Conference Agenda

This presentation uses data from the Trondheim Early Secure Study (TESS; Steinsbekk & Wichstrøm, 2018), a population-based longitudinal study (N = 1,007 at T1), to examine observed caregiver–adolescent dyadic regulation in mid-to-late adolescence and its developmental relevance within a normative community context. At ages 16 (T7; n = 665) and 18 (T8; n = 631), caregiver–adolescent interaction tasks were video-recorded and coded using the Goal-Corrected Partnership in Adolescence Coding System (GPACS), capturing interactional behaviours indicative of attachment security, organized insecure attachment strategies, and distinct forms of attachment disorganization as they unfold in caregiver-adolescent interaction. GPACS coding is available for n = 399 dyads at T7 and n = 299 dyads at T8, constituting the largest normative dataset using the GPACS to date.

Because population-based samples may show restricted ranges and low base rates for some atypical behaviours, the analyses focus on (1) describing the distribution and variability of GPACS dimensions at age 16, (2) examining rank-order stability and change from ages 16 to 18, and (3) exploring whether and how GPACS-measured attachment behaviour at 16 is prospectively associated with indicators of psychosocial functioning in early adulthood.

By providing population-based benchmarks and prospective tests, this work informs the applicability, and potential boundary conditions, of GPACS outside high-risk and clinical samples and supports interpretation of GPACS findings across diverse adolescent populations.

Attachment research in adolescence has largely prioritised internal representations, leaving less clarity about how ongoing, observable caregiver–adolescent attachment behaviours shape later adjustment. Using a longitudinal, dyadic design, this study examined whether atypical attachment behaviours, including disoriented and role-confused patterns, within caregiver–adolescent interactions confer risk for adolescent substance use and aggression, and whether these links operate through caregiver monitoring, perceived social support, and adolescent social skills.

Data were drawn from a longitudinal observational study of 153 adolescent–caregiver dyads, with attachment behaviours assessed from dyadic caregiver–adolescent interactions during conflict discussions (Kobak et al., 2017). Interactions were coded using the Goal-Corrected Partnership in Adolescence Coding System (GPACS; Lyons-Ruth et al., 2005). Structural equation models tested pathways from attachment behaviours at age 13 to adolescent substance use and aggression at age 15.

Higher caregiver role-confusion was associated with increased adolescent substance use two years later, operating indirectly through reduced caregiver monitoring. Caregiver role-confusion was also linked to lower adolescent-reported social support, whereas adolescents who displayed more caregiving behaviour reported higher social support. Exploratory analyses indicated that caregiver role-confusion was associated with lower peer and family support, with higher peer support linked to increased substance use. Greater caregiver disorientation was associated with poorer adolescent social skills, although social skills did not mediate links with aggression. Adolescent disorientation and punitive behaviour were unrelated to outcomes.

These findings highlight how distinct atypical attachment behaviours within caregiver–adolescent dyads may shape developmental risk through specific relational processes, underscoring the value of observing attachment in interactions. This not only advances understanding of attachment relationships as they function during this critical developmental period, but it also identifies clear targets for intervention, bridging the gap between attachment research and clinical practice.

Observational assessment of caregiver–adolescent interaction is central to understanding attachment as it is enacted within relationships. Drawing on findings from studies using the Goal-Corrected Partnership in Adolescence Coding System (GPACS), this presentation illustrates how GPACS can be used as a clinical tool to sharpen the clinician’s observation of caregiver–adolescent interaction, constituting a critical first step in treatment. GPACS supports the identification of interactional patterns indicative of attachment security, organised insecure strategies, and distinct forms of attachment disorganisation within caregiver–adolescent dyads.

GPACS-based observation enables the identification of both verbal and non-verbal, moment-to-moment interactional behaviours related to safety, as well as patterns of dysfunctional interaction within the dynamic of the relationship. This fine-grained approach allows clinicians to differentiate between forms of attachment insecurity within the dyad and to identify distinct profiles of disorganised attachment. Illustrative video excerpts will be used to demonstrate how these attachment behaviours are observed in clinical contexts.

Building on this observational framework, the presentation introduces a clinical intervention based on supporting caregiver–adolescent interaction through Interactive Guidance Psychotherapy (adapted from S. McDonough, 2000). Video recordings of interactions are used as a shared analytic support, enabling joint observation of selected sequences by the therapist, caregiver, and adolescent. Initial therapeutic work focuses on identifying and reinforcing positive interactional behaviours to enhance caregiver awareness of their competencies, increase sensitivity to the adolescent’s signals, and support shifts in caregiver representations. In parallel, this process facilitates adolescents’ expression of vulnerability and supports mentalisation.

As a sense of security develops within the therapeutic process, insecure and disorganised behaviours are addressed with careful consideration. Working in the here-and-now of the interaction strengthens the therapeutic alliance and supports collaborative reflection on the links between behaviours, representations, and emotional processes within the caregiver–adolescent dyad.

n/a