Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 136–151

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Infant Behavior and Development

Attachment patterns and emotion regulation strategies

in the second year
Cristina Riva Crugnola a,∗ , Renata Tambelli b , Maria Spinelli a ,
Simona Gazzotti a , Claudia Caprin a , Alessandro Albizzati c
a
Department of Psychology, State University of Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy
b
Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology, State University of Roma “La Sapienza”, Roma, Italy
c
Infant Neuropsychiatry Unit, San Paolo Hospital of Milano and State University of Milano, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: With the aim of studying the relationship between methods of emotion regulation and
Received 19 October 2009 quality of attachment we examined 39 infants with different patterns of attachment, of
Received in revised form 28 June 2010
whom 20 were classified as secure (B), 12 as avoidant (A) and 7 as resistant (C), assess-
Accepted 26 November 2010
ing the regulatory strategies adopted by them during the Strange Situation at 13 months.
Secure infants used strategies of positive social engagement more than insecure avoidant
Keywords:
infants, while resistant infants displayed greater negative social engagement and less object
Attachment
orientation than the other two groups. Avoidant infants adopted positive and negative
Emotion regulation
Hetero-regulatory strategies hetero-regulatory strategies less than the other groups, also differing from resistant infants
Self-regulatory strategies in their greater use of object regulatory strategies. There were no significant differences as
Object oriented regulatory strategies regards self-comforting regulation. Thus, the findings showed how the most significant dif-
Infancy ferences to emerge between the groups concerned hetero-regulatory strategies, developed
by the infant in interaction with attachment figures, and regulatory strategies oriented
towards objects. Further analysis showed how the use by part of each attachment group of
the emotion regulation strategies varies, differentiating the episodes of the SSP according
to their level of stress.
© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

It is well-known that emotion regulation is an important objective for the socio-emotional development of an infant
(Bridges & Grolnick, 1995; Calkins, 1994; Sroufe, 1995; Tronick, 1989, 2007). Although conceptualizations of emotion reg-
ulation may differ (Campos, Frankel, & Camras, 2004; Cole, Martin, & Dennis, 2004; Eisenberg & Spinrad, 2004; Gross &
Thompson, 2007; Thompson, 1994), many authors agree in considering it a mix of “physiological, behavioral and cogni-
tive processes that enables individuals to modulate the experience and the expression of positive and negative emotions”
(Bridges, Denham, & Ganiban, 2004, p. 340; Cole, Michel, & Teti, 1994). This skill allows an individual to adapt in interacting
with the environment (Calkins & Hill, 2007; Campos et al., 2004) making it possible to maintain behavioral organization in
the face of high levels of tension, not simply concerning the regulation of negative emotions, but leading more broadly to
“initiation and maintenance of emotional states, both positive and negative” (Bridges et al., 2004, p. 344). As is well-known
this regulatory capacity develops within the ambit of the attachment relations which the infant experiences in his first years

∗ Corresponding author: Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Piazza dell’Ateneo Nuovo, 1, 20126, Milano, Italy.
Tel.: +39 02 5517929; fax: +39 64483706.
E-mail address: cristina.riva-crugnola@unimib.it (C. Riva Crugnola).

0163-6383/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2010.11.002
 C. Riva Crugnola et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 136–151 137

(Cassidy, 1994; Sroufe, 1995), as these relations can be considered specific methods of social regulation of the emotions
(Coan, 2008).

1.1. Emotion regulation strategies in early infancy

A common approach to studies into emotion regulation in early infancy was to identify the behavioral strategies adopted
by the infant to regulate his emotions. Various researchers (Braungart-Rieker, Garwood, Powers, & Wang, 1998; Buss &
Goldsmith, 1998; Mangelsdorf, Shapiro, & Marzolf, 1995; Tronick, 1989) demonstrated the presence of regulatory strate-
gies in the first year of life, subdivided into self-regulatory strategies, such as those centred on looking away and on
self-comforting, and hetero-regulatory strategies, such as protesting, crying or attracting the attention of the adult with
a look or a smile, aimed at mobilizing the regulatory intervention of the caregiver. Tronick, in studies conducted through the
Still Face Paradigm (Cohn & Tronick, 1983; Gianino & Tronick, 1988), demonstrated that from the age of 3 months infants
adopt early skills for self-regulation of the emotions when confronted by inexpressiveness of the mother’s face. Of these, one
of the earliest appears to be that of looking away from the stressful stimulus. Other early skills are those of self-comforting
by sucking or manipulating parts of the body (e.g. finger and hand in the mouth, touching the hair, ears, etc.).
Other studies have analyzed the development of regulatory strategies in the first years. Of these, that of Bridges and
Grolnick (1995) shows how regulatory strategies centred on looking away and self-comforting are present from 2 to 4
months and then decrease at the end of the first year, a period in which hetero-regulatory strategies aimed at using the
caregiver as a regulator become more important (Kopp, 1989). Such strategies, which some authors call parent-focused
emotion regulation strategies (Diener, Mangelsdorf, McHale, & Frosch, 2002), manifest themselves through the emotional
communication which the infant uses with the adult in order to mobilize a response with the aim of obtaining regulation of
his/her emotional states. Of these Weinberg and Tronick (1994) distinguish strategies centred on positive social engagement
in which the infant smiles, looks at the mother and makes positive vocalization and those centred on negative engagement,
such as active protest, in which the infant cries, distances him/herself from the mother, exhibiting anger, and withdrawal, in
which the infant appears sad and looks away from the mother, whining. Through such methods of communication, which
are frequently expressed through a combination of facial expression, tone of voice, look and gestures (Weinberg & Tronick,
1994), the infant communicates his/her emotional state to the caregiver in order to obtain support in modulating his/her
emotions. The caregiver responds by attuning to the infant and acting as regulator of such states. In the same period the
strategies which the infant adopts to actively redirect (self-distraction) his/her attention to the environment and objects
with respect to stressful stimuli (Kopp, 1989) become important in concomitance with the development of the system of
executive attention (Sheese, Rothbart, Posner, White, & Fraundorf, 2008).
According to these studies during the second year the infant appears to have different emotion regulation strategies
which may be sub-divided into three groups: the first group centred on physical self-comforting, the second on hetero-
regulation through the adult, the third on self-distraction through orientation to the environment (Grolnick, Bridges, &
Connell, 1996; Mangelsdorf et al., 1995). At the end of the second year such strategies become more complex thanks to the
infant’s increasing symbolic and cognitive skills. Of these, the significant skills are the use of the transitional object, symbolic
play and self-talk, which the infant may use to calm himself, for example when the mother is absent (Feldman, 2007a).
Regulatory strategies thus developed are organized in a hierarchical system in which the earliest regulatory behavior, such
as self-comforting, already present in the first months, remains into adult life (Bridges & Grolnick, 1995). At the same time
hetero-regulatory strategies used by the infant appear to remain important in the course of development, with the result
that flexible alternating between self-regulation and dyadic co-regulation of the emotions, based on the use of the other (a
friend, a partner, etc.) as a regulator, characterizes adulthood (Coan, 2008; Diamond & Aspinwall, 2003).
Many researchers agree that the development of emotion regulation depends both on the infant’s individual, neurobio-
logical and temperamental characteristics, and on his/her relational resources in the first years, as well as on the interaction
of these variables (Calkins & Hill, 2007; Crockenberg & Leerkes, 2004; Kopp, 1989; Mangelsdorf et al., 1995; Propper & Moore,
2006; Rothbart, 1994; Schore, 2001; Thompson, 1994). The regulatory skills which he/she originally possesses must, in fact,
interact with the regulatory functions which the parent is called on to perform in order to fully develop. On the basis of the
communication of the infant, who requests help from the parent in modulating his/her emotion, the parent attunes to him
and helps to regulate his/her emotional states, both positive and negative (Stern, 1999; Tronick, 2004). Thus, during the first
2 years, a system of dyadic regulation is created whose characteristics depend both on the infant’s early regulatory skills
and the scaffolding function effected by the caregiver, aimed at promoting in the infant the development of more mature
regulatory skills through the internalization of the caregivers’ regulation strategies (Sroufe, 1995; Tronick, 2007).
On the other hand dysregulation in the mother–infant system may be present early on, when excessive regulation on
the part of the mother may lead to problems in the infant’s development of his/her self-regulatory skills. Failure on the
part of the mother to regulate may, on the other hand, promote in the infant excessive self-regulation to the detriment of
hetero-regulation (Beebe et al., 2000). Furthermore the mother’s inability to regulate the negative emotions of the infant and
to help him maintain organization of positive emotions during the first year may be predictive of disorganized attachment
on the part of the infant (Lyons-Ruth, 2003). The regulatory strategies which the infant develops in interaction with the
mother appear in fact to influence his subsequent attachment patterns (Beebe et al., 2010; Evans & Porter, 2009; Feldman,
2007a, 2007b). The research of Braungart-Rieker (Braungart-Rieker, Garwood, Powers, & Wang, 2001) also shows how the
various self- and hetero-regulatory strategies adopted by the infant during the Still Face Paradigm at 4 months are effective
138 C. Riva Crugnola et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 136–151

predictors of the type of attachment which the infant will demonstrate to the mother at 12 months. Koulomzin (Koulomzin
et al., 2002) in her study also showed how infants assessed as insecure avoidant at 12 months use regulatory strategies
when interacting with the mother centred on self-comforting (hand, finger in mouth, etc.) in order to remain focused on the
mother’s face more than secure infants at 4 months.

1.2. Attachment and emotion regulation

The development of emotion regulation has also been the subject of privileged study in attachment research. Main (1995,
2000) in her writings hypothesized that attachment patterns may be considered as both adaptive and defensive strategies
(working defensive strategies) adopted by the infant in the face of the emotional availability demonstrated to him/her by
attachment figures. According to this hypothesis, secure attachment denotes good adaptation of the infant to the emotional
availability demonstrated by the mother with respect to the entire range of his/her emotions; insecure attachment patterns,
on the other hand, imply an alteration in the attentive and emotional states of the infant with regard to his/her attachment
relations.
From this perspective different attachment patterns imply specific styles of communication and emotion regulation which
the infant constructs in relation to an attachment figure, adapting himself to the latter’s availability and ability to regulate
emotions (Cassidy, 1994; Cassidy & Kobak, 1988; Fonagy, Gergely, Jurist, & Target, 2002; Kobak & Sceery, 1988; Mikulincer,
Shaver, & Pereg, 2003; Pierrehumbert, 2002; Zimmermann, 1999). In this regard, secure attachment corresponds to the
ability of the infant to openly communicate each emotion, both positive and negative, to a caregiver perceived as emotionally
available. On the contrary, insecure avoidant attachment seems to imply the partial de-activation of the attachment system
and reduction in the expression of negative emotions, through the infant shifting his/her attention from the non-responsive
and rejecting parent to the surrounding environment, with the aim of defending himself against the feelings of anger
activated by maternal rejection (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Main, 1995, 2000). It needs to be remembered
in this regard that, in the course of the Strange Situation, the absence of displayed negative emotions in avoidant infants
– who do not express stress in the episodes of separation from the mother and ignore her in the episodes of reunion – is
inconsistent with the results of physiological measurements taken during this procedure. During the experiment avoidant
infants display strong activation as shown by an increase in the cardiac rate – see the seminal study of Sroufe (Sroufe &
Waters, 1977) – and a high cortisol level (Spangler & Grossmann, 1993). It may, therefore, be hypothesized that the avoidant
infant has learnt not to express to the mother negative emotions connected to separation, having had experience of her
rejecting his/her attachment signals during the first year, albeit feeling such emotions as is demonstrated by physiological
activation (Main, 1995, 2000).
Insecure resistant attachment appears, for its part, to be based on maximization of the attachment system through
the infant’s hyper-vigilance and emphasizing the expression of negative emotions with respect to an unpredictably
non-responsive parent in order to attract their intermittent attention and availability, resulting in disinvestment in the
surrounding environment (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994; Main, 1995, 2000).
From the end of the second year the dyadic regulation which substantiates attachment bonds makes room for the for-
mation of individual styles of emotion regulation, strongly influenced by the quality of previous dyadic forms (Siegel, 2001;
Sroufe, 1995). Strategies of expression and regulation of the emotions which are thus formed in connection with different
attachment patterns tend to remain stable in the course of development. Various research has demonstrated in this regard
that a restriction in the expression of the negative emotions linked to insecure avoidant attachment patterns, seen at 12
months, tends to stabilize leading in the pre-school and school age infant to a restriction in the expression of negative emo-
tions (anger and sadness) to his interlocutors (Grossmann & Grossmann, 1991). The different attachment models therefore
appear to regulate the systems of expression of basic emotions by the infant, organizing their trajectory of development as
shown by Kochanska (2001). The latter demonstrated how the expression of some primary emotions in infants with different
attachment patterns differed significantly in the course of development, particularly with regard to the difference between
positive and negative emotions. Other studies conducted with pre-adolescents (Kerns, Abraham, Schlegelmilch, & Morgan,
2007) and adolescents (Kobak, Cole, Ferenz-Gillies, Fleming, & Gamble, 1993; Kobak & Sceery, 1988) show the continuation
of the relationship between attachment models and styles of regulation and expression of the emotions. At the same time,
the studies currently available on adult attachment show how, even in adult subjects, different styles of emotion regulation
are associated with different attachment models (Magai, 1999; Mikulincer et al., 2003; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002). According
to these studies, a number conducted with the priming paradigm with the aim of evoking stressful situations with respect
to attachment, avoidant subjects minimize expression of negative emotions, inhibiting worries about attachment, and do
not activate representations of attachment figures in this condition; in the same conditions resistant subjects maximize the
expression of negative emotions and worries and the memory of negative events; secure subjects are able to express the
unease felt by evoking representations of available attachment figures. These researchers hypothesize that insecure adult
subjects adopt hyper-activation strategies (resistant) or deactivation strategies (avoidant) with respect to the regulation of
emotions similar to those strategies identified by Main (1995, 2000), Cassidy (1994) and Dozier and Kobak (1992) for infants
assessed with the Strange Situation as avoidant insecure and resistant insecure. Such strategies, centred on the restriction
of information relating to attachment experiences and emotions, have a defensive function allowing the infant to maintain
the attachment bond with the caregiver, despite the partial emotional unavailability of the latter (Main, 1995, 2000). From
this perspective avoidant infants partially deactivate attachment signals directed at the mother, experienced previously
 C. Riva Crugnola et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 136–151 139

as rejecting, in order to maintain the relationship with her. In the same way, insecure resistant infants maximize their
attachment signals in order to activate maternal responsiveness, experienced as unreliable in previous interaction.
The study of emotion regulation strategies linked to different attachment patterns is therefore an important theme
in the analysis of the socio-emotional and relational development of the child. However, only a few empirical research
studies have examined this link in the first stages of development. These include that of Braungart and Stifter (1991) which
highlights a number of particularities in the regulatory strategies used by infants with different attachment patterns during
the Strange Situation. The research shows up the prevalence in secure infants (B3 and B4) of regulatory strategies used both
with people and objects, the prevalence in avoidant infants of self-comforting behavior and object orientation and finally the
prevalence in resistant infants of a more limited repertory of regulatory strategies, with fewer strategies centred on objects.
The research of Diener (Diener et al., 2002) also demonstrated the existence of significant differences in styles of emotion
regulation used by insecure infants and secure infants with the father but not with the mother. According to this research,
avoidant infants favor self-regulatory behavior or behavior oriented to the environment, while resistant infants seem to
use multiple strategies, both self-regulatory and oriented towards objects and caregivers; finally, secure infants seem to
display a greater tendency to use hetero-regulatory than self-regulatory strategies. In the cited studies hetero-regulatory
strategies used with an adult are not differentiated according to whether the infant communicates with the adult through the
expression of positive or negative emotions. Another study (Volling, McElwain, Notaro, & Herrera, 2002) found significant
association for father–infant secure attachment, but none for mother–infant secure attachment, with respect to the ability
of the infant to regulate negative emotions and to keep attention focused on objects in a stressful situation.

1.3. Approach of our study

To sum up, given that strategies of emotion regulation linked to attachment patterns seem to have a strong impact on
subsequent infant socio-emotional and relational development, it would be of particular interest to study in more depth than
previous research the relationship between attachment patterns and strategies of emotion regulation in the first stage of its
structuring. Another useful question, not examined in previous studies, would be to examine the possible different strategies
of hetero-regulation which the infant adopts with the adult, based on the expression of positive or negative emotions. The
operationalization of this difference – as noted by Cassidy (1999) – could be important given that the various attachment
patterns seem to be correlated to different ways of expressing emotions: the avoidant way aims to minimize the expression
of emotions, in particular negative emotions, the resistant way based on the maximization of negative emotions and finally
the secure way which can express both according to context.
Bearing in mind the above, the main aim of our study was to identify any differences in emotion regulation strategies
adopted within the ambit of the Strange Situation by 13 months infants classified as secure, insecure resistant and insecure
avoidant with respect to the mother. We considered the use of this experimental condition to be of especial interest as it is
particularly suitable for showing emotion regulation strategies. In fact it consists of averagely stressful episodes connected
to different factors, presence/absence of the mother, appearance of a stranger, newness of the environment, which can elicit
specific emotion regulation strategies.
In relation to this aim and based on previous findings we therefore posited the following main questions: (1) How do
the attachment groups differ with respect to hetero-regulatory strategies based on positive and negative engagement? On
the basis of previous findings we hypothesized that avoidant infants would use adult-focused positive and negative hetero-
regulatory strategies less than other groups and that resistant infants would use adult-focused negative hetero-regulatory
strategies more than other groups; (2) How do the three groups differ with respect to orientation towards objects? We
hypothesized that avoidant infants and secure infants would use object regulatory strategies more than resistant infants.
We then asked, in an exploratory fashion as we do not have unequivocal findings in this regard: (3) How do attachment
groups differ in their display of self-regulatory strategies and particularly in self-comforting strategies? (4) How do the
emotion regulation strategies used by the different attachment groups vary with respect to the different level of stress
involved in the episodes of the Strange Situation, divided into three groups; episodes of pre-separation with low level of
stress, episodes of separation with high level of stress, episodes of reunion with an intermediate level of stress?

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The infants in this study are part of a longitudinal study which examined the relationship between maternal and infant
attachment and the styles of interaction and emotion regulation of both from infant age 3–24 months (Riva Crugnola, 2007;
Riva Crugnola, Albizzati, Caprin, Gazzotti, & Spinelli, 2009). The 39 mother–baby dyads were recruited at infant age 3 months
at the beginning of a program organized by a service of a Milan hospital to follow infants during their first year; the service
was intended for mothers of infants and was aimed at monitoring the infants’ growth. All the infants (25 males) were full
term and did not have any organic pathologies at birth. The mothers (mean age = 32.69; S.D. = 4.43), were first time mothers
in the majority of cases (75%) and all were cohabiting and in stable relationships (100%). All were Caucasian and of Italian
nationality. The mean educational level of the mothers was 14.41 years (S.D. = 2.697); 33.3% were graduates, 55.6% had a
high school diploma, 11.1% had a middle school diploma. 81.09% of the mothers were in employment.
140 C. Riva Crugnola et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 136–151

2.2. Procedure

At infant age 13 months (mean age = 13.86, S.D. = 1.98) the full Strange Situation Procedure was administered (Ainsworth
et al., 1978). The procedure exposes infants aged between 12 and 18 months to eight episodes of around 3 min each, centred
on the alternating presence and absence, through repeated separation and reunion, of the attachment figure and of a stranger,
so as to assess their attachment to that figure.
All episodes of the Strange Situation Procedure, except the first, which we considered not sufficiently stressful, were
subsequently analyzed using a coding system constructed ad hoc with the aim of identifying the emotion regulation strategies
adopted by the infants observed during the procedure.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Quality of attachment

To assess the attachment patterns of the infants we used the three category coding system of Ainsworth (Ainsworth et al.,
1978). According to this system a secure infant (B) uses the parent as a basis for exploring the environment when the latter
is present, displays distress upon separation from the parent and actively seeks contact and interaction during reunion with
the parent and is easily consoled by him, demonstrating that he/she is able to resume play; an insecure avoidant infant (A)
does not share play or exploration with the parent, nor does he/she display particular distress upon separation from the
latter; in the episodes of reunion he/she does not actively seek the parent, avoiding, even markedly, contact, looking away or
turning away and continuing to play or to explore the environment; he/she does not appear disturbed when left alone with
a stranger and during the entire experimental procedure he/she appears focused on the toys and surrounding environment.
Finally, the insecure resistant infant (C) is focused on the parent during the entire procedure, has difficulty in exploring the
environment and displays distress during separation from the parent and anger and/or inconsolability upon reunion with
him; he/she does not resume play after reunion and may display fear or anger towards a stranger.
The Strange Situation Procedure was coded by a researcher, the fourth author, who achieved reliability with A. Sroufe. A
second judge, the first author, who also achieved reliability with A. Sroufe coded 25% of the Strange Situations. Agreement
between the two coders for A, B and C classifications was Cohen’s kappa k = .86. Cases of disagreement were resolved through
discussion among the judges. Of the infants examined in our study, 20 had secure attachment (51.28%), 7 (17.94%) insecure
resistant attachment and 12 (30.76%) insecure avoidant attachment.

2.3.2. Emotion regulation strategies coding system

Basing ourselves on coding systems aimed at assessing emotion regulation in the infant in early infancy developed by
Tronick and Weinberg, the Infant Regulatory Scoring System – IRSS (1996) and the Infant and Caregiver Engagement Phases
– ICEP (1999), we drew up a coding system (see Table 1) aimed at assessing emotion regulation strategies in the infant. As
can be seen in Table 1, the coding system includes a number of categories composed in turn of sub-categories, describing a
series of specific behaviors. Categories and sub-categories are not mutually exclusive.
The categories are: Negative Social Engagement and Positive Social Engagement oriented towards the mother and towards
the stranger and Negative Social Engagement and Positive Social Engagement Vocal, understood as hetero-regulatory
strategies; object oriented regulatory strategies (identified as Object Orientation), self-regulatory strategies (identified as
Self-Comforting Regulation, Self-Vocalization and Mother-Searching Behavior) and behavior indicating the infant’s failure
to regulate his emotions (identified as Crying When Alone, Autonomic Stress Indicators and Disorganization).
During the observation the presence of each behavior provided in the sub-categories was recorded at continuous 15 s
intervals. Given that the duration of individual episodes was not always exactly 3 min, the frequency of appearance was made
proportionate to that standard duration (Diener et al., 2002). Finally the weighed frequencies of appearance of individual
behavior were added together, thus obtaining a total score for each of the categories provided by the coding system.
In the case of the subcategories which comprise Positive and Negative Social Engagement concerning behavior oriented
to the adult (for example: Attacks on mother and Throwing objects), frequency was calculated according to whether it was
linked to the mother or to a stranger. For what concerns Neutral/Positive Vocalization, Negative Vocalization and Crying in
the Presence of the Adult, due to the frequent difficulties – above all in episode 3 in which both mother and stranger are
present – in differentiating to whom the infant’s behavior was addressed, it was decided to leave these categories without
any distinction between mother and stranger, putting them together in the category Negative Social Engagement Vocal and
Positive Social Engagement Vocal.
The categories Negative Social Engagement Mother, Stranger and Vocal were then added together in order to calculate
frequency with respect to a general category of negative engagement called Negative Social Engagement Total. The same
procedure was carried out to form the category Positive Social Engagement Total.
Agreement between two judges who separately coded 20% of the sample and distinct indexes of agreement for each
of the behavioral categories used in the coding system were calculated according to the Birkimer and Brown procedure
(1979). The mean value of the agreement index for Negative Social Engagement Total was S-I = .891 (S.D. = .075), for Positive
Social Engagement Total S-I = .961 (S.D. = .081), for Object Orientation S-I = .932 (S.D. = .075) and for the remaining grouped
categories (Self-Comforting Regulation, Mother Searching Behavior, Self-Vocalization, Crying When Alone, Autonomic Stress
Indicators, Disorganization) was S-I = .879 (S.D. = .059).
 C. Riva Crugnola et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 136–151 141

Table 1
Categories used to code strategies of emotion regulation and indicators of non-regulation.

Categories Subcategories

Negative Social Engagement Mother • Attacks the mother • Pulling away from the m.
• Throwing objects to m. • Kicking when held by the m.
• Pounding on door/wall/floor in the • Running away/dodging m.
presence of m.
• Tantrums towards m. • Distancing from m.
• Pushing away m. • Screening out m.

Negative Social Engagement Stranger • Attacks the stranger • Pulling away from the s.
• Throwing objects to s. • Kicking when held by the s.
• Pounds on door/wall/floor in the • Running away/dodging s.
presence of s.
• Tantrums towards s. • Distancing from s.
• Pushing away the s. • Screening out s.

Negative Social Engagement Vocal • Negative vocalization • Crying in the presence of the adult

Positive Social Engagement Mother • Showing object to mother • Pick-me-up gesture towards m.
• Pointing the m. • Refusing object from m.
• Orientation to objects offered • Reaching for object held by m.
by the m.
• Touching m. • Social referencing towards m.

Positive Social Engagement Stranger • Showing object to stranger • Pick-me-up gesture towards s.
• Pointing the s. • Refusing object from s.
• Orientation to objects offered by the s. • Reaching for object held by s.
• Touching s. • Social referencing towards s.

Positive Social Engagement Vocal • Neutral/positive vocalization

Object Orientation • Holding objects • Looking in mirror (himself or adult)

• Manipulating objects • Visually exploring the room
• Looking at objects

Self-Comforting Regulation • Oral self • Self-clasping of two hands

• Oral other • Rocks: The infant rocks back and forth or side to side
• Touching self

Mother Searching Behavior During absence of the mother: • Attempting to reach or to open the door
• Attempting to reach the mother’s • Calling the mother when absent
chair or bag
Self-Vocalization • Talking or vocalizing to him/herself when left alone in the room
Crying When Alone • Crying during separation episodes

Autonomic Stress Indicators (Physiological activation or stress • Deep breathing

behaviors)
• Yawning • Spitting up
• Sobbing

Disorganization • Collapse of posture • Stereotypic behaviors

• Freezing • Perceptual inhibition

3. Results

The data relating to categories and not to individual sub-categories was analyzed.
Two types of analysis were carried out. The first compared the activation of regulatory strategies of the 3 groups con-
sidering the Strange Situation in its entirety. The second examined the variation of regulation strategies within each group
according to the type of episode. For this second series of analyses we put the 7 episodes into three groups: episodes
of pre-separation (episodes 2, 3), with a low level of stress with respect to attachment, episodes of separation (4, 6 and
7), with a high level of stress, episodes of reunion (5 and 8) with an intermediate level of stress compared to the first
two. For each attachment group we compared the frequency of activation of the main categories in the three groups
in order to highlight whether the different emotion regulation strategies varied according to the characteristics of the
episodes.
Both series of analyses were carried out using non-parametric tests since data were not distributed normally. Furthermore,
since the sample was small in each of the analyses it was decided to estimate the exact level of significance using the Monte-
Carlo method. The following tests were used: Kruskal–Wallis, Friedman, Mann–Whitney, Wilcoxon and Jonckheere–Terpstra.
The Kruskal–Wallis and Friedman tests are non-parametric versions of the univariate analysis of variance when there are at
least three conditions. The first is used when data are not repeated (concerning different subjects), the second when they are
repeated (concerning the same subjects). The Mann–Whitney and Wilcoxon tests are used to compare the two conditions,
the first for non-repeated measurements and the second for repeated measurements. Finally, the Jonckheere–Terpstra test
142 C. Riva Crugnola et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 136–151

is a trend analysis technique for ascertaining whether there is a natural a priori data order (rising or falling) in relation to
the different groups.

3.1. Preliminary analysis

Preliminary analysis carried out with the T-test examined any gender differences in the weighted frequencies of the
categories used to evaluate emotion regulation strategies. There were no significant differences, so gender was not included
in the analyses reported below.

3.2. Attachment patterns and emotion regulation strategies in the Strange Situation

The first aim of our study was to determine if there were any significant differences between the various attachment
groups, constituted by infants with secure attachment (B), infants with insecure resistant attachment (C), infants with inse-
cure avoidant attachment (A), with regard to the different emotion regulation strategies observed. We tested the presence
of differences among the three groups of infants (A, B, and C) using the Kruskal–Wallis test. If there were any differences
the Mann–Whitney test showed up the quality of this difference with a paired comparison. Finally, the Jonckheere–Terpstra
test showed if frequency of appearance of the types of behavior of the three groups was distributed along a continuum.
Table 2 shows the results of analysis relating to the comparison effected during the entire Strange Situation, except for
the first episode, with respect to the three groups of subjects differentiated according to type of attachment.
The Kruskal–Wallis test showed up differences in the frequencies with which the three attachment patterns display some
types of behavior.
The Mann–Whitney test showed how the category Negative Social Engagement Total is used more by insecure resis-
tant infants than secure infants (U = 8.00; z = −3.43; p < .001) and insecure avoidant infants (U = .00; z = −3.55; p < .001).
Insecure avoidant infants use it less than secure infants (U = 63.50; z = −2.20; p = .027). There is also, according to the
Jonckheere–Terpstra test, a rising continuum in which the three types of attachment may be placed with respect to the
frequency with which the infants display Negative Social Engagement Total, which goes from avoidant insecure to secure
to resistant insecure.
No differences were found between the three groups for what concerns either Negative Social Engagement towards
a stranger or Negative Social Engagement towards the mother, while there were significant differences in the frequency
with which the Negative Social Engagement Vocal appeared. Negative Social Engagement Vocal is used more by secure
infants than avoidant insecure infants (U = 59.00; z = −2.38; p = .017) and by insecure resistant than both secure (U = 8.00;
z = −3.43; p < .001) and insecure avoidant (U = 0.00; z = −3.56; p < .001). There is a rising continuum with respect to the
weighed frequency of displays of this behavior which goes from avoidant to secure to resistant.
Secure infants display more Positive Social Engagement Total than avoidant infants (U = 63.00; z = −2.21; p = .025). The
frequency of presences of this behavior is distributed along a continuum which goes from insecure avoidant to insecure
resistant to secure.
In the individual categories significant differences emerged with respect to Positive Social Engagement Mother, which is
used less by insecure avoidant infants than both secure (U = 33.50; z = −3.36; p = .001) and insecure resistant infants (U = 7.00;
z = −2.95; p = .002). There is a rising continuum with respect to the frequency with which the infants of the three groups
display Positive Social Engagement Mother, which goes from insecure avoidant to insecure resistant to secure.
For what concerns Object Orientation, the significant differences indicate that resistant infants orient themselves towards
objects less than secure infants (U = 27.00; z = −2.37; p = .018) and avoidant infants (U = 6.00; z = −3.04; p = .001). The fre-
quency with which the infants of the three groups display this behavior is distributed along a rising continuum which goes
from insecure resistant to secure to insecure avoidant.
There were no significant differences between the groups for the Self-Comforting Regulation category. For the other
self-regulation strategies, Mother Searching Behavior during episodes of separation from the mother was used more by
secure infants than insecure avoidant infants (U = 54.50; z = −2.55; p = .009) while Self-Vocalization was used less by resistant
infants than the secure infants (U = 31.50; z = −2.39; p = .021) and avoidant infants (U = 10.50; z = −2.87; p = .005) with a rising
continuum from resistant infants to secure infants to avoidant infants.
For what concerns behavior indicating lack of emotion regulation, insecure resistant infants display Autonomic Stress
Indicators more than secure (U = 25.00; z = −2.87; p = .004) and avoidant infants (U = 11.50; z = −2.97; p = .001) with a rising
trend from secure to insecure avoidant to insecure resistant. However, there were no significant differences in Crying When
Alone and the Disorganization categories.

3.3. Attachment patterns and emotion regulation strategies in the episodes of pre-separation, separation and reunion

The second aim of the study was to analyze how the emotion regulation strategies adopted by each attachment group
(A, B and C) varied according to the episodes of the Strange Situation subdivided into episodes of pre-separation, separation
and reunion. We therefore compared, for each type of attachment, the activation of the main categories in the three types of
episode: Negative Social Engagement Total, Positive Social Engagement Total, Object Orientation, Self-Comforting Regula-
tion. The Friedman test revealed a number of differences in the expression of some behavior in the three groups of episodes.
Table 2
Mean and standard deviations of weighed frequencies of regulatory behaviors on the basis of the attachment model. Results concerning the entire Strange Situation relating to the Kruskal–Wallis test (H and
level of significance), to the application of the Mann–Whitney pair test and to the Jonckheere–Terpstra test.

C. Riva Crugnola et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 136–151

Categories Insecure avoidant Secure (B) Insecure resistant Kruskal–Wallis d.f. = 2 Mann–Whitney Jonckheere–Terpstra
(A) N = 12 N = 20 (C) N = 7

M (S.D.) M (S.D.) M (S.D.) H p B vs A B vs C A vs C J–T p

Negative Social Engagement Mother .96 (1.47) 0.83 (1.84) 7.52 (15.17) 3.16 .208 – – – 254.0 .510
Negative Social Engagement Stranger .40 (.96) 1.31 (1.90) 1.18 (1.88) 2.95 .220 – – – 277.5 .166
Negative Social Engagement Vocal 2.72 (3.70) 9.40 (9.52) 34.52 (15.92) 18.76 <.001*** B > A* C > B*** C > A*** 397.0 <.001***

Negative Social Engagement Total 4.09 (3.90) 11.55 (10.73) 43.23 (30.92) 18.12 <.001*** B > A** C > B*** C > A*** 392.5 <.001***

Positive Social Engagement Mother 23.33 (6.86) 38.76 (13.70) 55.67 (26.72) 15.23 <.001*** B > A** – C > A** 382.5 <.001***
Positive Social Engagement Stranger 27.48 (8.30) 34.86 (10.64) 24.82 (10.97) 5.70 .054 – – – 239.5 .851
Positive Social Engagement Vocal 23.82 (16.20) 26.16 (11.02) 19.48 (14.78) 2.11 .357 – – – 221.0 .773

Positive Social Engagement Total 74.64 (25.11) 99.79 (26.44) 99.99 (27.47) 5.93 .050* B > A* n.s. n.s. 312.0 .035*

Object Orientation 201.13 (32.39) 184.96 (37.42) 137.16 (33.56) 9.79 .005** n.s. B > C* A > C** 122.0 .003**
Self-Comforting Regulation 24.33 (14.14) 37.73 (30.12) 30.82 (21.50) 1.04 .603 – – – 246.0 .723
Mother Searching Behavior 8.99 (6.34) 14.82 (7.35) 10.13 (5.39) 6.89 .032* B > A** n.s. n.s. 276.5 .227
Self-Vocalization 3.20 (3.13) 2.21 (2.95) 0.00 (0.00) 8.66 .009** n.s. B > C* A > C** 134.5 .005**
Crying When Alone 3.28 (5.73) 4.90 (4.17) 4.05 (3.09) 2.82 .258 – – – 279.5 .204
Autonomic Stress Indicators 1.26 (4.38) 0.84 (2.03) 6.13 (8.98) 12.44 .002** n.s. C > B** C > A** 319.5 .002**
Disorganization 0.80 (2.21) 0.84 (2.03) 0.28 (0.75) 2.28 .175 – – – 209.5 .334
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

143
144 C. Riva Crugnola et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 136–151

Fig. 1. Means of weighed frequencies of the principal regulation categories of secure infants in pre-separation, separation and reunion episodes.

The differences between groups of episodes examined pair by pair were analyzed using the Wilcoxon test. Such differences
emerge when the Strange Situation episodes are stressful for attachment, i.e. the episodes of separation and reunion, but
not pre-separation.
Infants with secure attachment pattern (see Table 3) use Negative Social Engagement Total more in episodes of separation
than in episodes of pre-separation (z = −3.62; p < .001) and of reunion (z = −2.21; p = .028). Furthermore, Negative Social
Engagement Total is used by these infants in episodes of reunion more than in episodes of pre-separation (z = −3.29; p < .001).
Secure infants in the same way display more Self-Comforting Regulation strategies in episodes of separation than in episodes
of pre-separation (z = −3.42; p < .001) and in reunion more than pre-separation (z = −2.72; p = .005). There are no differences
between the three groups of episodes for what concerns the expression of the Positive Social Engagement Total and Object
Orientation of secure infants.
Infants with insecure resistant attachment patterns (see Table 4) use Negative Social Engagement Total in episodes of
separation more than in pre-separation (z = −2.36; p = .014) and reunion (z = −2.19; p = .030) and in episodes of reunion more
than in pre-separation (z = −2.02; p = .045). For what concerns Positive Social Engagement Total this regulatory strategy is
used by resistant infants in episodes of separation less than in those of reunion (z = −2.36; p = .017) and of pre-separation
(z = −2.02; p = .047). There are no differences in the frequency of use of the Object Orientation and Self-Comforting Regulation
strategies.
For what concerns infants with insecure avoidant attachment patterns (see Table 5) the Friedman test reveals how they use
Object Orientation behavior in different ways in the various episodes. More specifically, the Wilcoxon test reveals how they
use Object Orientation in separation episodes more than in pre-separation episodes (z = −2.27; p = .020) and reunion episodes
(z = −2.19; p = .026). There are no differences between the three groups of episodes for what concerns the expression of the
Negative Social Engagement Total, Positive Social Engagement Total and Self-Comforting Regulation strategies of insecure
avoidant infants.
Figs. 1–3 show the variation in the expression of the main regulation strategies in the three groups of episodes for each
attachment pattern.

4. Discussion and conclusion

The results show specific differences in the emotion regulation strategies used by the infants during the Strange Situation
Procedure according to the quality of their attachment to their mother.
On the basis of the available data we may first of all observe that the differences between the three groups of attach-
ment are constituted by both positive and negative hetero-regulatory emotion regulation strategies and by those based on
orientation towards objects. The self-regulatory strategies such as self-vocalization and searching mother when absent also
differ in the three groups unlike the self-comforting strategies.
So the hypothesis that there would be more negative hetero-regulatory strategies in resistant infants than in the other
groups and fewer positive and negative hetero-regulatory strategies in avoidant infants was confirmed. The use of strategies
oriented towards objects was also more frequent in avoidant infants and in secure infants than in resistant infants, also con-
firming our hypothesis. However, there are no significant differences between the three groups for what concerns regulation
focused on self-comforting as, on the other hand, has been shown by other research which ascribes this strategy above all
to avoidant infants with respect to fathers (Diener et al., 2002) and to resistant infants with respect to mothers (Braungart
& Stifter, 1991). This, together with data relating to differences in hetero-regulatory strategies, could be explained by
 C. Riva Crugnola et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 136–151
Table 3
Mean and standard deviations of weighed frequencies of regulatory behaviors of secure infants on the basis of the type of episode in which they were observed. Results relating to the Friedman test (X and level
of significance) and to the application of the Wilcoxon test.

Categories Pre-separation Separation Reunion Friedman Wilcoxon

episodes episodes episodes d.f. = 2

M (S.D.) M (S.D.) M (S.D.) X p Pres vs Sep Pres vs Reun Sep vs Reun

*** *** *
Negative Social Engagement Total .53 (.980) 10.24 (12.29) 4.60 (6.84) 24.08 <.001 Sep > Pres Reun > Pres Sep > Reun***
Positive Social Engagement Total 31.01 (10.88) 32.70 (21.68) 46.42 (22.26) 3.90 .147 – – –
Object Orientation 52.44 (12.44) 76.13 (35.71) 64.06 (29.20) 2.87 .237 – – –
Self-Comforting Regulation 7.95 (7.33) 21.09 (18.64) 14.17 (13.29) 15.03 <.001*** Sep > Pres*** Reun > Pres** n.s.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

145
 146
C. Riva Crugnola et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 136–151
Table 4
Mean and standard deviations of weighed frequencies of regulatory behaviors of insecure resistant infants on the basis of the of the type of episode in which they were observed. Results relating to the Friedman
test (X and level of significance) and to the application of the Wilcoxon test.

Categories Pre-separation episodes Separation episodes Reunion episodes Friedman d.f. = 2 Wilcoxon

M (S.D.) M (S.D.) M (S.D.) X p Pres vs Sep Pres vs Reun Sep vs Reun

Negative Social Engagement Total 4.55 (9.19) 20.65 (11.01) 12.12 (5.67) 10.28 .004* Sep > Pres* Reun > Pres* Sep > Reun*
Positive Social Engagement Total 31.43 (9.00) 18.67 (7.33) 27.38 (10.85) 7.71 .021* Sep > Pres* n.s. Sep < Reun*
Object Orientation 48.29 (12.16) 35.39 (23.39) 34.20 (14.90) 5.42 .087 – – –
Self-Comforting Regulation 7.35 (5.61) 13.72 (8.02) 8.28 (5.46) 5.43 .081 – – –
*
p < .05.
 C. Riva Crugnola et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 136–151
Table 5
Mean and standard deviations of weighed frequencies of regulatory behaviors of insecure avoidant infants on the basis of the type of episode in which they were observed. Results relating to the Friedman test
(X and level of significance) and to the application of the Wilcoxon test.

Categories Pre-separation episodes Separation episodes Reunion episodes Friedman d.f. = 2 Wilcoxon

M (S.D.) M (S.D.) M (S.D.) X p Pres vs Sep Pres vs Reun Sep vs Reun

Negative Social Engagement Total .60 (1.24) 2.15 (.056) 1.85 (2.77) 2.45 .308 – – –
Positive Social Engagement Total 23.72 (10.84) 31.19 (27.85) 27.32 (10.70) 2.16 .382 – – –
Object Orientation 59.49 (9.88) 83.47 (30.07) 58.87 (16.00) 6.16 .046* Sep > Pres* n.s. Sep > Reun*
Self-Comforting Regulation 6.71 (2.73) 13.58 (11.64) 6.42 (5.36) 3.50 .187 – – –
*
p < .05.

147
148 C. Riva Crugnola et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 136–151

Fig. 2. Means of weighed frequencies of the principal regulation categories of resistant infants in pre-separation, separation and reunion episodes.

hypothesizing that the various attachment patterns exert their influence above all on the development of hetero-regulatory
strategies used with the adult and which have developed in the relationship with attachment figures, a relationship which
consolidates starting from the second 6-month period of the first year (Marvin & Britner, 2008). At the same time, orientation
towards objects, more frequent in avoidant infants and less frequent in resistant infants, with secure infants in an intermedi-
ate position, may also be seen in relation to the quality of attachment. The self-comforting self-regulation strategies (finger
and hand in the mouth, touching the hair, ears, etc.) which appear earlier, around the age of 3 months and which are therefore
available before consolidation of attachment bonds (Bridges & Grolnick, 1995; Tronick, 1989), do not appear, however, to
be affected by the different quality of attachment. Self-comforting regulatory strategies, in fact, seem to be homogeneous in
the three groups unlike hetero-regulatory strategies centred on engagement with the adult and object relation strategy and
thus not affected by the type of attachment to the mother. However, other self-regulation strategies such as self-vocalization
and searching for mother when absent which can be considered more mature self-regulatory strategies than the earlier
self-comforting (Bridges & Grolnick, 1995), differ in the three groups, and thus seem connected to the type of attachment.
In fact the first is completely absent in resistant infants but present in secure and avoidant infants, while the second (which
involves the ability to search for the mother when absent) is more present in secure infants than in avoidant infants.
On the whole, data analysis seems to confirm the hypotheses formulated in the context of attachment theory (Cassidy,
1994; Kobak & Sceery, 1988; Siegel, 1999; Sroufe, 1995), whereby the attachment patterns which the infant constructs in
the ambit of his relationship with parents and caregivers, reflects the strategies of emotion regulation which the infant is
developing in the context of such dyadic relationships, in order to create forms of autonomous regulation based on the
internalization of such strategies.

Fig. 3. Means of weighed frequencies of the principal regulation categories of avoidant infants in pre-separation, separation and reunion episodes.
 C. Riva Crugnola et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 136–151 149

In this perspective, on the basis of the available data a profile can be drawn up for each group in relation to the regulatory
strategies adopted more frequently than others. This profile is enriched by analysis of the variations of regulation strategies
within each group according to the type of episode considered.
On the whole secure infants appear to use object regulatory strategies and negative hetero-regulatory strategy in a more
modulated fashion than the other groups, coming between avoidant and resistant infants; in addition they also communicate
their requests for emotion regulation to the adult (hetero-regulation) using more positive strategies than avoidant infants.
Use of this strategy does not vary in the different types of grouped episodes (pre-separation, separation, reunion), indicating
the ability of the secure infant to maintain a positive emotional state towards the adult even in conditions of high stress. The
Negative Social Engagement (Total) hetero-regulatory strategy, however, increases significantly in episodes of separation,
to decrease in episodes of reunion, indicating the ability of secure infants to adapt to different levels of stress. Similarly,
self-comforting strategies appear to be activated more by secure infants in episodes of separation than in episodes of pre-
separation. Object Orientation Strategies do not vary according to the type of episode. Secure infants are also able to use
mature self-regulatory strategies, such as searching for their mother when absent more than avoidant infants, as well as
engaging in self-vocalization, when both adults are absent (see 6th Strange Situation episode), more than resistant infants.
The mix of strategies used by the secure infants of our study confirms the ability to maintain an open and flexible attitude
towards both positive and negative emotions which was first attributed to them by Bowlby (1991) and then by other
researchers (Cassidy, 1994; Main, 1995, 2000). Although secure infants maintain in all episodes a positive attitude towards
the adult, they are also able to express their requests for regulation through crying and protesting, demonstrating negative
emotions in the more stressful situations of separation. This ability could be linked to their experience of the mother in the
first year as a reliable and available figure with regard to their requests for emotion regulation and also as being able to
accept the expression of both positive and negative emotions (Bowlby, 1991; Main, 1995).
On the whole resistant infants use hetero-regulatory strategies aimed at the adult centred mainly on the expression of
negative emotions (crying, negative vocalization) more than the other groups, adopting this strategy more in the episodes
of separation. They also use, in general, more positive behavior towards the mother than avoidant infants do, activating
on the whole more positive behavior in episodes of pre-separation and reunion. Furthermore they also use orientation
towards objects to overcome stress less than the other groups and without significant variations in the different types of
episodes. Furthermore, they show a higher number of physiological stress indicators than the other groups. The scarce use of
regulation through objects and the greater use of negative engagement seems to confirm the hypothesis whereby resistant
infants maximize attachment signals to the caregiver, minimizing exploration of the environment (Cassidy, 1994; Main,
1995, 2000). It has been hypothesized in this regard that insecure resistant infants develop hetero-regulation strategies
aimed at activating the attention of the mother, probably with a mother who has been inconsistently responsive in the
first year with respect to the infant’s emotional communication and requests for regulation (Main, 1995, 2000). Cassidy and
Berlin (1994) hypothesize that the mothers of resistant infants in the first year are intermittently responsive and, at the same
time, interfere with the exploratory activities of the infant, generating in the infant hyper-vigilant behavior with regard to
the mother and making them poorly competent in exploring the environment.
Unlike resistant infants, avoidant infants use more regulation through orientation towards objects, even more so in
episodes of separation. At the same time, they use on the whole hetero-regulatory strategies centred both on behavior
aimed at the positive and negative social engagement of the adult less than resistant and secure infants. Comparing the
different types of episodes it is interesting to note that positive and negative social engagement remain constant in pre-
separation, separation and reunion episodes. This is particularly significant as it indicates that avoidant infants do not use
hetero-regulatory strategies in conditions of stress, which presupposes experience of maternal reliability. In such conditions
they use, on the other hand, object orientation (more frequent in episodes of separation than in those of pre-separation and
reunion). It may be hypothesized, in agreement with Fonagy (Fonagy, Steele, Steele, Moran, & Higgitt, 1992) and Main (1995,
2000), that the avoidant infants in our study developed strategies of self-distraction aimed at the environment, having
inhibited the expression of their emotions in the face of a non-responsive and rejecting mother during the first year with
regard to their signals of attachment and, therefore, also of the expression of emotions correlated to such signals. In this
regard our study reveals that avoidant infants display not only fewer negative emotions compared to the other groups as
observed by other studies (Cassidy & Kobak, 1988), but also less positive engagement, a result which is, however, not shown
by other empirical research. It is also important to note that such minimization appears to be used selectively towards the
mother rather than the stranger, as demonstrated by the fact that the difference with respect to the other two attachment
groups, considering the two categories of positive social engagement with the mother and with the stranger, appears with
the mother but not with the stranger.

4.1. Implications and limits of the study

The results of the research demonstrate that the Strange Situation is a procedure which, by adopting a coding system which
micro-analytically takes into account emotional and behavioral components as also indicated by other authors (Kochanska &
Coy, 2002), can highlight not only different attachment patterns as through the use of the Ainsworth scales (Ainsworth et al.,
1978), based on a general assessment of behavior, but also the level of emotional development of the infant. The introduction
in our study of a coding system such as the one proposed meant that the infants’ capacity for emotion regulation could be
assessed with particular reference to the dimensions relating to his/her emotion regulation strategies – from self-regulatory
150 C. Riva Crugnola et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 136–151

to hetero-regulatory – his/her strategies for expressing positive and negative emotions to the adult and, finally, how he/she
is able to use the adult as a regulator of his/her emotions.
At the same time, adoption of this system opens up the possibility of clinical use, aimed at assessing the emotion regulation
styles of the infant during the second year, helping to identify possible risk indicators.
One limit of the study is that it has not taken into account further significant variables concerning the formation of styles of
emotion regulation and the quality of attachment, such as the temperamental characteristics of the infant which, as is well-
known, can affect his expression of positive and negative emotions and the relative coping strategies. Another significant
variable is constituted by the styles of emotion regulation adopted by mothers in concomitance with those adopted by
infants which appear to influence the formation of attachment patterns and the correlated styles of emotion regulation. In
this regard, it could be useful in any continuation of this study, to observe the styles of emotion regulation adopted by mother
and infant in a condition other than that provided by the Strange Situation, a procedure which, by giving precise indications
to the mother on how to interact with the infant in the various episodes (e.g. do not interact unless at the request of the
infant), may alter the interactive and regulatory strategies of the mother. This type of analysis may constitute an extension
of the study of the development of emotion regulation, favoring the inclusion of the role played by the caregiver with respect
to the styles of regulation adopted by infants with different attachment patterns.

Acknowledgements

This study was financed by the University of Milano-Bicocca (Fondi FAR 2008). We would like to thank Professor Carlo
Lenti for allowing data relating to this research project to be collected at the Infant Neuropsychiatry Unit of the San Paolo
Hospital of Milano and Laura Boati and Margherita Moioli for collecting the data.

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. A psychological study of the strange situation. New York: Erlbaum,
Hillsdale.
Beebe, B., Jaffe, J., Lachmann, F., Feldstein, S., Crown, C., & Jasnow, M. (2000). Systems models in development and psychoanalysis: The case of vocal rhythm
coordination and attachment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 21(1–2), 99–122.
Beebe, B., Jaffe, J., Markese, S., Buck, K., Chen, H., Cohen, P., et al. (2010). The origins of 12-month attachment: A microanalysis of 4-month mother–infant
interaction. Attachment & Human Development, 12(1–2), 3–141.
Birkimer, J. C., & Brown, J. H. (1979). A graphical judgmental aid which summarizes obtained and chance reliability data and helps assess the believability
of experimental effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12(4), 523–533.
Bowlby, J. (1991). Postscript. In C. M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 293–297). New York: Routledge.
Braungart, J. M., & Stifter, C. (1991). Regulation of negative reactivity during the Strange Situation: Temperament and attachment in 12-month-old infants.
Infant Behavior & Development, 14, 349–364.
Braungart-Rieker, J., Garwood, M. M., Powers, B. P., & Notaro, P. C. (1998). Infant affect and affect regulation during the still-face paradigm with mothers
and fathers: The role of infant characteristics and parental sensitivity. Developmental Psychology, 34(6), 1428–1437.
Braungart-Rieker, J. M., Garwood, M. M., Powers, B. P., & Wang, X. (2001). Parental sensitivity, infant affect, and affect regulation: Prediction of later
attachment. Child Development, 1, 252–270.
Bridges, L. J., Denham, S., & Ganiban, J. M. (2004). Definitional issues in emotion regulation research. Child Development, 75(2), 340–345.
Bridges, L. J., & Grolnick, W. S. (1995). The development of emotional self-regulation in infancy and early childhood. In N. Einsenberg (Ed.), Social development.
Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks.
Buss, K. A., & Goldsmith, H. H. (1998). Fear and anger regulation in infancy: Effects on the temporal dynamics of affective expression. Child Development,
69, 359–374.
Calkins, S. D. (1994). Origins and outcomes of individual differences in emotional regulation. Monographs of the Society for Research on Child Development,
2–3(240), 53–72.
Calkins, S. D., & Hill, A. (2007). Caregiver influences on emerging emotion regulation: Biological and environmental transactions in early development. In
J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 229–248). New York: Guilford Press.
Campos, J. J., Frankel, C. B., & Camras, L. (2004). On the nature of emotion regulation. Child Development, 75(2), 377–394.
Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. In N. A. Fox (Ed.), The development of emotion regulation. Biological and
behavioral considerations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 228–249.
Cassidy, J. (1999). The nature of the child’s ties. In J. Cassidy, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp.
3–20). New York: Guilford Press.
Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. (1994). The insecure ambivalent pattern of attachment: Theory and research. Child Development, 65, 71–991.
Cassidy, J., & Kobak, R. (1988). Avoidance and its relation to other defensive processes. In J. Belsky, & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment
(pp. 300–323). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coan, J. A. (2008). Toward a neuroscience of attachment. In J. Cassidy, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications
(2nd ed., pp. 241–265). New York: Guilford Press.
Cohn, J. F., & Tronick, E. Z. (1983). Three month-old infants’ reactions to simulated maternal depression. Child Development, 54, 185–193.
Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion regulation as a scientific construct: Methodological challenges and directions for child development
research. Child Development, 75(2), 317–333.
Cole, P. M., Michel, M. K., & Teti, L. O. (1994). The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation: A clinical perspective. In N. A. Fox (Ed.), The
development of emotion regulation: Biological and behavioral considerations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 2/3, 73–100.
Crockenberg, S. C., & Leerkes, E. M. (2004). Infant and maternal behaviors regulate infant reactivity to novelty at 6 months. Developmental Psychology, 40(6),
1123–1132.
Diamond, L. M., & Aspinwall, L. G. (2003). Emotion regulation across the life span: An integrative perspective emphasizing self-regulation, positive affect,
and dyadic processes. Motivation and Emotion, 27(2), 125–156.
Diener, M. L., Mangelsdorf, S. C., McHale, J. L., & Frosch, C. A. (2002). Infants’ behavioral strategies for emotion regulation with fathers and mothers:
Associations with emotional expressions and attachment quality. Infancy, 3(2), 153–174.
Dozier, M., & Kobak, R. R. (1992). Psychophysiology in attachment interviews: Converging evidence for deactivating strategies. Child Development, 63(6),
1473–1480.
Eisenberg, N., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Emotion-related regulation: Sharpening the definition. Child Development, 75, 334–339.
 C. Riva Crugnola et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 136–151 151

Evans, C. A., & Porter, C. L. (2009). The emergence of mother–infant co-regulation during the first year: Links to infants’ developmental status and attachment.
Infant Behavior & Development, 32(2), 147–158.
Feldman, R. (2007a). On the origin of background emotions: From affect synchrony to symbolic expression. Emotion, 7(3), 601–611.
Feldman, R. (2007b). Parent-infant synchrony: Biological foundations and developmental outcomes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6),
340–345.
Fonagy, P., Gergely, G., Jurist, E. L., & Target, M. (2002). Affect regulation, mentalization and the development of the self. London: Other Press.
Fonagy, P., Steele, H., Steele, M., Moran, G., & Higgitt, A. (1992). L’integrazione della teoria psicoanalitica e del lavoro sull’attaccamento: la prospettiva
intergenerazionale. In D. Stern, & M. Ammaniti (Eds.), Attaccamento e Psicoanalisi (Attachment and psychoanalysis) (pp. 19–30). Bari: Laterza.
Gianino, A., & Tronick, E. Z. (1988). The mutual regulation model: The infant’s Self and interactive regulation and coping and defensive capacities. In T. M.
Field, P. N. McCabe, & N. Schneiderman (Eds.), Stress and coping across development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grolnick, W. S., Bridges, L. J., & Connell, J. P. (1996). Emotion regulation in two years olds: Strategies and emotional expression in four contexts. Child
Development, 67, 928–941.
Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 3–26). New York:
Guilford Press.
Grossmann, K. E., & Grossmann, K. (1991). Attachment quality as an organizer of emotional and behavioral responses in a longitudinal perspective. In C. M.
Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 93–114). London/New York: Tavistock/Routledge.
Kerns, K. A., Abraham, M. M., Schlegelmilch, A., & Morgan, T. A. (2007). Mother–child attachment in later middle childhood: Assessment approaches and
associations with mood and emotion regulation. Attachment and Human Development, 9, 33–53.
Kobak, R. R., Cole, H. E., Ferenz-Gillies, R., Fleming, W. S., & Gamble, W. (1993). Attachment and emotion regulation during mother-teen problem solving:
A control theory analysis. Child Development, 64(1), 231–245.
Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Development,
59, 135–146.
Kochanska, G. (2001). Emotional development in children with different attachment histories: The first three years. Child Development, 2, 474–490.
Kochanska, G., & Coy, K. C. (2002). Child emotionality and maternal responsiveness as predictors of reunion behaviors in the Strange Situation: Links
mediated and unmediated by separation distress. Child Development, 73, 228–240.
Kopp, C. B. (1989). Regulation of distress and negative emotions: A development view. Developmental Psychology, 25, 343–354.
Koulomzin, M., Beebe, B., Anderson, S., Jaffe, J., Feldstein, S., & Crow, C. (2002). Infant gaze, head, face and self-touch at 4 months differentiate secure vs.
avoidant attachment at 1 year: A microanalytic approach. Attachment and Human Development, 4(1), 3–24.
Lyons-Ruth, K. (2003). Dissociation and the parent-infant dialogue: A longitudinal perspective from attachment research. Journal of the American Psycho-
analytic Association, 51, 883–911.
Magai, C. (1999). Affect, imagery, attachment: Working models of interpersonal affect and the socialization of emotion. In J. Cassidy, & P. Shaver (Eds.),
Handbook of attachment theory and research (pp. 787–802). New York: Guilford.
Main, M. (1995). Recent studies in attachment: Overview, with selected implication for clinical work. In S. Goldeberg, R. Muir, & J. Kerr (Eds.), Attachment
theory: Social, developmental and clinical perspectives. Hillsdale, MA: Analytic Press.
Main, M. (2000). The organized categories of infant, child and adult attachment. Journal of American Psychoanalytic Association, 48, 1055–1095.
Mangelsdorf, S. C., Shapiro, J., & Marzolf, D. (1995). Developmental and temperamental differences in emotion regulation in infancy. Child Development, 66,
1817–1828.
Marvin, R. S., & Britner, P. A. (2008). Normative development: The ontogeny of attachment. In J. Cassidy, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment:
Theory, research and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 269–294). New York: Guilford.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of
attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 77–102.
Pierrehumbert, B. (2002). Le premier lien. Théorie de l’attachement. Paris: Odile Jacob.
Propper, C., & Moore, G. A. (2006). The influence of parenting on infant emotionality: A multi-level psychobiological perspective. Developmental Review, 26,
427–460.
Riva Crugnola, C. (2007). (The child and his relationships) Il bambino e le sue relazioni. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.
Riva Crugnola, C., Albizzati, A., Caprin, C., Gazzotti, S., & Spinelli, M. (2009). Dyadic emotional regulation in mother and infant interaction and maternal
attachment at nine months. In International Workshop. Enacting intersubjectivity. Paving the way for a dialogue between cognitive science, social cognition
and neuroscience Lugano, Switzerland, February 13–14, 2009, (pp. 191–209). Lugano, Switzerland: Istituto di psicologia e sociologia della comunicazione
IPSC.
Rothbart, M. K. (1994). Emotional development: Changes in reactivity and self-regulation. In P. Ekman, & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion:
Fundamental questions. Series in affective science. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.
Schore, A. N. (2001). Effects of a secure attachment relationship on right brain development, affect regulation, and infant mental health. Infant Mental Health
Journal, 22(1–2), 7–66.
Shaver, P., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics. Attachment and Human Development, 4, 133–161.
Sheese, B. E., Rothbart, M. K., Posner, M. I., White, L. K., & Fraundorf, S. H. (2008). Executive attention and self-regulation in infancy. Infant Behavior &
Development, 31, 501–510.
Siegel, D. J. (1999). The developing mind: Toward a neurobiology of interpersonal experience. New York: Guilford Press.
Siegel, D. J. (2001). Toward an interpersonal neurobiology of the development mind: Attachment relationships, ‘mindsight’, and neural integration. Infant
Mental Health Journal, 22, 67–94.
Spangler, G., & Grossmann, K. E. (1993). Biobehavioral organization in securely and insecurely attached infants. Child Development, 64(5), 1439–1450.
Sroufe, L. A. (1995). Emotional development: The organization of emotional life in the early years. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1977). Heart rate as a convergent measure in clinical and developmental research. Merril Palmer Quaterly, 23, 3–27.
Stern, D. (1999). Vitality contours: The temporal contour of feelings as a basic unit for constructing the infant’s social experience. In P. Rochat (Ed.), Early
social cognition (pp. 67–80). Mahwah, London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. In N. Fox (Ed.), The development of emotion regulation: Biological and behavioral
considerations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59 (2–3, Serial No. 240), 225–252.
Tronick, E. Z. (1989). Emotions and emotional communication in infants. American Psychologist, 44, 112–119.
Tronick, E. Z. (2004). Why is connection with others so critical? Dyadic meaning making, messiness and complexity governed selective processes, which
co-create and expand individuals’ states of consciousness. In J. Nadel, & D. Muir (Eds.), Emotional development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tronick, E. Z. (2007). Self and mutual regulation, meaning making and the dyadic expansion of consciousness. In E. Tronick (Ed.), The neurobehavioral and
socio-emotional development of infants and children. New York: Norton & Company.
Tronick, E. Z., & Weinberg, M. K. (1996). Infant regulatory scoring system (IRSS). Childrens’ Hospital/Harward Medical School, Boston. Unpublished document.
Volling, B. L., McElwain, N. L., Notaro, P. C., & Herrera, C. (2002). Parents’ emotional availability and infant emotional competence: Predictors of parent-infant
attachment and emerging self-regulation. Journal of Family Psychology, 16(4), 447–465.
Weinberg, M. K., & Tronick, E. Z. (1994). Beyond the face: An empirical study of infant affective configurations of facial, vocal, gestural, and regulatory
behaviors. Child Development, 67, 1503–1515.
Weinberg, B. L., & Tronick, E. Z. (1999). Infant and caregiver engagement phases (ICEP). Childrens’ Hospital/Harward Medical School, Boston. Unpublished
document.
Zimmermann, P. (1999). Structure and functions of internal working models: Bridging the transmission gap. Attachment and Human Development, 1,
291–306.