https://sci-bot.ru/find-all-the-articles-on-a406

The Dynamic-Maturational Model (DMM) of Attachment and Adaptation: Development and Theoretical Dynamics

Introduction

The Dynamic-Maturational Model (DMM) of Attachment and Adaptation, developed by Patricia McKinsey Crittenden, represents a major alternative paradigm within attachment theory. Emerging from Crittenden's doctoral work under Mary Ainsworth at the University of Virginia (1979–1983), the DMM diverges from the mainstream "ABCD" model (associated with Mary Main) in its core assumptions about danger, information processing, and the meaning of attachment organization [1]. This analysis traces the developmental dynamics of the DMM, examining its theoretical roots, key points of divergence from mainstream attachment theory, and its evolving contributions to clinical and forensic practice.

Historical and Intellectual Origins

The Bowlby–Ainsworth Foundation

The DMM's intellectual lineage traces directly to John Bowlby's trilogy Attachment and Loss and Mary Ainsworth's empirical discoveries. Crittenden's earliest exposure to attachment theory came in 1977 when she contacted Ainsworth about taking a course. As she later recalled, "I didn't know what attachment was" at the time, yet within a year she had enrolled in a doctoral program with Ainsworth as her mentor [8]. Crittenden was profoundly influenced by Bowlby's Chapter 4 of Loss (Volume III), which articulated an information-processing model of attachment—Bowlby's account of how "the selective exclusion of information of certain sorts may be adaptive" under adverse circumstances [1]. Crittenden described this chapter as "the bedrock of my subsequent thinking" [8].

Ainsworth's gift to Crittenden was twofold: first, the empirical validation of individual differences in attachment patterns (the ABC classification system), and second, a distinctive method of working—"open-minded curiosity about discrepancies" [8]. Crittenden recounts that Ainsworth taught her to "find new meanings in discrepancies" by poring over error cases in data analysis, recognizing that "this is where the nugget of new information should be sought" [8]. This methodological approach became foundational for the DMM's development.

The Split from Main's ABCD Model

Both Crittenden and Mary Main were Ainsworth's doctoral students, yet their interpretations of anomalous infant behavior in the Strange Situation Procedure (SSP) diverged fundamentally. Main, working at Johns Hopkins (1968–1973), classified unclassifiable behaviors—such as freezing, hand-flapping, or approaching with head averted—as evidence of "disorganized/disoriented" (Type D) attachment, representing a breakdown of behavioral strategy under conditions of frightened or frightening caregiving [1].

Crittenden, in contrast, perceived these same behaviors not as disorganization but as organized self-protective strategies. Her 1983 dissertation studied 73 maltreated infants and toddlers, finding patterns that "cannot be placed easily into the three categories" [1]. Drawing on Bowlby's information-processing chapter, she proposed that both avoidant (Type A) and ambivalent/resistant (Type C) behaviors could be understood as strategies for maintaining the availability of the caregiver by selectively excluding certain classes of information. Crittenden argued that behaviors Main classified as disorganized could, in many cases, be interpreted as organized A/C combinations—alternating avoidant and resistant strategies adapted to environments of both frightening and inconsistent caregiving [1].

The Crucial Conceptual Divergence

The Landa and Duschinsky [1] analysis reveals that the actual difference between Main and Crittenden lies in their differing definitions of "organization" and the set-goal of the attachment system [1]. Main, following Ainsworth's earlier usage, defined organization as behavior oriented toward proximity to the caregiver. Crittenden, following Ainsworth's later reformulation after correspondence with Bowlby, took the set-goal of attachment to be maintaining the availability of the caregiver as a source of protection. This seemingly subtle shift had profound implications: behaviors that failed to achieve proximity (and therefore appeared disorganized) could nonetheless be seen as organized if they functioned to maintain the caregiver's availability [1].

Core Theoretical Dynamics of the DMM

Information Processing as the Central Organizing Principle

The DMM's theoretical core is an information-processing model [1,2]. Crittenden proposed that human experience of danger comprises two kinds of information: (1) affective information—emotions provoked by potential danger (anger, fear, desire for comfort); and (2) cognitive information—causally or sequentially ordered knowledge about the potential for safety or danger. These correspond to two features of sensory stimulation: temporal order (yielding cognitive information about cause–effect relationships) and intensity (yielding affective arousal and feeling states) [2,5].

The three basic attachment strategies reflect different patterns of information processing:

• Type A strategies (defended, cognitively organized) split off or minimize emotional information about feeling threatened, prioritizing cognition about expected consequences. Negative affect is muted (A1-2) or transformed into false positive affect (A3-8) [3,4].
• Type C strategies (coercive, affectively organized) distort or omit causal/temporal knowledge, prioritizing feelings as guides to behavior. Affect is exaggerated to elicit responses from inconsistently available caregivers [2,3].
• Type B strategies (balanced) integrate both cognitive and affective information without systematic distortion, enabling flexible, context-appropriate responding [2,4].

Memory Systems and Dispositional Representations

Crittenden expanded Bowlby's concept of "internal working models" by integrating Schacter and Tulving's (1994) memory systems research. The DMM identifies multiple memory systems—procedural, imaged (sensory-perceptual), semantic, connotative language, episodic, and reflective integration—each generating "dispositional representations" (neural patterns disposing the individual toward particular responses) rather than static, stored models [1,2,4].

This neurocognitive framework explains how Type A and Type C strategies produce different memory profiles: Type A individuals privilege semantic memory (generalized rules, prescriptions) while excluding affective intensity from imaged and episodic memory; Type C individuals privilege imaged and episodic memories organized by affective associations while excluding causal-sequential information [1,4].

Maturation and the Expanding Array of Strategies

A defining feature of the DMM is its emphasis on neurological maturation as creating new opportunities—and risks—for strategic development [2,5]. Unlike the ABCD model's focus on continuity of attachment patterns from infancy, the DMM posits that strategies evolve in complexity as the brain matures, with major transition periods (the preschool years, school age, adolescence, young adulthood) representing "branching points" where reorganization becomes possible [1,2].

This leads to an expanded taxonomy of strategies beyond Ainsworth's original three categories. The DMM describes compulsive Type A strategies (A3-8: compulsive caregiving, compliance, promiscuity, self-reliance, delusional idealization, externally assembled self) and obsessive Type C strategies (C3-8: aggressive/feigned helpless, punitive/seductive, menacing/paranoid), as well as blended A/C and psychopathy (AC) strategies [3,5]. Crittenden emphasizes that these are dimensional rather than categorical—the numerals represent degrees of information distortion, not discrete types [1,4].

Danger, Not Security, as the Organizing Principle

Perhaps the most distinctive theoretical move in the DMM is its focus on danger rather than security as the key factor organizing attachment behavior [5,7]. Crittenden argues that "attachment is a theory about protecting the self and one's progeny from danger and finding a reproductive partner" [2]. This reframes "symptoms" as functional, self-protective strategies that promoted survival in their original context, even if they become maladaptive when applied indiscriminately in new circumstances [5,6].

As Baim [5] explains, "the DMM is a strengths-based, non-pathologising and non-labelling model, wholly suited to the emerging emphasis in the forensic treatment literature on strength, growth, flexibility, adaptation" [5]. The concept of "disorganization" is largely replaced by the recognition that even the most extreme behaviors represent organized attempts to maximize safety—a perspective with profound clinical implications [4,5].

Sexuality and Reproduction

The DMM uniquely integrates sexuality into attachment theory. Crittenden argues that attachment and sexual behavior are extensively intertwined—both rely on approach, vocalization, smiling, kissing, caressing, and clinging. Functionally, both promote proximity, enduring dyadic bonds, and survival of the next generation. "When either sexuality or attachment fails to function, the other can fulfil the function, albeit in a distorted manner" [2]. This integration is crucial for understanding adolescent and adult psychopathology, particularly in forensic contexts [5,6].

Assessment Tools Developed Within the DMM

The DMM has generated a comprehensive suite of developmentally- attuned assessment instruments [3]:

• CARE-Index (infant/toddler, birth–5 years): A play-based assessment of dyadic synchrony, measuring adult sensitivity, control, and unresponsiveness, and child cooperation, compulsivity, difficulty/passivity (infants) or threatening/disarming (toddlers) [3].
• Strange Situation Procedure (SSP) – DMM coding (11–15 months): Extends Ainsworth's original system to include B5, pre-A3-4, pre-C3-4, A/C patterns, depression, and intrusions [3].
• Preschool Assessment of Attachment (PAA) (2–5 years): Codes the SSP for preschool-aged children, identifying balanced (B1-5), defended (A1-4), and coercive (C1-4) strategies, plus modifiers [3,7].
• School-Aged Assessment of Attachment (SAA) (6–12 years): Uses picture cards depicting threats to elicit narratives, assessing discourse patterns across memory systems [3,6].
• Transition to Adulthood Attachment Interview (TAAI) (16–25 years) and Adult Attachment Interview – DMM method (DMM-AAI): Modified versions of the AAI assessing self-protective strategies and lack of resolution of loss/trauma [3,4].

Empirical Validation and Applications

Research Support

The DMM has substantial empirical support, particularly for the infant CARE-Index and Preschool Assessment of Attachment. Validation studies have examined associations with maltreatment, maternal sensitivity, developmental outcomes, and neuroimaging correlates [1,3]. The DMM has been shown to differentiate between maltreated and non-maltreated children more accurately than the MacArthur (ABCD) coding system in preschool samples [3,4].

Farnfield et al. [6] demonstrated that DMM-AAI coding of child attachment interviews (with 41 children aged 6–13) achieved 100% agreement on secure vs. insecure classification and Kappa = .910 for the full range of DMM strategies, with significant differences between community and looked-after children [6]. Notably, none of the looked-after children were classified as secure, and nearly 53% showed compulsive A3-8 strategies—a finding consistent with the model's predictions about how children adapt to multiple caregiver changes [6].

Clinical and Forensic Applications

The DMM has found particular resonance in clinical, child protection, and criminal justice settings. In forensic contexts, Baim [5] highlights how the DMM reframes offending behavior as self-protective strategies that promoted survival in dangerous childhood contexts but become maladaptive later [5]. The model's emphasis on function rather than symptoms enables practitioners to understand "how a person's behaviour has meaning for them" and to formulate interventions that expand the client's strategic repertoire rather than simply suppressing symptoms [5].

The integration of DMM with systemic family therapy has been particularly fruitful [7]. Crittenden and Dallos [7] argue that the DMM's emphasis on functional behavior, dynamic development, and multiple attachments makes it highly compatible with family systems approaches, enabling clinicians to address "the underlying threat to survival, reproduction, or survival of one's children" alongside presenting problems [7].

The International Association for the Study of Attachment (IASA)

The DMM is now taught internationally and has been validated in over 500 publications across more than 20 countries [5]. It is recognized as one of three core theoretical models (alongside compassion-focused and trauma-informed approaches) underpinning the British Psychological Society's Power, Threat and Meaning Framework [5]. This institutional recognition marks a significant milestone in the DMM's development from a minority perspective within attachment theory to a respected alternative paradigm.

Critiques and Limitations

Despite its contributions, the DMM has faced several critiques. Schuengel (2001) questioned the evidence base for the higher-numbered subtypes (A5-8, C5-8), arguing that the more extreme strategies lack empirical validation [1]. Landa and Duschinsky [1] acknowledge this concern but argue that "the subtypes do not organize the fundamental structure of Crittenden's theory"—the dimensional framework of information-processing distortion is more foundational than any particular categorical label [1].

A further limitation is that the later developmental assessments (SAA, TAAI) require more validation studies compared to the well-established infant and preschool measures [3]. The complexity of DMM discourse analysis also means that achieving research-level reliability requires extensive training (typically two years for the DMM-AAI) [3], potentially limiting widespread adoption.

Conclusion

The Dynamic-Maturational Model of Attachment and Adaptation represents a sustained, theoretically coherent alternative within attachment theory. Its development dynamics can be characterized as an organic outgrowth of Crittenden's training under Ainsworth, catalyzed by Bowlby's information-processing framework, and shaped by the systematic examination of discrepancies in data from maltreated populations. The DMM diverges from mainstream attachment theory in its emphasis on danger (rather than security) as the organizing principle, its integration of information-processing and memory systems, its developmental-expansionist view of strategic complexity, and its inclusion of sexuality as an attachment-relevant domain [1,2,5].

As Crittenden herself reflects, the DMM aims to embody both Bowlby's gifts of "attachment theory and respectful competition between ideas" and Ainsworth's gifts of "individual differences honed through careful observation of family life and respect for discrepancy as a source of new information" [8]. Whether the DMM will achieve broader integration with the mainstream ABCD model or continue as a parallel paradigm remains an open question, but its impact on clinical, forensic, and developmental practice is already substantial.

References

[1]Landa S, Duschinsky R. Crittenden's Dynamic–Maturational Model of Attachment and Adaptation. Review of General Psychology. 2013;17(3):326-338
DOI: 10.1037/a0032102[2]Crittenden PM. A Dynamic-Maturational Model of Attachment. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy. 2006;27(2):105-115
DOI: 10.1002/j.1467-8438.2006.tb00704.x[3]Farnfield S, Hautamäki A, Nørbech P, Sahhar N. DMM assessments of attachment and adaptation: Procedures, validity and utility. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2010;15(3):313-328
DOI: 10.1177/1359104510364315[4]Stacks AM. Self-protective strategies are adaptive and increasingly complex: A beginner's look at the DMM and ABCD models of attachment. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2010;15(2):209-214
DOI: 10.1177/1359104509355670[5]Baim CM. Applying the Dynamic-Maturational Model of Attachment and Adaptation in criminal justice interventions. Probation Journal. 2020;67(1):26-46
DOI: 10.1177/0264550519900236[6]Farnfield S. Assessing attachment in the school years: The application of the Dynamic Maturational Model of Attachment to the coding of a child attachment interview with community and looked-after children. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2014;19(4):516-534
DOI: 10.1177/1359104514520758[7]Crittenden PM, Dallos R. All in the Family: Integrating Attachment and Family Systems Theories. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2009;14(3):389-409
DOI: 10.1177/1359104509104048[8]Crittenden PM. Gifts from Mary Ainsworth and John Bowlby. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2017;22(3):436-442
DOI: 10.1177/1359104517716214