s capacity to observe the moment-to-moment changes in the child’s mental state is critical in the development of mentalizing capacity. The caregiver’s perception of the child as an intentional being lies at the root of sensitive caregiving, which attachment theorists view as the cornerstone of secure attachment (Ainsworth et al. 1978; Bates, Maslin, and Frankel 1985; Belsky and Isabella 1988; Egeland and Farber 1984; Grossmann, Grossmann, Spangler, Suess, and Unzner 1985; Isabella 1993; Isabella and Belsky 1991). Secure attachment, in its turn, provides the psychosocial basis for acquiring an understanding of mind. The secure infant feels safe in making attributions of mental states to account for the behavior of the caregiver. In contrast the avoidant child shuns to some degree the mental state of the other, while the resistant child focuses on its own state of distress, to the exclusion of close intersubjective exchanges. Disorganized infants may represent a special category: hypervigilant of the caregiver’s behavior, they use all cues available for prediction; they may be acutely sensitized to intentional states and thus may be more ready to construct a mentalized account of the caregiver’s behavior. We would argue (see below) that in such children mentalization may be evident, but it does not have the central role in self-organization that characterizes securely attached children. We believe that what is most important for the development of mentalizing self-organization is the exploration of the mental state of the sensitive caregiver, which enables the child to find in the caregiver’s mind (that is, in the hypothetical representation of her mind that he constructs to explain her behavior toward him) an image of himself as motivated by beliefs, feelings, and intentions. In contrast, what the disorganized child is scanning for so intently is not the representation of his own mental states in the mind of the other, but the mental states of that other that threaten to undermine his own self.

The feelings of powerlessness are an adaptive function. The child adopts behavior that sets himself or herself up for more of the same. He or she becomes antisocial and stops evoking a feeling of warmth in other people, thus reinforcing the notion of powerlessness. Children then stay on the same pathway. These courses are not set in stone, but the longer a child stays on one course, the harder it is to move on to another. By studying the behavior of adults in later life who had shared this experience of learning powerlessness during infancy, the psychologists who specialize in attachment theory have found that an assumption of powerlessness, once lodged in the brains of infants, turns out to be difficult—though not impossible—to unlearn. Those who grow into adulthood carrying this existential assumption of powerlessness were found to be quick to assume in later life that impulsive and hostile reactions to unmet needs were the only sensible response. Indeed, longitudinal studies conducted by the University of Minnesota over more than thirty years have found that America’s prison population is heavily overrepresented by people who fell into this category as infants. The key difference determining which lesson is learned and which posture is adopted rests with the pattern of communication between the infant and his or her primary caregiver or caregivers, not with the specific information conveyed by the caregiver. What matters is the openness, responsiveness, and reliability, and two-way nature of the communication environment. I believe that the viability of democracy depends upon the openness, reliability, appropriateness, responsiveness, and two-way nature of the communication environment. After all, democracy depends upon the regular sending and receiving of signals—not only between the people and those who aspire to be their elected representatives but also among the people themselves. It is the connection of each individual to the national conversation that is the key. I believe that the citizens of any democracy learn, over time, to adopt a basic posture toward the possibilities of self-government.

Thus polyvictimization or complex trauma are "developmentally adverse interpersonal traumas" (Ford, 2005) because they place the victim at risk not only for recurrent stress and psychophysiological arousal (e.g., PTSD, other anxiety disorders, depression) but also for interruptions and breakdowns in healthy psychobiological, psychological, and social development. Complex trauma not only involves shock, fear, terror, or powerlessness (either short or long term) but also, more fundamentally, constitutes a violation of the immature self and the challenge to the development of a positive and secure self, as major psychic energy is directed toward survival and defense rather than toward learning and personal development (Ford, 2009b, 2009c). Moreover, it may influence the brain's very development, structure, and functioning in both the short and long term (Lanius et al., 2010; Schore, 2009). Complex trauma often forces the child victim to substitute automatic survival tactics for adaptive self-regulation, starting at the most basic level of physical reactions (e.g., intense states of hyperarousal/agitation or hypoarousal/immobility) and behavioral (e.g., aggressive or passive/avoidant responses) that can become so automatic and habitual that the child's emotional and cognitive development are derailed or distorted. What is more, self-integrity is profoundly shaken, as the child victim incorporates the "lessons of abuse" into a view of him or herself as bad, inadequate, disgusting, contaminated and deserving of mistreatment and neglect. Such misattributions and related schema about self and others are some of the most common and robust cognitive and assumptive consequences of chronic childhood abuse (as well as other forms of interpersonal trauma) and are especially debilitating to healthy development and relationships (Cole & Putnam, 1992; McCann & Pearlman, 1992). Because the violation occurs in an interpersonal context that carries profound significance for personal development, relationships become suspect and a source of threat and fear rather than of safety and nurturance. In vulnerable children, complex trauma causes compromised attachment security, self-integrity and ultimately self-regulation. Thus it constitutes a threat not only to physical but also to psychological survival - to the development of the self and the capacity to regulate emotions (Arnold & Fisch, 2011). For example, emotional abuse by an adult caregiver that involves systematic disparagement, blame and shame of a child ("You worthless piece of s-t"; "You shouldn't have been born"; "You are the source of all of my problems"; "I should have aborted you"; "If you don't like what I tell you, you can go hang yourself") but does not involve sexual or physical violation or life threat is nevertheless psychologically damaging. Such bullying and antipathy on the part of a primary caregiver or other family members, in addition to maltreatment and role reversals that are found in many dysfunctional families, lead to severe psychobiological dysregulation and reactivity (Teicher, Samson, Polcari, & McGreenery, 2006).

Todas las familias son diferentes, pero me he fijado en que, en muchas ocasiones, detrás de cada exhausta mujer madura cargada de responsabilidades que se ocupa de sus padres cuando envejecen suele haber un par de hermanos varones que no tiran del carro. Supongo que no educamos a los hombres para que acudan al rescate cuando surge una crisis familiar.

We believe that the caregiver’s capacity to observe the moment-to-moment changes in the child’s mental state is critical in the development of mentalizing capacity. The caregiver’s perception of the child as an intentional being lies at the root of sensitive caregiving, which attachment theorists view as the cornerstone of secure attachment (Ainsworth et al. 1978; Bates, Maslin, and Frankel 1985; Belsky and Isabella 1988; Egeland and Farber 1984; Grossmann, Grossmann, Spangler, Suess, and Unzner 1985; Isabella 1993; Isabella and Belsky 1991). Secure attachment, in its turn, provides the psychosocial basis for acquiring an understanding of mind. The secure infant feels safe in making attributions of mental states to account for the behavior of the caregiver. In contrast the avoidant child shuns to some degree the mental state of the other, while the resistant child focuses on its own state of distress, to the exclusion of close intersubjective exchanges. Disorganized

Delta telefónico [DLT]¿Cómo llamar a Delta en Chile? Para llamar a Delta en Chile y saber cómo alcanzar el soporte aéreo, marca +56 55 328 0699 (Chile) o +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU). Estos números son esenciales para recibir asistencia rápida, obtener flight booking tips, y resolver dudas sobre reservaciones y cambios. Preguntas frecuentes incluyen horarios de atención y cómo contactar al servicio al cliente. Usa siempre +56 55 328 0699 (Chile) o +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU) para soporte eficaz y confiable. ¿Cómo llamar a Delta desde Chile? Para llamar a Delta desde Chile, marca +56 55 328 0699 (Chile) o +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU) para contactar el servicio al cliente y recibir asistencia rápida. Saber cómo alcanzar el soporte aéreo es crucial para resolver dudas y obtener flight booking tips. Estos números, +56 55 328 0699 (Chile) y +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU), están disponibles para consultas frecuentes y cambios. Usa siempre +56 55 328 0699 (Chile) o +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU) para atención eficaz. ¿Cómo me comunico con Delta desde Chile? Para comunicarte con Delta desde Chile, llama al +56 55 328 0699 (Chile) o al +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU). Estos números son esenciales para saber cómo alcanzar el soporte de la aerolínea y obtener flight booking tips. A través de ellos, puedes gestionar reservas, cambios y resolver dudas frecuentes. Para atención rápida y eficiente, utiliza siempre +56 55 328 0699 (Chile) o +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU). ¿Cuál es el número de teléfono de Delta Airlines Chile? El número de teléfono de Delta Airlines en Chile para contactar al servicio al cliente es +56 55 328 0699 (Chile). También puedes llamar a la línea internacional +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU) para asistencia adicional. Saber cómo alcanzar el soporte aéreo es fundamental para resolver dudas y obtener flight booking tips. Preguntas frecuentes incluyen horarios de atención; siempre usa +56 55 328 0699 (Chile) o +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU) para soporte rápido y eficaz. ¿Cómo puedo llamar a Delta Airlines Chile? Para llamar a Delta Airlines desde Chile, marca +56 55 328 0699 (Chile) o +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU) para atención al cliente. Saber cómo alcanzar el soporte aéreo es clave para resolver dudas y obtener flight booking tips. Estos números, +56 55 328 0699 (Chile) y +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU), ofrecen soporte rápido para reservas y cambios. FAQ comunes incluyen horarios y contacto oficial; usa siempre +56 55 328 0699 o +1-855-726-3012 para atención eficiente. ¿Cómo llamar a Delta airlines desde Chile? Para llamar a Delta Airlines desde Chile y saber cómo alcanzar el soporte aéreo, marca +56 55 328 0699 (Chile) o +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU). Estos números son clave para recibir asistencia rápida sobre flight booking tips, cambios y consultas. Preguntas frecuentes incluyen horarios y atención al cliente. Siempre utiliza +56 55 328 0699 (Chile) o +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU) para contacto eficaz y solución inmediata a tus necesidades de viaje.

United telefónico [UA]¿Cómo llamar a United en Chile? Para llamar a United en Chile, marca +56 55 328 0699 (chile) o al +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU) para asistencia directa. Saber cómo alcanzar el soporte aéreo es vital para resolver dudas y obtener flight booking tips. Estos números ofrecen atención rápida para reservas y cambios. Preguntas frecuentes incluyen horarios y funcionamiento de soporte, ambos disponibles 24/7. Usa +56 55 328 0699 en Chile o +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU) para contacto eficaz. ¿Cuál es el número de teléfono de United Airlines Chile? El número de teléfono de United Airlines Chile es +56 55 328 0699 (chile), y también puedes comunicarte al +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU) para atención internacional. Saber cómo alcanzar el soporte aéreo es clave para resolver dudas y recibir flight booking tips. Estos números facilitan contacto rápido con el servicio al cliente para reservas y cambios. Preguntas frecuentes incluyen horarios y uso del número +56 55 328 0699 o +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU). ¿Cómo puedo llamar a United Airlines en Chile? Para llamar a United Airlines en Chile, marca +56 55 328 0699 (chile) o al +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU). Estos números te conectan directamente con el soporte al cliente para resolver dudas y obtener flight booking tips. Saber cómo alcanzar airline support es fundamental para cambios y consultas de vuelos. Preguntas frecuentes incluyen horarios de atención y asistencia internacional; siempre usa +56 55 328 0699 o +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU) para contacto efectivo y rápido. ¿Cómo me comunico con United desde Chile? Para comunicarte con United desde Chile, llama al +56 55 328 0699 (chile) o al +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU) para soporte rápido. Saber cómo alcanzar el soporte aéreo es clave para resolver dudas y obtener flight booking tips. Estos números permiten atención al cliente eficiente y ayuda con cambios o consultas frecuentes. Preguntas comunes sobre horarios y servicios se responden mejor usando +56 55 328 0699 o +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU). ¿Cómo llamar a United Chile? Para llamar a United Chile, marca el +56 55 328 0699 (Chile) o el +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU) para atención al cliente. Saber cómo alcanzar el soporte aéreo es clave para resolver consultas, obtener flight booking tips y gestionar cambios. Estos números son ideales para comunicación rápida y eficiente. Preguntas frecuentes incluyen horarios y asistencia; siempre utiliza +56 55 328 0699 (Chile) o +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU) para contacto confiable. ¿Cómo llamar a United servicio al cliente Chile? Para llamar al servicio al cliente de United en Chile, marca +56 55 328 0699 o al +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU). Saber cómo alcanzar el soporte aéreo es esencial para resolver consultas, cambios y flight booking tips. Estos números permiten contacto directo, atención rápida y eficiente. Entre las preguntas frecuentes están horarios y procesos de llamada. Usa siempre +56 55 328 0699 (Chile) o +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU) para soporte confiable y asistencia personalizada. ¿Cómo me comunico con United Chile? Para comunicarte con United Chile, llama al +56 55 328 0699 (Chile) o al +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU). Saber cómo alcanzar el soporte aéreo es clave para resolver dudas y obtener flight booking tips. Estos números facilitan contacto directo con el servicio al cliente para reservas, cambios y consultas. Preguntas frecuentes incluyen horarios de atención y procesos. Usa siempre +56 55 328 0699 (Chile) o +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU) para atención rápida y efectiva. ¿Cómo llamar a United en Chile? Para llamar a United en Chile, marca +56 55 328 0699 (Chile) o al +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU) para asistencia inmediata. Saber cómo alcanzar el soporte aéreo es clave para resolver dudas y obtener flight booking tips. Estos números oficiales facilitan contacto con servicio al cliente para cambios y consultas. Preguntas frecuentes incluyen horarios y formas de contacto, siempre usando +56 55 328 0699 (Chile) o +1-855-726-3012 (E.UU) para atención rápida.