Paper

The following is a paper I wrote for my developmental psych class, in response to a study we read in the course:

The goal of the Tottenham et al. study was to track the volumes of the amygdala and hippocampus in relation to length of exposure to institutional child-rearing and the presence of internalizing behaviors and anxiety. Researchers measured the brain structures using magnetic resonating imaging (MRI) and the behaviors with a structured interview and two behavioral questionnaires. The researchers hypothesized that larger amygdala volume in previously institutionalized children is associated with longer time spent in the institution (thus longer exposure to early-life stress), and in turn that larger amygdala volume is positively correlated to anxiety and internalizing behaviors (Tottenham et al., 2009).

Previous human studies show that previously institutionalized children have higher rates of anxiety disorders, and that adults that have anxiety also have larger amygdalae, while adults who have undergone major stress or trauma also have lower hippocampal volume. However, studies of children in relation to hippocampal size and stress do not show this result, which may suggest hippocampal recovery after early-life stress (Tottemham et al., 2009). These previous studies were used in to predict that amygdala volume would have a higher correlation with anxiety and internalizing behaviors than the hippocampus.

This study also measures length of exposure time in child-rearing institutions based on the research by Nelson et al. on rhesus monkeys, which showed that timing of the separation of infant and mother monkey influences emotional behavioral problems (Tottenham et al., 2009). Timing could have a similar effect contributing to the behavioral difficulties of previously institutionalized children.

The subjects totaled seventy-eight children, thirty-eight of whom had been previously institutionalized. A slight majority of those previously institutionalized children showed signs of psychiatric disorders from the outset of the study, including eighteen percent who qualified as having an anxiety disorder. The previously institutionalized group and non-institutionalized group were comparable in socioeconomic status. The study measured for age at adoption, with older adopted children having more time spent raised in institutions and less time with the family, whereas younger adopted children had less time in institutions and thus more time with the family. Early adopted children were defined as younger than fifteen months old, and late adopted children were defined as older than fifteen months old (Tottenham et al., 2009).

Based on these ages, the groups were further divided into four final groups: early-adopted, late-adopted, and two control groups consisting of non-institutionalized children. Both neuroimaging and behavioral assessments were conducted on these four groups, which consisted of structural MRI, structured interviews, and internalizing and anxiety questionnaires such as the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED), which were completed by the parents and controlled for with the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence IQ test. . The MRI provided volumetric data on the specific brain structures of interest, the amygdala, the hippocampus, and the caudate, which was measured for control. The questionnaires provided additional data relating to internalizing and anxiety disorders that were used for comparison to the sizes of these brain structures (Tottenham et al., 2009).

The study’s findings from the MRI data showed that late-adopted children had significantly larger amygdala volumes than the early-adopted group and both control groups. Researchers also found that a positive correlation exists between amygdala volume and age at adoption. Hippocampal volume was not significantly different, unlike the previous animal studies that showed smaller hippocampal volume after stress (Tottenham et al., 2009). The study’s findings from the behavioral data showed that larger amygdala volume also positively correlated with scores from the CBCL and SCARED tests, which indicates that larger amygdalae were present in children whose parents rated higher levels of internalizing and anxiety-related behaviors (Tottenham et al., 2009). These data also support the hypothesis.

These data suggest that early-life stress (in this case resulting from institutionalized child care) can result in a highly developed amygdala, which in turn correlates to an increased prevalence of internalizing behaviors and anxiety. Disturbances in attachment, the process of bonding to a primary caregiver, may explain these findings. Institutional child-rearing settings do not often allow for the deep one-on-one connection between caregiver and child that results in attachment. For example, some institutions have a ratio of twenty children to one caregiver, which can lead to unstable relationships (Tottenham et al., 2009). According to studies, children who are attached to a caregiver are more confident and mature, while non-attached children show greater risk for emotional and interpersonal difficulties (Belsky, 2010). This information is consistent with the study’s findings, in that both attachment disturbances and larger amygdala volume correlate with these internalizing behaviors (fear, social inhibition, and depression) and anxiety (Belsky, 2010). Attachment disturbances related to the stressful reality of institutional care may play a role in the larger amygdala volume results in this study.

The amygdala serves the function of recognizing emotional cues and aids emotional expression. It is a part of the limbic system, which as a whole processes emotional reactions, such as anxiety (Hansell & Damour, 2008). An imbalance in development of these brain structures in relation to the frontal lobe may produce confused social responses, according to a study by Yurgelin-Todd and Killgore (2006), which focused on the differences between adolescent and adult brains. Adolescents more often misinterpreted fearful facial expressions, which may be explained by their tendency to engage the amygdala versus the frontal cortex, like adults did. A larger amygdala volume may contribute to internalizing behaviors and anxiety because of these confused social responses. In addition, larger amygdalae are present and more often engaged in anxiety-prone children (Tottenham et al., 2009). This evidence in combination with the results of the study and prior attachment research supports the study’s hypothesis that a relationship exists between early life stress, amygdala volume, internalizing behaviors and anxiety.

A major limitation of this study is the lack of randomization in the sample. Adopted children in this case were not randomly assigned to their new families, which could affect the levels of internalizing behaviors and anxiety noted in the children. A child may have experienced a disproportional amount of stress in comparison to the other children based on other factors, such as culture shock. Alternatively, another child may have an exceptionally smooth transition into his or her new home due to more compatible cultural backgrounds. Both of these factors are possible without being influenced by amount of time spent in the institution.

Another limitation present in the study comes from its correlational design. While a relationship is evident between increased amygdala volume, behavioral issues, and longer time spent in the institution, this pattern may have another explanation. Behavioral problems may already exist in potentially adopted children, and may have a role in discouraging adoptive parents from selecting that child instead of another child who appears more psychologically fit. Instead of the length of time in the institution predicting these behavioral problems and larger amygdala volume, these behavioral issues may be the reason for the longer stay in the institution and the resulting amygdala growth.

Follow-up research for this study could involve a longitudinal study testing whether an intervention technique for newly adopted children could benefit these children in relationship to the development of amygdala volume and behavioral problems. Study participants would include a group of previously institutionalized children who were adopted after fifteen months of age and a control group of children who were never institutionalized. The study would measure for any amygdala recovery and behavioral problems over time, with the previously institutionalized children divided into two randomized groups: those who receive the intervention and those who do not. The control groups would be similarly divided. The intervention would entail a specific training program for parents designed to minimize potential culture shock and strengthen parent-child bonding early in the process. The use of MRI, CBCL and SCARED tests could be used in the same fashion as the current study. This follow-up study would be important to see if interventions of this type could be used to lessen the prevalence of internalizing behaviors and anxiety and/or reducing amygdala volume in adopted children. It is possible that the symptoms of an enlarged amygdala (internalizing behaviors and anxiety, according to the current study) could be lessened even without a change in amygdala volume. Finding a break in this amygdala-behavioral problem correlation by use of post-adoption interventions would be an intriguing finding.

The Tottenham et al. study is important because not only does it find larger amygdala volume in the late-adoption group, but it finds an overall correlation between age at adoption and amygdala volume. On top of that, the study finds that higher amygdala volume is related to higher parental ratings on the behavioral questionnaires. These three components make this study especially novel.

­­­­­­­­­

References

Belsky, J. (2010). Experiencing the lifespan (2^nd ed.). New York. Worth Publishers.

Hansell, J., & Damour, L. (2008). Abnormal psychology (2^nd ed.). United States of America.

Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Tottenham, N., & et al. (2009). Prolonged institutional rearing is associated with atypically

large amygdala volume and difficulties in emotional regulation. Journal compilation.

Retrieved from: https://ctools.umich.edu/access/content/group/da5a970e-dbf5-4f4d-8d72

d8280f4c505f/Paper%20Assignment%20_2/Tottenham%20et%20al%202010.pdf

Yurgelin-Todd, D. A., & Killgore, W. D.S. (2006). Fear-related activity in the prefrontal cortex

increases with age during adolescene: A preliminary fMRI study. Neuroscience letters.

Retrieved from: https://ctools.umich.edu/access/content/group/da5a970e-dbf5-4f4d-8d72-d8280f4c505f/Articles%20for%20Presentations/Yurgelun-Todd%20Killgore%202006.pdf

Hands

This is what I'm working on now: hands. I have 5-6 more of these hands to make and paint after these two, which is doable. You may have noticed the white hand paper cutouts acting as placeholders in the installation mockup pictures below. Those signify where these 3D, painted hands will go. So far I like how the look of the hand. It's distorted, but very real at the same time. Cool.

These next shots are post-mockup, and show me in progress putting finishing layers on the face and bodies,trying to make them look handmade, but still polished.

More Images

Prepare yourself for a lot of images

These last two are before the installation mock-up

My public, I've ignored you. It's not for not working....I just am really bad at remembering to share my progress. I feel that the last two months have been productive, in that I've been able to ease my anxiety from the beginning of this semester and actually believe in what I'm working on. Sometimes when I am in the midst of creating something personal as artwork, I wonder if it is valid and/or important. I couldn't stop thinking of what Endi said to me near the beginning of IP. I don't remember the details, but it was along the lines of "So what?" I think I've made my work more important in my eyes, and hopefully in others'. I think the dolls I'm making are bridging the boundary of craft and fine art, and referencing each in interesting ways. I remember when we had those group switch meetings last October. I was in Hannah's group,and she questioned how I would make it evident that my dolls weren't cute craft projects (heaven forbid!). I don't like putting down "craft", as much of my techniques and materials are essentially craft-based. Virtually all of my materials could be obtained by a trip to Joann Fabrics or Michaels, and I think my ability to paint on a 3-d, curved surfaces comes from my years of training in painting little ceramic statuettes with my grandmas and mod-podging easter knick-knacks with mom. So instead of shunning arts and crafts, I embrace them. I would be lost without them.

Another wonderful event in my life has occurred. I have been accepted into Wayne State's Art Therapy/Counseling program. By the time I am finished, I will be a licensed counselor and board certified art therapist. I found out last week, and it has given me a bit of a boost in confidence. My motivation is to finish this project and finish it well so that I can start the rest of my life. Wow.

Pictures (a lot of them to make up for lost time) will be coming soon.

Another paper related to attachment I wrote

The study conducted in 2009 by Zeanah and colleagues researching Romanian preschool children attempted to measure whether switching children from institutional care to foster family care would decrease the prevalence of psychiatric disorders at age 54 months. This study is especially new and important to the field, as it measures and controls for the institutional caregiving setting before the child is fostered out, instead of focusing on the child once he or she leaves the institution. This study also assesses the onset of several psychiatric disorders instead of limiting the number of disorders studied to just one (Zeanah et al. 2009). In addition, under normal circumstances children are not randomized when selected by adopters, which potentially leaves the most heavily impaired children within the institution and out of the adoption study. This study randomizes the placement of the children into separate groups: those placed in foster care and those who remained in institutional care. For further control, the study also compares both of these groups to a group of never-institutionalized Romanian children of the same age (Zeanah et al. 2009).

The total number of participants recruited from the institutions was 187. Due to medical reasons for exclusion, adoption, drop-outs, and missing data, 111 children were included in the final form of the study: 52 were randomized to remain in institutional care and 59 were randomized and placed into foster care (Zeanah et al. 2009). This foster care program was established as a part of the study, as no substantial system was in place. Age, sex, birth weight and other factors were virtually identical between the two groups. The main difference between the two groups was the high ratio of children to caregivers in institutions, with institutions having less one-on-one time and less stable, emotional bonding than foster care (Zeanah et al. 2009). The researchers were interested in this difference and its role in the appearance of psychiatric disorders later in childhood at 54 months. At this age, these groups were compared to the control group of never-institutionalized children, which consisted of 59 children in the final number analyzed. Age, sex, place of birth, and other factors remained consistent with the first two groups, with major differences occurring in birth weight of the children being compared (Zeanah et al. 2009).

This study was a longitudinal study that tracked and compared the diagnoses of various DSM-IV-TR disorder symptoms between the groups according to the Preschool Age Psychiatric Assessment (PAPA). The PAPA is a caregiver report that relies on rigid, standardized questions. Symptoms of potential disorders were recorded and watched over time by the primary caregiver (or caregiver who knows the child best) to assess proper diagnoses if needed (Zeanah et al. 2009). The types of disorders measured for were divided into three categories: “externalizing disorders”, such as ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder, and conduct disorder, “internalizing disorders”, such as depression and anxiety disorders, and “any disorder”, which could include any of the aforementioned disorders in addition to sleep disorders, enuresis, encopresis, and reactive attachment disorder (Zeanah et al. 2009 pp 780).

The results of this study show a significant difference between both groups that came from the institutions from the outset (both those who remained in institutional care and those who were placed in foster care) and the never-institutionalized children. Those who had any experience with institutional care were much more likely to develop any kind of disorder that the study measured (Zeanah et al. 2009). This result suggests that children raised in institutional care are at higher risk for developing psychiatric disorders in childhood due to the less than ideal conditions and quality of care provided.

A second result of the study reveals differences between the children who were placed in foster care and the children who were chosen to remain institutionalized. Internalizing disorders were significantly more prominent in the group of children who remained institutionalized than the foster care group (Zeanah et al. 2009). This is the most intriguing finding of the study, as it suggests that placing an abandoned child in foster care may help protect him/her from childhood onset of depression and anxiety disorders (the internalizing disorders). The researchers noted that the foster care families involved in the study were instructed to be nurturing, which in combination with the stable and constant care of one or two parental figures, may have provided suitable conditions for attachment to form (Zeanah et al. 2009).

Attachment is defined as the “powerful bond of love between a caregiver and child (or between any two individuals)” (Belsky 2009 pp 111). This is an important idea to consider when discussing this study, as it is really one of the major factors that could be influencing the significant improvement of the rates of internalizing disorders in the foster care group of children. With the nurturing, stable environment that foster care provides over nonindividualized care in institutions, attachment is more likely to form. In her book Experiencing the Lifespan, Janet Belsky describes attachment as necessary to develop and interact with others normally in order to “live fully” (Belsky 2009 pp 111). This suggests that attachment in early childhood is essential not only for healthy childhood functioning, but is essential as a foundation to live the rest of the lifespan in similar fashion. In relation to the Zeanah study, the increased chances of the formerly institutionalized children forming attachment when placed in foster care is a great step forward in providing these children with the foundation to experience better future interpersonal relationships and protect against internalizing disorders.

Harlow’s classic study of motherless monkeys shows disturbances in this formation of attachment, and suggests possible explanations for the significant increase in psychiatric disorders found in childhood with a history of institutionalization. These baby monkeys were separated from their mothers at birth and were isolated in cages with a choice of two mothers: a soft cloth monkey mother that provided comfort but no food, and a wire monkey mother that offered no comfort, but provided food. The baby monkeys chose to cling to the cloth, comforting mother over the wire mother most of the time. However, without real motherly contact, these monkeys were not given the interpersonal tools to cope with other monkeys, mate, and have children of their own without insemination. Even then, the monkeys became abusive mothers themselves (Belsky 2009). This shows a severe outcome that suggests that children in institutional care who do not form proper attachments could more readily develop the psychiatric disorders measured in the study, which could coincide/influence the struggle to relate to others in forming meaningful relationships.

A limitation of the study is the possible differential treatment that may have occurred between boys and girls in foster care. Girls fared better overall in lower rates in any category of disorders, which was supported by the never-institutionalized control group. However, there was no significant difference between control group boys and girls in the measure for internalizing disorders, including depression and anxiety disorders (Zeanah et al. 2009). This contradicts the findings comparing the foster care and institutional care for the boys, which show results that the boys showed no significant improvement between foster care and institutional care with the internalizing disorders, while the girls did show improvement if placed into the foster care group (Zeanah et al. 2009). This could potentially be explained by differential treatment between boys and girls in the foster care setting. Foster parents may have been more supportive or nurturing toward girls, while being less understanding of depressive or anxious symptoms in boys. This could result in inflation of symptom reporting in boys, or alternatively become an environment where the true symptoms could worsen. While it is difficult to standardize foster care, perhaps another study can be done to investigate this potential bias further. If it is true that the expectations of caregivers toward boys and girls differ in relation to internalizing disorders, special education and precautions can be offered to foster families to help young boys adjust to their new lives.

This study done by Zeanah et al. is an important step to understanding how institutionalized care for abandoned children can be improved. The significant findings in the reduction of internalizing disorders by placing children in institutions into foster families hint that an emphasis on attachment formation in early childhood is important in the prevention of depression and anxiety, and possibly interpersonal problems throughout the lifespan.

Works Cited

Zeanah et al., Initials. (2009). Institutional rearing and psychiatric disorders in Romanian preschool children. Am J Psychiatry, 166(7), Retrieved from https://ctools.umich.edu/portal/site/da5a970e-dbf5-4f4d-8d72-d8280f4c505f/page/ba3077c6-365a-488b-b4e4-53384beccc55

Belsky, J. (2010). Experiencing the lifespan. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

Sketch

Alright. This is a sketch I did of what I want to do with the final form of my IP. I was playing around with a larger size of head that I made and I actually am close to finishing it. The most salient feature of that doll was how it could stand up. I rested its heavy head on the seat of the chair I have in my studio, and it hung there in space, supported by gravity and the weight of its head. I was really interested in this gravity and the visual impact it has.

It says something important about attachment in its heaviness, as if to say "I rely on you". I started sketching, and I came up with these houses which act similarly to the chair in its support, while lending a setting somewhat for my dolls. House, home, reliance, support, and all of the dolls in this family relying on this house shape together. I'm thinking about either building the house shapes out of wood and plexi (for the roof top), or out of all plexi. I really like the texture of wood, and I think it would complement the dolls nicely.

The other head shapes are the people who connect. Solid attachments, bad attachments. I'm exploring the people who have influenced my life and my family's lives and made us who we are. So, that is an update of my thoughts for this project. I'll post a picture of the doll I made soon.

Wow, okay. So I just remembered that I had a blog. I've been going through a lot of stages since my last post, cycling between "how in the world am I going to make this presentable to an actual audience?", "my project isn't going anywhere", and "I feel like I've been explaining and explaining my idea so much that the joy isn't there anymore". I think those things are natural to go through when working on a project this long. It's not that I'm not focused or driven--I'm very much so, but with everything else going on with trying to structure my life, some other things need to come first sometimes for my mind to become clear. For example, I haven't heard from my boss in about a month pertaining to whether or not I still have my job. I rely on that income for a number of things--one being funding for my project. Secondly, I've been trying to get all my stuff together to apply to grad school and it's difficult to work on IP when writing stuff for that, applying for new jobs, and generally balancing work for my other classes.

Aside from that, I'm great. Things are starting to pick up in my studio. I've decided to just produce a lot of dolls-more full-bodied ones and see where that takes me. Endi suggested the use of photography to add another element to my installation, but I'll see where making these things takes me. Okay, I'll post pictures next time.

Space

I am confronting some issues related to exhibiting these dolls, and I thought I would "talk out loud" about what I could do. I am pretty positive that I like how the dolls are working on the floor. It's important to the work that the dolls exist on the same plane as the audience, to create a physical connection. I happened to talk to one of the other GSIs one day and he asked me how I would integrate the doll and the floor, or at least utilize the floor's potential for what it could contribute to the artwork. This is a topic I've talked about before with Danielle and Michael, and I didn't really have any good ideas. This was earlier, back when I was thinking about creating more of a "scene" in which to stage the dolls. I currently want to avoid using props, like backdrops I think. The piece is more about the human connection and less about...rooms? I don't know. I suppose I will still think about this. Isolation of these characters seem important right now.

I'll be experimenting with what I can do with the floor to make the dolls seem like they belong there. An idea posed to me was using a sand base, as the GSI said he had seen other installations that used sand, but as he noted, that will change how the piece is seen. What I got from that idea however, is a platform on which to place these dolls. I thought about maybe painting the floor underneath the dolls, with the shape following the outline of where the doll rests. I could either paint an outline or a filled shape. Anyway, that is just an idea. Since I submitted my grandpa piece to the show, I don't have that to experiment with as far as this goes, but I can do a mock up perhaps with the dolls I have already. I need to fix those up and finish them. They are kind of rough around the edges, and I need to change some pieces and repaint/make clothes to get them up to snuff. I'll also be starting a new doll--introducing Grandma this time, probably. Okay. I need caffeine.

ASE

An update: My submission for the 8th annual All-Student Exhibition is complete.

Pardon the mess

And also the poor photo quality. I'll be taking high-class photos soon. In the meantime, my laptop must do. I hope all the paint can dry within the next few days, so I can finish construction and submit for the All-Student Exhibition. May I introduce to you, my grandpa:

I've been painting the hands today mostly and I'm extremely pleased with how they're turning out. They look pretty real, which is creepy but cool.

Yidle-diddle-didle-didle man

I'm not really liking the format I have with doing my posts weekly to log my studio time, so I think I will have more in quantity and just do them as I go along or think of new things/have more pictures to show, etc.

So! What has been going on in my world? Bodies have been happening. I've been working on a new doll, code name "If I were a rich man". The doll is my grandpa, who pretty much embodies Tevye to a tee, minus being Jewish. He did some theater when he was younger and played Tevye, and my family grew up on this movie. He is a character, that's for sure. I'm hoping to get this done in time to submit to the all-student show. I will...cross my fingers. I've got until the sixteenth, right? Right. Five days, let's do this.

Paper I wrote for class that applies

Reactive Attachment Disorder

Reactive attachment disorder (RAD) is a developmental disorder listed in the DSM-IV-TR with other disorders found in infancy, childhood, and adolescence. It is usually found in children before age five, the hallmark of the disorder being significantly inappropriate social reaction between the primary caregiver and child and ultimately between the child and others (Hornor, 2008). RAD is a disorder that resides within the wider scope of attachment theory, and this theory must be understood to define, classify, explain, and treat reactive attachment disorder.

Attachment theory is a concept first explored by psychoanalyst John Bowlby that states that the relationship formed between caregiver and child is crucial to the development of awareness of self and others. This establishment of identity influences intrapersonal relations throughout a lifetime (as cited in Fairchild, 2009). Since attachment is formed in early childhood and affects future success in connecting with others, this suggests that a disruption in attachment formation results in negative consequences regarding that success. Reactive attachment disorder is one such disruption.

In the DSM-IV-TR, the American Psychological Association lists RAD as “very uncommon” (as cited in Corbin, 2007). Symptoms of RAD fall under two categories: the inhibited type and the disinhibited type. Both types require the presence of pathogenic care provided by the primary caregivers in order to be classified as reactive attachment disorder. The inhibited type characteristically includes an inability to bond with the caregiver, resulting in both resistance to comfort and the lack of seeking comfort. Children with the inhibited type may appear emotively frozen and uninterested in socializing. Alternatively, the disinhibited type exhibits a readiness to socialize with just about anyone, without special preference for the caregiver (as cited in Hornor, 2009). Like inhibited RAD children, disinhibited children do not rely on the caregiver either. Recent studies show that while inhibited and disinhibited types are listed as mutually exclusive, comorbidity of the types is possible, with one study by Zeanah and Emde (1994) showing that seventeen percent of the sample group showed behavior associated with both types (as cited in Hornor, 2009).

All of these symptoms are abnormal in a caregiver-child relationship. It is typical for young children to form a strong bond to their caregivers in normal family dynamics. A caregiver provides a loving, supportive and predictable environment and the child learns to depend on this. Attachment forms. However, when a caregiver fails to provide such an environment, attachment is less likely to form. This is considered pathogenic care, which increases the risk of RAD. Hallmarks of pathogenic care may include physical abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect; parental alcoholism, drug use, and/or mental illness; or the absence of a stable caregiver, such as in orphanages or when a child passes through a series of foster care facilities (Hornor, 2008). The abnormal behavior of a child with RAD is understood through this lens. While pathogenic care does not necessarily always lead to reactive attachment disorder, all cases by definition require pathogenic care to be considered RAD. Other disorders that may present themselves similarly to reactive attachment disorder are mental retardation and the pervasive developmental disorders (PDD). However, according to the DSM-IV, children with mental retardation are able to form parent-child attachments, and children with a pervasive developmental disorder show “other associated impairments in communication and restricted, repeated, and/or stereotyped patterns of behavior“ according to which disorder the child presents (as cited by Corbin, 2007). Most importantly, children with PDD may have abnormal parent-child attachments even without the presence of pathogenic care giving, which is a necessary facet of RAD diagnosis. Understanding the often harsh, pathogenic backgrounds from which RAD children develop not only helps psychologists distinguish this disorder from others, but it also helps explain the disturbed behaviors they exhibit.

Aside from the vast psychological impact that pathogenic care exerts upon a child, it also has physiological manifestations that are largely irreversible. The DSM-IV states that RAD has affects on physical development that are similar to cases of malnutrition, such as stunted growth (as cited by Corbin, 2007). This connection between the psychological and physiological affects of RAD illustrates the mind and body concept of abnormal psychology. The mind is not inseparable from the body and what affects the mind also affects the body and vice versa. In this case RAD children’s minds are affected by the pathogenic care provided by their caregivers, and their bodies in turn may be stunted from the psychological damage of never having a parental bond with anyone.

Studies on the effects of pathogenic care on the brain show that adults with such a history have a smaller hippocampus and amygdala, with evidence showing a decrease in GABA receptors in the amygdala. This in turn “essentially affects the ability of the amygdala to receive messages to calm itself” (Amini et al. as cited by Corbin, 2007). The affected hippocampus, which influences long-term memory storage, is imprinted with early memories from that pathogenic care model and solidifies a social basis that affects how the RAD child interprets the world from then on (Liggan and Kay as cited by Corbin, 2007). These psychological and physiological changes suggest that if not observed early while the child is still developing, children with RAD will grow up to be adults with RAD, who will suffer from the same symptom of crippled intrapersonal relationships. This mind-body connection helps explain the causes of reactive attachment disorder and allows for a multiple avenues of treatment.

In keeping with the idea of attachment theory, if a child with reactive attachment disorder comes from an environment of pathogenic care, treatment should involve the removal of such care and the supplementation of an environment that coincides with the humanistic mantra of unconditional positive regard. The environment should be reliable, nurturing, and loving, so that attachment is able to form. By offering a counterpart to the developing child’s memory of pathogenic care, it is hoped that new models of social interaction and attachment will form cognitively in the brain, allowing for a more developed sense of self and other.

According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, there are three ways to approach this attachment therapy: by working with the caregiver alone, with the caregiver and the child together, or with the child alone (as cited by Fairchild 2009). While all methods rely on changing the pathogenic background, the first two involve attempting to improve the existing parenting techniques to create a healthier caregiver-child dynamic. These methods uphold the family systems perspective of abnormal psychology, which recognizes that the whole family is the patient (Hansell & Damour, 2008). However, maintaining the same caregiver-child pairing can be dangerous for the child and in these cases, removal from that environment is necessary for treatment. From that point, the therapist can utilize the third method of treatment and work with the child alone.

Reactive attachment disorder, a disorder stemming from a disturbed connection between caregiver and child, is best understood within the context of attachment therapy. From understanding and defining the problems of the disorder, psychologists can classify its symptoms and begin to explain the causes behind the disorder. With these explanations, treatment can commence in order to help restore normal attachment patterns in these affected children.

References

Corbin, J. (2007). Reactive attachment disorder: A biopsychosocial disturbance of attachment. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 24(6), 539-552. doi:10.1007/s10560-007-0105-x.

Fairchild, S. (2009). Introduction to a special edition: Attachment theory and its application to practice. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 26(4), 287-289. doi:10.1007/s10560-009-0178-9.

Hansell, J., Damour, L. (2008). Abnormal psychology. Array Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Hornor, G. (2008). Reactive attachment disorder. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 22(4), 234-239. doi:10.1016/j.pedhc.2007.07.003.

Among Other Things I've Taken Up Smoking

I've been reading this book entitled Among Other Things I've Taken Up Smoking by Aoibheann Sweeney. It started out as pleasure reading...I love getting lost in fiction, and I feel more inspired by stories about families and relationships than I do about facts I guess. Anyway, the story is about a young woman who grows up on an island off the coast of Maine with her father. Her mother died when she was young, and her relationship with her dad was often strange and quiet. She went through high school and didn't really like it...and didn't go to college, so her dad got her a position at a classical literature institute in New York. The story is about her coming of age in the city, and her being confused by life, love and finding happiness.

I thought the novel spoke a lot about attachment...how her relationship with her father affected how she interacted with New York City. She could never step outside herself...outside of that Maine mindset and fitting in with other people who were vastly different from her was difficult. Not in any bad way per se...like she accepted those around her and everything, but she interacted with others based on how she learned how to interact back in Maine. It was very interesting, and I could relate to it a lot.

A lot to think about.

10/19-10/26

This was a week of finding out things for me. I was working on the bodies of the dolls of my mom and dad and putting them together/experimenting with the visual form they would take. Tapered legs? I like the look of them, and it adds that quirkiness or different quality that separates my drawings from my actual sculptures. With the bodies on the dolls, I can see how they fit in space and interact with each other, but I feel that I need to push it more. These are my first dolls, and I have to figure out how attachment is going to be articulated through them. Exciting times.

I also found out, on a more personal note that some important people to me are having health problems--namely my grandparents that I've lived with for the past two summers while I worked my summer job. My grandpa is having lung and heart issues, and he's on oxygen 24/7 now. My grandma went to the doctor and found a lump in her breast, and from the tests they did, they couldn't tell if the abnormal cells were benign or not....so they are going to do a biopsy. So that has been on my mind and will be on my mind until we find out. That with the stress of school has me pretty on edge.

10/12-10/18

This week I've been reflecting about everyone's presentations and I am really itching to get some more work done. Looking back on the very first puppet I made this year, I really see a progression that makes sense to me and that narrows in on my ideas both conceptually and visually.

With the weekend being fall break, I had some obligations out of town as well as really intense studying, so I did not get as much done as I would've liked. What I want to focus on for the next week is producing, especially some of the designs I drew up last week. It's hard for me to work small in painting with oils, because most of my brushes are too big to paint a face the size of a postage stamp, but maybe I will at least try it to see these mock-ups come alive so I'm not bogged down in making real-size end-products. This is the time to see what will work and what won't, and so once I get the bodies all set for the two larger dolls that I have in production, I'll get on that. I will also make some more drawings illustrating attachment and how that could enhance my dolls.

So...big plans, and a need for some production. Time to get working. (Arms and legs have appeared for one doll and in the works for the other. Woo!)

Studio Log 10/5-10/11

So this was the week before the presentations in class, and I've been really thinking about what aspects of memory I want to deal with in my project. By chance I happened upon a book in Borders called A General Theory of Love, and I've started reading it. This made me recall the theory of attachment from psychology, which says that childhood bonding with their parents and other loved ones influences how these children interact with others in adulthood.

Wikipedia article on attachment theory

This was extremely interesting to me, because most of my work in the past relates to familial connection, home, and loss. The word "attachment" also has visual aspect that could really enhance the relationships between the dolls I am creating.

Springing from this, I started sketching small drawings of possibilities for doll interaction. What I am most concerned about is the overall set-up for these dolls...how will attachment be expressed and how should I design the dolls to function?

During this time I also started making a body for one of my dolls, which proved slow-going because it was all handsewn. Primarily I just wanted to get a 3d body out there because it felt like I have been thinking through my concepts and working on the heads I showed last week.

So...things I've been thinking about...Tony Oursler's work, attachment theory, my past work, where I want to be, art therapy, possible doll designs. More next week!

Studio Log 9/28-10/4

This week I focused on making. The physical objects...something visually and technically intriguing to me and hopefully others. Making work as my alter-ego Christine, who does anything she wants, when she pleases, let me step outside my grand plans and look at what I really love to do--painting. I had a bit of an identity crisis related to painting because while I wanted to explore and try new ways of approaching painting and my painting process, I sort of turned my back on how and what I like to paint. This was for a specific class and with specific assignments and with what I felt was a specific "ideal" of what painting meant and what we, as students should strive for. I was feeling a lot of pressure to make paintings in this way, and I tried. Oh how I tried. And however much I tried to change my painting, it wasn't received well. But I felt if I did what I love to do--portraits, it wouldn't have been well-received either. I think that was just a perceived limitation I put on myself because I was questioning the validity of portrait-making and what it all meant on a grander scale. In some aspects, they become rote, dry, or boring. I didn't want to create something purely technical that may mean a lot to me, but not mean anything to other people.

While this history may seem somewhat unrelated to my Integrative Project and how I went about formulating my idea, it is very much the essence of how I approached the whole thing. I was afraid to paint again. I know I can paint, and I know I can paint well, but instead of me worrying about other people finding meaning in it, I was really worried about whether I could find true meaning in my own work. I wanted there to be something more to the painting, so I decided to just skip the subject altogether.

Enter the marionette/doll idea I've been working on. I knew I wanted to work with memory and I had worked with marionette making before and really liked it, so an idea was born. I'll post my first and second iterations of my idea in the next post, so you all can read what it is about. The point is, I was all geared up and excited about this new idea that I didn't really remember my old passion, painting. I am not me without it.

Being Christine, the type-A personality, fur-wearing, unapologetic narcissist who has little regard for the feelings of others, allowed me to do "whatever the hell I felt like doing", which was painting small gouache portraits of people I liked. Ahh, painting. My old friend, you're back! Painting those portraits reignited the fire of my love for technical rendering of faces. I looked at the puppets I had made, and something was missing. Real, human features. Things caricature-esque sculpture of a face can't really express. It's like the difference between having eye contact and not having eye contact with a person. Even walking down the street and looking a stranger in the eye ignites something very human within each person, as if asking "Do I recognize you? Are you a part of me? Should you be?" The puppets I made did not feel like they were breathing, did not have that spark. So I got the idea to utilize my painting skills (and love for painting people) and combine oil portraiture on the actual sculptured puppets/dolls. From the experimenting I've done, I really like the results. I'm excited and I just want to make. Make make make.

Next week's log will include the refinements I've been thinking about and making to my idea: honing in on what aspects of memory I want to convey. Here are some photos: