Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Dev Psychopathol. 2013 Nov;25(4 0 2):1435–1454. doi: 10.1017/S0954579413000709

Table 2.

Synopsis of the functional utility, form of behavior, and underlying subjective experiences of the SDS profiles of security.

Functional Utility Structure of Behavioral Responding Underlying Subjective Experience
Secure
  • SDS operation circumscribed to signs of clear, direct threat

  • Efficient operation of SDS results in flexible coordination of attention to threat and reward

  • Mild and moderate distress calibrated to the intensity of the threat

  • Some involvement in conflict is largely rooted in empathetic concern for parents

  • Quick resumption of activities as threat subsides

  • High confidence, agency, and autonomy

  • Openly experiences and processes mild to moderate feelings of distress

  • Representations reflect confidence in parents to resolve differences

  • Low subjective impulses to regulate interparental conflict

Mobilizing
  • Up-regulation of SDS that is highly sensitive and attuned to threat

  • Significant stakes in actively managing threat while maintaining socialties

  • Blatant, displays of vigilance and distress

  • Dramatic displays of vulnerability (e.g., whining, anguish) or immaturity

  • Submissive, appeasing, or overbright behavior

  • Solicitation comfort, sympathy, alliances

  • Controlling, ingratiating, or vulnerable forms of involvement

  • High subjective negative affect

  • Hostile representation of the impact of interparental conflict for the self and family

  • High subjective impulses to avoid or intervene in conflict

Dominant
  • Active attenuation of vulnerable emotions while maintaining high vigilance to threat

  • Defeat threat through aggressive posturing

  • Hypervigilance

  • Suppression of vulnerable emotion

  • Anger, hostility

  • Reactive forms of aggression (e.g., yelling, hitting, belittling)

  • Dominant posture and gestures

  • Minimal experience of distress

  • Hostile appraisals of the impact of interparental conflict for the family

  • Benign representations of the impact of interparental conflict for self

  • Low impulse to regulate conflicts

Demobilizing
  • Reduce salience as target of hostility by laying low

  • Defuse threats through submission and appeasement

  • Freezing

  • Cut-off behaviors (e.g., covering eyes)

  • Submission (e.g., postural slumping)

  • Demobilizing (e.g., dysphoria, lethargy)

  • Camouflaging (e.g., mask emotion)

  • Social de-escalation (e.g., coy, ingratiating, appeasing)

  • High vulnerable distress

  • Hostile representation of interparental relationship quality

  • Representations of conflict as threatening to self

  • Moderate to high impulse to regulate conflict