For many years, I’ve been thinking about how to best present Mary Ainsworth’s secret (*secret* only because patriarchal forces in science and history have kept this brilliant work unrecognized) teachings. 

Mary’s Maternal Interaction and Caregiving Scales (MICS), the 20-page research instrument that’s the most detailed, insightful, wise, brutally honest treatise on love I’ve ever seen—completely changed my life—but I have to be careful about how to share it. 

Because it’s difficult to read. 

Why?

A few reasons:

Because we live in a shame-based culture that holds us hostage through idealization. 

Because living in the truth of messy emotions, fragile bodies, and ambivalent desires feels terrifying, and threatening.

Because women, especially mothers, and especially especially women of color and poor women, are expected to be the standard-bearers of this delusion: perpetually clear, unflappable, strong, yet tender. Always beautiful. At ease and joyful. When we crack, the world falls apart and punishes us.

Because we internalize this vice-grip of cultural expectations, we feel tremendous guilt and shame when we know (deep down, in our heart of hearts) that we’re not living up to them. Yay for the part of us that knows better! Not good for the part that beats ourselves up for “falling short.” 

Because we know (again, in our heart of hearts) that we have feelings, and bodies, and more feelings, but we find it difficult to experience ourselves as we are. 

Because there’s no room for us to feel angry, or exhausted or fed up, or lazy. Or insensitive. And we certainly don’t want someone else pointing it out to us! 

AT THE SAME TIME….

Because we’re alive, we have a longing to feel close and connected and loving, and we’re disappointed when our relationships fall short of what we know is possible. 

Because when we treat our children in ways we know hurts them, we’re hurt too. 

HOWEVER….

Because we’re so seized by the shame of our imperfections, we have a hard time looking squarely in the mirror, even when we want to.

I get it.

The comment I hear the most about my book is about how “brave” I must be to have written it. 

SO.

As I discussed last week, Mary and her team developed the Maternal Interaction and Caregiving Scales (MICS) when they were doing their seminal attachment research in the homes of 26 families in the suburbs of Baltimore in 1964. The MICS was first published in the 2015 edition of Mary’s primary text, Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation.

After spending up to 70 hours with these families, tracking “critical situations” (i.e., feeding/changing/cuddling/crying) every five minutes, they created transcripts of their time (totaling a 7K page PDF) and then coded the transcript using said MICS.

Mary and her team bravely asked—what kind of mothers are these women? And how did their behavior influence their child’s pattern of attachment, which would be revealed in the Strange Situation?

Specifically, the mothers were assessed on a scale of 1-9, using these four categories:

(1) Sensitivity vs. Insensitivity to the Baby's Signals, (2) Cooperation vs. Interference With the Baby's Ongoing Behavior, (3) Physical and Psychological Availability vs. Ignoring and Neglecting, and (4) Acceptance vs. Rejection of Baby's Needs.

And there we have it. 

This is what it takes to love someone: being sensitive, respectful, available, and accepting. 

Today, I’m going to share Scale #1: Sensitivity vs. Insensitivity to the Baby’s Signals in its entirety for all to read. I was going to highlight my favorite sections, but then I realized that I was being controlling. And the whole thing would be yellow!

A couple of caveats: You can replace “Mother” with any caregiver at all. Or better yet, consider how you care for yourself. And think about ALL your relationships, keeping Mary’s wisdom in mind.

For instance, this is how Mary opens with “Sensitivity vs. Insensitivity to the Baby's Signals.”

This variable deals with the mother's MY OWN ability to perceive and to interpret accurately the signals and communications implicit in her infant's  MY OWN behavior, and given this understanding, to respond to them appropriately and promptly. 

See what I mean?

If you get nothing else out of this, here’s the most important line in the whole document: Mothers who least distort their perceptions of their babies have some insight as to their own wishes and moods, and thus can more realistically judge the baby's behavior. 

Which is to say: if you’re serious about wanting to cultivate a secure attachment with your baby (or anyone in your life), you can start by being sensitive—to yourself. 

I know this is a lot.

I hope you’ll share your thoughts/feelings/reactions with me. I’d love to hear from you!

I really do want to be sensitive to you.

Scale 1: Sensitivity vs. Insensitivity to the Baby's Signals

This variable deals with the mother's ability to perceive and to interpret accurately the signals and communications implicit in her infant's behavior, and given this understanding, to respond to them appropriately and promptly. Thus the mother's sensitivity has four essential components: (a) her awareness of the signals; (b) an accurate interpretation of them; (c) an appropriate response to them; and (d) a prompt response to them. Let us consider each of these in turn.

The mother's awareness of her baby's signals and communications has two aspects. The first is the same as the issue covered in the scale "accessibility versus ignoring and neglecting." In other words, the mother must be reasonably accessible to the baby's communications before she can be sensitive to them. Accessibility is a necessary condition for sensitive awareness. It is not a sufficient condition, however, for a mother can maintain the "baby" in her field of awareness without fulfilling the other condition for sensitive awareness. The second aspect of awareness may be described in terms of "thresholds." The most sensitive mother--the one with the lowest threshold--is alert to the baby's most subtle, minimal, understated cues. Mothers with higher thresholds seem to perceive only the most blatant and obvious communications, Mothers with the highest thresholds seem often oblivious, and are, in effect, highly inaccessible. This second aspect is very closely related to the question of interpretation of the baby's signals, or, usually the mother who is alert to minimal cues also interprets them correctly. This is not invariably the case, however. For example, some mothers are alert to the slightest mouth movements, and sometimes incorrectly interpret them as hunger -- or they notice minimal tensions or restlessness and incorrectly interpret them as fatigue.

The mother's ability to interpret accurately her baby's communications has three main components (a) her awareness, as previously discussed, (b) her freedom from distortion, and (c) her empathy. An inattentive, "ignoring" mother is, of course, often unable to interpret correctly the baby's signals when they break through her obliviousness, for she has been unaware of the prodromal signs and of the temporal context of the behavior. But even a mother who is highly aware and accessible may misinterpret signals because her perception is distorted by projection, denial, or other marked defensive operations. Mothers who have distorted perceptions tend to bias their "reading" of their babies according to their own wishes, moods, and fantasies. For example, a mother not wishing to attend to her baby might interpret his fussy bids for attention as fatigue and, therefore, put him to bed' she in a hurry, might perceive any slowing down in the rate of feeding as a sign of satiation. Similarly, a mother who is somewhat rejecting of her infant might perceive him as rejecting and aggressive towards herself. Mothers who least distort their perceptions of their babies have some insight as to their own wishes and moods and thus can more realistically judge the baby's behavior. Furthermore, they are usually aware of how their own behavior and moods affect their infant's behavior. The mother must be able to empathize with her baby's feelings and wishes before she can respond with sensitivity. That is, a mother might be quite aware of and understand accurately the baby's behavior and the circumstances leading to her baby's distress or demands, but because she is unable to empathize with him--unable to see things from the baby's point of view--she may tease him back in good humor, mock him, laugh at him, or just ignore him. The mother's egocentricity and lack of empathy may also lead to detached, intellectual responses to the baby rather than to warm, sensitive interactions with the baby.

A high threshold of awareness and inaccurate perceptions certainly leads to insensitive responses. Nevertheless, the mother may be highly aware and accurate in her interpretation and still be insensitive. Therefore, in the last analysis, the appropriateness and promptness of the mother's response to communications are the hallmarks of sensitivity.

The quality of the mother's interaction with her infant is probably the most important index of her sensitivity. It is essential that the mother's responses be appropriate to the situation and to the baby's communications. Often enough, at least in the first year of life, the sensitive mother gives the baby what his communications suggest he wants. She responds socially to his attempts to initiate social interaction, playfully to his attempts to initiate play. She picks him up when he seems to wish it and puts him down when he wants to explore. When he is distressed, she knows what kind and degree of soothing he requires to comfort him--and she knows that sometimes a few words or a distraction will be all that is needed. When he is hungry she sees that he soon gets something to eat, perhaps giving him a snack if she does not want to give him his regular meal right away. On the other hand, the mother who responds inappropriately tries to socialize with the baby when he is hungry, play with him when he s tired, or feed him when he is trying to initiate social interaction.

In play and social interaction, the mother who responds appropriately to her child does not over-stimulate him by interacting in too intense, too vigorous, too prolonged, or too exciting a manner. She can perceive and accurately interpret the signs of over-excitement, undue tension, or incipient distress and shifts the tempo or intensity before things have gone too far. Similarly, she is unlikely to under-stimulate the child, because she picks up and responds to the signals he gives when he is bored or when he wants more interaction than has heretofore been forthcoming.

In the second year of life, and sometimes also toward the end of the first year, it is maximally appropriate for the mother to respond to the baby's signals not so much in accordance with what he ostensibly wants as in terms of a compromise between this and what will make him feel most secure, competent, comfortable, etc. in the long run. This is a tricky judgment to make for so much that is done "for the baby's own good" is done both contrary to his wishes and according to the mother's convenience, whim, or preconceived standards. Nevertheless, there are situations in which limit-setting, even in the first year, clears the air even though it is initially contrary to the baby's wishes. Similarly, there are situations in which the baby’s signals might lead the mother to increase the tempo of interaction to the point of discomfort for him, and in which it is appropriate gradually to diminish intensity. Therefore, there is a fine point of balance at which the mother can begin to show the baby that she is not an instrument of his will, but a cooperative partner whose participation must be elicited appropriately. In such instances, the mother will slightly frustrate the baby's imperious demands but warmly encourage (and reward) behaviors that are inviting or requesting rather than demanding. Nevertheless in such interactions, the sensitive mother acknowledges the baby's wishes even though she does not unconditionally accede to them. The chief point is that a sensitive, appropriate response does not invariably imply complete compliance to the baby's wish -- although very frequently compliance may be the most appropriate response.

The final feature of appropriate interaction is that it is well-resolved or well-rounded and completed. For example, when the baby seeks contact, the sensitive mother holds him long enough to satisfy him, so that when he is put down he does not immediately seek to be picked up again. When he needs soothing, she soothes him thoroughly, so he is quite recovered and cheerful. When he seeks social interaction she enters into a more or less prolonged exchange with him, after which, often enough, he is content to entertain himself. In contrast, the responses of some mothers with low sensitivity seem to be fragmented and incomplete. These mothers may try a series of interventions as though searching for the best method or solution. Highly sensitive mothers have completed, easily, and well-resolved interactions.

Finally, there is the issue of the promptness of the mother's response to the baby's communication. A response, however appropriate, which is so delayed that it cannot be perceived by the baby as contingent upon his communication cannot be linked by him to his own signal. We assume that it is a good thing for a baby to gain some feeling of efficacy--and eventually to feel cumulatively a "sense of competence" in controlling his social environment. Thus it seems a part of sensitivity to acknowledge the baby's signals in some effective way and to indicate that one is at least preparing to accede to them. During the first quarter of the first year, a mother's sensitivity is most easily judged by her latency in response to the baby's distress signals such as hunger. However, during the last quarter, the mother’s prompt response to the baby's social communication and signals is probably a more critical measure. A mother is inevitably insensitive when she fails to respond to the baby's outstretched arms, to his excited greeting, or simply to his smile or gentle touch.

An issue that cuts across the various components of sensitivity concerns the timing of routine activities and playing. In general, arbitrary or very rigid timing of major interactions cannot but be insensitive to the infant's signals, moods, and rhythms. The mother who arranges and organizes day by day activities with her infant in order to most convenient herself, or the mother who thinks by the clock, has little or no consideration of the infant's tempo and current state.

In summary, the most sensitive mothers are usually accessible to their infants and are aware even of their more subtle communications, signals, wishes, and moods. In addition, these mothers accurately interpret their perceptions and show empathy with their infants. The sensitive mother, armed with this understanding and empathy, can time her interactions well and deal with her baby so that her interactions seem appropriate--appropriate in kind as well as in quality - and prompt. In contrast, mothers with low sensitivity are not aware of much of their infant's behavior, either because they ignore the baby or they fail to perceive in his activity the more subtle and hard-to-detect communications. Furthermore, insensitive mothers often do not understand those aspects of their infant's behavior of which they are aware or else they distort it. A mother may have somewhat accurate perceptions of her infant's activity and moods but may be unable to empathize with him. Through either lack of understanding or empathy, mothers with low sensitivity improperly time their responses, either in terms of scheduling or in terms of promptness to the baby's communications. Further, mothers with low sensitivity often have inappropriate responses in kind as well as quantity (i.e., interactions that are fragmented arid poorly resolved).

The Sensitivity vs. Insensitivity Scale

9. Highly sensitive. This mother is exquisitely attuned to B's signals; and responds to them promptly and appropriately. She is able to see things from B's point of view; her perceptions of his signals and communications are not distorted by her own needs and defenses. She "reads" B's signals and communications skillfully, and knows what the meaning is of even his subtle, minimal, and understated cue. She nearly always gives B what he indicates that he wants, although perhaps not invariably so. When she feels that it is best not to comply with his demands--for example, when he is too excited, over-imperious, or wants something he should not have-- she is tactful in acknowledging his communication and in offering an acceptable alternative. She has "well-rounded" interactions with B so that the transaction is smoothly completed and both she and B feel satisfied. Finally, she makes her responses temporally contingent upon B's signals arid communications.

7. Sensitive. This mother also interprets B's communications accurately and responds to them promptly and appropriately but with less sensitivity than mothers with higher ratings. She may be less attuned to B's more subtle behaviors than the highly sensitive mother. Or, perhaps because she is less skillful in dividing her attention between B and competing demands, she may sometimes "miss her cues". B’s clear and definite signals are, however, neither missed nor misinterpreted. This mother empathizes with B and sees things from his point of view; her perceptions of his behavior are not distorted. Perhaps because her perception is less sensitive than that of mothers with higher ratings, her responses are not as consistently prompt or as finely appropriate. But although there may be occasionally little "mismatches", M's interventions and interactions are never seriously out of tune with B's tempo, state and communications.

5. Inconsistently sensitive. Although this mother can be quite sensitive on occasion, there are some periods in which she is insensitive to B's communications. M's inconsistent sensitivity may occur for any one of several reasons, but the outcome is that she seems to have lacunae in regard to her sensitive dealings with B--being sensitive at some times or in respect to some aspects of his experience, but not in others. Her awareness of B may be intermittent--often fairly keen, but sometimes impervious. Or her perception of B's behavior may be distorted in regard to one or two aspects although it is accurate in other important aspects. She my be prompt and appropriate in response to his communications at times and in most respects, but either inappropriate or slow at other times and in other respects. On the whole, however, she is more frequently sensitive than insensitive. What is striking is that a mother who can be as sensitive as she is on so many occasions can be so insensitive on other occasions.

3. Insensitive. This mother frequently fails to respond to B's communications appropriately and/or promptly, although she may on some occasions show capacity for sensitivity in her responses to and interactions with B. Her insensitivity seems linked to inability to see things from B's point of view. She may be too frequently preoccupied with other things and therefore inaccessible to his signals and communications, or she may misperceive his signals and interpret them inaccurately because of her own wishes or defenses. Or she may know well enough what B is communicating but be disinclined to give him what he wants--because it is inconvenient or she not in the mood for it, or because she is determined not to "spoil" him. She may delay an otherwise appropriate response to such an extent that it is no longer contingent upon his signal, and indeed perhaps is no longer appropriate to his state or mood. Or she may respond with seeming appropriateness to B's communications but break off the transactions before B is satisfied, so that their interactions seem fragmented and incomplete or her responses perfunctory, half-hearted, or impatient. Despite such clear evidence of insensitivity, however, this mother is not consistently or pervasively insensitive as mothers with even lower ratings. Therefore, when the baby's own wishes, moods, and activity are not too deviant from the mother's wishes, moods, and household responsibilities or when the baby is truly distressed or otherwise very forceful and compelling in his communication, this mother can modify her own behavior and goals and, at this time, can show some sensitivity in her handling of the child.

1. Highly insensitive. The extremely insensitive mother seems geared almost exclusively to her own wishes, moods, and activity. That is M's interventions and initiations of interaction are prompted or shaped largely by signals within herself; if they mesh with B's signals, this is often no more than coincidence. This is not to say that M never responds to B's signals; for sometimes she does if the signals are intense enough, prolonged enough, or often enough repeated. The delay in response is in itself insensitive Furthermore, since there is usually a disparity between one's own wishes and activity and B's signals, M who is geared largely to her own signals routinely ignores or distorts the meaning of s behavior. Thus, when M responds to B's signals, her response is inappropriate in kind or fragmented and incomplete.