Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
When asked to draw their families, some school-aged children draw bold, colourful
figures with exaggerated features, while others prefer enclosed, cramped figures
constrained to a small portion of the page. These different drawing styles are thought
to reflect general personality traits and to provide a non-intrusive tool for exploring
the child’s inner world. There has been recent interest in exploring children’s family
drawings as an explicit way in which individual differences in child functioning are
revealed (Pianta, Longmaid, & Ferguson, 1999). Research further indicates that
children’s family drawings may successfully capture attachment representations
Correspondence to: Susan Goldberg, Psychiatric Research Unit, Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University
Ave, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X8, Canada. Telephone: 416-813-6563. Email: sueg@sickkids.ca
Attachment & Human Development ISSN 1461-6734 print/1469-2988 online # 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/1461673031000078652
20 A TTA C HM EN T & H U MAN D EVEL OPME NT VOL . 5 N O. 1
(Fury, Carlson, & Sroufe, 1997; Pianta et al., 1999) with particular elements
systematically linked to infant attachment patterns.
It has long been believed that early relationships with parents play an important
role in subsequent social development, an essential tenet of attachment theory (e.g.,
Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Bowlby, 1969). Three primary patterns of
attachment relationships were described by Ainsworth et al. (1978) based on a
standardized procedure (the Strange Situation). These patterns (secure (B), avoidant
(A), and resistant (C)) are believed to reflect the infant’s expectation regarding the
caregiver’s response to attachment needs, one aspect of the developing representation
(or working model) of the relationship. Eventually this working model includes
representations of the caregiver (and the family) and the self and contributes to a
generalized model of interpersonal relationships.
Longitudinal data on the sequelae of infant attachment patterns are voluminous,
extending now into late adolescence. Children who were securely attached as infants
are found to be more competent with peers (e.g., Lieberman, 1977), more self-
confident (e.g., Erickson, Sroufe, & Egeland, 1985), more competent problem solvers
(e.g., Arend, Gove, & Sroufe, 1979), and less vulnerable to behaviour problems (e.g.,
Lyons-Ruth, Alpern, & Repacholi, 1993) than children who were insecurely attached.
Although internal representations are thought to be a primary vehicle for carrying
early attachment experiences forward, children’s representations of relationships,
whether in projectives (e.g., Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985), doll play stories (e.g.,
Bretherton, Ridgeway, & Cassidy, 1990), or drawings (e.g. Fury et al., 1997), have
received considerably less attention than the domains above as outcomes of early
attachment.
Several previous studies investigated this topic using drawings of 5 – 9-year-olds.
The earliest work was conducted by Kaplan and Main (1986) based on a system of
signs incorporating constructs such as the size, location, degree of movement,
individuation, and completeness of figures, quality of smiles, and impressions of
vulnerability. Drawings of children who had been avoidant were described as
including smiling, non-individuated family members that were distant from each
other, often without arms, and ‘floating’; children who had been resistant infants
drew either very large or very small figures unusually close together, often
emphasizing vulnerable or intimate body parts.
Pianta et al. (1999) examined the properties of the Kaplan and Main (1986) system
with drawings of 200 kindergarten children. There was no direct measure of child
attachment in this study. Rather, the data showed that the signs designated by Kaplan
& Main (1986) as markers of different attachment categories were reliably used by
coders in assigning the drawings to attachment groups. Furthermore, drawing
classifications were related to concurrent teacher reports of child socioemotional
development.
Another study, mentioned only briefly in a book chapter (Grossmann &
Grossmann, 1991) provided descriptive data. Drawings were coded with a scheme
that measured ‘individualization of figures, lack of repetitiveness, well-grounded and
complete figures, and details marking the setting or activity of the family figures.’ The
total score, particularly the subscale for individualization, discriminated 6-year-olds
who had been secure vs. insecure as infants. Those who had been securely attached as
infants drew more individualized figures than those who had been insecure.
In the most detailed and comprehensive report, Fury et al. (1997) scored
drawings of 171 8-year-olds from the Minnesota longitudinal study (a high risk
M A D I G AN E T A L.: F A M IL Y D RA WI N G S A ND EA R LY AT TA CH M EN T 21
sample) in three ways: (1) noting presence and absence of specific markers for
attachment groups (2) global rating scales and (3) attachment classification.
Although only a few individual markers successfully distinguished specific
attachment groups, the global rating scales did so and drawing classifications were
significantly concordant with classifications from infancy. The authors concluded
that the more global the approach to appraising the drawings, the more evident
were the links to early attachment. In addition, Fury and her colleagues found that
attachment did make a significant contribution to drawing quality after accounting
for the influence of other factors (life stress, child socioemotional functioning and
child IQ score).
Clinicians have also used family drawings as a window into the child’s inner
world. Features which have been of interest to clinicians may also be relevant to
discriminating the drawings of children with different attachment histories and
could be combined with systems developed by attachment researchers. Generally,
clinicians rely on impressionistic interpretation of drawings in conjunction with
other knowledge of the child’s history and therapeutic course. The most
common and currently used projective drawing technique is the Kinetic Family
Drawing (Burns & Kaufman, 1972) in which the child is asked to portray the
family doing something. Although several objective scoring schemes have been
developed, there has been little detailed analysis of the validity of specific
objective features. We undertook such a process with drawings of 4-year-olds
(Janus, Middlebrook, & Simmons, 1993). In that study, few of the measures of
family relationship could be used, because many family members were missing.
However, 4-year-olds who had been securely attached as infants drew themselves
closer to their mothers than those who had been insecure. In the present study,
we sought to replicate and extend previous work by analysing the drawings of 7-
year-olds of known infant attachment status by examining both measures derived
from the Kinetic Family Drawing manual and previously developed attachment
measures.
Analysis of drawings by clinicians is usually based upon clinical judgment,
influenced to some extent by familiarity with the literature on specific features. Like
Fury et al. (1997), we also had independent coders classify attachment from the
drawings, using specific and global markers from the study. This process was an effort
to model the procedure by which a clinician might use our schemes, given familiarity
with the literature on specific features.
Our general goal was to see whether the Fury et al. (1997) findings would generalize
to a low-to-moderate risk sample. There were four primary objectives. First, we
examined the construct validity of Fury et al.’s (1997) attachment-based markers by
replicating the Fury et al. (1997) study in a low-to-moderate (rather than high) risk
sample of 7-year-olds. Our second objective was to expand the existing literature
linking infant attachment to children’s family drawings, using a non-attachment,
clinically based approach (Janus et al., 1993). Though we made no specific
predictions, we wanted to explore whether markers used by clinicians could
differentiate attachment groups. Our third objective was to examine whether
aggregated and global measures were more effective at discriminating attachment
22 A TTA C HM EN T & H U MAN D EVEL OPME NT VOL . 5 N O. 1
groups than were individual markers. Our final objective was to test whether the
influence of infant attachment on drawing features is evident after controlling for
concurrent parental stress, child emotional functioning, and cognitive capacity, as was
found by Fury et al. (1997).
METHOD
Participants
Drawings of 123 7-year-olds (50 boys, 73 girls, Mage = 7.2) from a longitudinal study
were analysed. The longitudinal study was concerned with the impact of chronic
illness on child development and included three groups of children: those diagnosed
with cystic fibrosis in infancy, those diagnosed with (correctable) congenital heart
disease in infancy, and a healthy comparison group. Families were recruited through
the relevant hospital wards and clinics and paediatrician’s offices. Demographic data
by infant attachment group are provided in Table 1. The three attachment groups
were well matched with respect to parental age, education and occupation, health
status and gender.
Measures
Family Drawings At the 7-year assessment, the child performed a series of activities
with an experimenter while the parents were interviewed in another room. After the
child and experimenter had been engaged for approximately 30 minutes, a sheet of
paper (18’’ 6 24’’) and a set of eight coloured markers (Crayola originals no. 7908)
were provided and each child was given explicit instructions to ‘draw your family
doing something.’ Once the drawing was completed, the experimenter determined
Mother
Age (years; M, SD) 28.1 (4.20) 29.4 (4.98) 30.7 (4.06)
Education (years) 13.9 (2.38) 14.1 (2.49) 13.6 (2.36)
Occupation* 7.28 7.01 5.83
Father
Age (years) 32.5 (6.8) 32.7 (5.9) 31.9 (3.6)
Education (years) 13.3 (3.0) 14.6 (2.8) 15.0 (2.6)
Occupation* 4.4 (2.9) 3.3 (2.6) 3.4 (2.3)
and recorded the identity and activity of each figure. All drawings were subsequently
reviewed by two coders who were blind to both demographic variables and infant
attachment classifications.
Each drawing was coded in three ways. First, the scheme adapted from the Kinetic
Family Drawings manual (Burns & Kaufman, 1972), hereafter called the ‘clinical
scheme’ (Janus et al., 1993) was applied.1 This scheme included three types of
measures: (1) those appropriate for the individual figures, with a total of 10 markers
scored for each figure present in the drawing (e.g., presence/absence of family
members, number of body parts, facial affect, location and size of figures); (2) three
markers concerned with relations between figures (e.g., presence/absence of barriers
between figures, relative orientation, encapsulation of figures); and (3) five markers
regarding the general context of the drawing (e.g., use of colour, space and
perspective). Two coders independently scored 29 drawings with a total of 81 figures.
Per cent agreement ranged from 79% (similarity of figures) to 100% (measured
distances).
Each of the remaining schemes incorporated findings from prior attachment
research. The first used three groups of specific markers predicted to characterize
drawings of avoidant, resistant, and insecurely attached children adapted by Fury et
al. (1997) from Kaplan & Main (1986, see Table 2). In the Table, footnotes indicate
which of the listed markers successfully discriminated the relevant attachment group
in the previous study (Fury et al., 1997). Some measures in this Table overlap with the
clinical scheme (e.g., barriers between figures). However, the clinical scheme makes
no predictions regarding the nature of group differences, whereas in Table 2 markers
are associated with particular attachment groups. Hence, each scheme implies
different questions and analyses.
Wherever possible, we quantified markers according to Fury’s criteria. For
example, ‘arms close to the body’ was scored if the angle between the arm and the
vertical axis of the body was less than 45 degrees. Though we attempted to duplicate
the original procedures as closely as possible, some specific markers may differ
slightly. Per cent agreement, based on 29 drawings scored by two coders, ranged from
80% (exaggerated facial features) to 100% (disguised family members, exaggerated
heads).
Key: aSignificant at 12 months; bSignificant at 18 months; cSignificant for stable attachment group.
24 A TTA C HM EN T & H U MAN D EVEL OPME NT VOL . 5 N O. 1
The third coding approach utilized the global rating scales developed by Fury et al.
(1997) to integrate the specified markers with theoretical knowledge regarding
attachment relationships. These 7-point rating scales, intended to differentiate
between secure, avoidant, and resistant attachment groups, allow the coder to
consider each drawing as a whole and in an integrative manner (see Table 3). Scores
on the vitality/creativity scale and family pride were expected to be highest in the
securely attached group; high scores on vulnerability and role-reversal were expected
to characterize drawings in the resistant group and high scores for emotional distance
and tension/anger were predicted in the avoidant group. Scores on the last scale,
global pathology, were expected to be lowest in the secure group and high in both
insecure groups. The original scheme included a rating for ‘bizarreness’ predicted to
identify the disorganized/disoriented attachment group. Since none of the other
predictors in the present study pertained to this group, and we only examined the
three primary attachment groups, we omitted this scale from analyses.
Global ratings were made by a primary coder (SM) who was blind to the child’s
attachment status. Twenty per cent of the drawings (26) were scored by a second
coder. Agreement using Pearson product-moment correlations ranged from 0.54 for
the tension/anger scale, to 0.85 for the global pathology scale (Table 3). In all cases
where discrepancies occurred, the primary coder’s scores were used. The tension/
anger scale was omitted from analyses because of its low reliability.
Inter-rater
Scale Description reliability Prediction
Other measures
Child behaviour checklist (CBCL) Parents were asked to complete the CBCL for
4 – 16-year-olds (Achenbach, 1991). The CBCL is a well-standardized measure
containing 118 descriptions of problematic behaviours rated on a three-point scale
(not true, somewhat true, and often true). It yields standardized scores for
26 A TTA C HM EN T & H U MAN D EVEL OPME NT VOL . 5 N O. 1
internalizing and externalizing problems as well as a total problem score. For the
present analyses we used only the total standardized score on the mother’s 7-year
CBCL report.
Parenting stress index (PSI) The PSI is a 120-item clinical and research
questionnaire designed to identify parent-child systems which are under stress and
at risk for the development of dysfunctional parenting behaviours or behaviour
problems in the child involved (Abidin, 1986). Respondents mark on a 5-point scale
the extent to which they agree or disagree with statements like ‘There are quite a few
things which bother me about my life,’ yielding an overall score for stress in the
parent and child domains (each comprised of several subscales) and a summed score,
which we used for the present analyses. Higher scores are associated with greater
stress and may be indicative of family dysfunction.
Cognitive ability Since some features of children’s drawings are known to be related
to cognitive ability (Pianta et al., 1999), we also used the Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test (Dunn & Dunn, 1981) as a potential control for cognitive status. The PPVT
measures receptive language skills for standard American English, and estimates
verbal ability and scholastic aptitude. Children point to the picture which
corresponds to the stimulus word among plates of four pictures. Standardized scores
were used for the analyses in this study.
RESULTS
The results are organized under the four main objectives of the study. Although
attachment groups did not differ in distribution of gender or health status, all analyses
designed to detect attachment group differences were preceded by tests for gender,
health status and cognitive ability (PPVT score) effects. Six comparisons in the set of
47 (12%) were significant and there was no clear pattern to the significant findings.
Therefore, we concluded that attachment group differences were not confounded by
differential gender, health status or cognitive capacity. Degrees of freedom differ in
the analyses because some drawings did not contain particular features (e.g., if the
child drew no siblings, sibling measures could not be obtained).
Key: aConsistent with Fury et al. (1997); bA significant resistant sign in Fury et al. (1997).
+ p 5 0.10; *p 5 0.05; **p 5 0.01
N = 122) = 5.93, p 5 0.05). In addition, two markers from other categories distin-
guished the avoidant group in our sample. Children who had been avoidant were
more likely than the others to draw figures with neutral or negative facial affect (listed
as a general sign of insecurity, w2 (1df, N = 119) = 5.32, p 5 0.05), and to draw figures
with exaggerated facial features (a resistant sign, w2 (1, N = 121) = 4.62, p 5 0.05).
Resistant markers None of the eight resistant markers but one sign of general
insecurity distinguished the resistant group from the others. The resistant group was
more likely than the others to draw floating figures (w2 (1df, N = 122) = 7.51,
p 5 0.01).
Insecure markers None of the listed insecure signs differentiated the insecure and
secure groups, but the insecure group drew exaggerated heads (an avoidant sign) more
often than the secure group (w2 (1df, N = 122) = 5.77, p 5 0.05).
In summary, few of the markers discriminated between attachment groups as
predicted when used individually.
the border represents a realistic object such as a door, or not) and ‘encapsulation
together’ refers to two or more figures surrounded by a common border. Of 15
measures involving encapsulation, 13 significantly differentiated the resistant
attachment group from the others. Five of these measures involved encapsulation
of single figures (p’s ranging from 5 0.05 to 5 0.001) and eight involved
encapsulation of figures together (p’s ranging from 5 0.05 to 5 0.001).
In summary, few of the clinical markers distinguished the attachment groups but
those that did primarily identified drawings from the resistant group (Table 4). The
most notable and consistent of these was figure encapsulation.
Global rating scales The global rating scales were designed to capture and
differentiate early attachment strategies. We found, as did Fury et al. (1997), that
Attachment classifications
the global rating scales were highly intercorrelated, which reflects their theoretical
interdependence (see Appendix A). In the Fury et al. (1997) study, predictions
concerning infant attachment history and global ratings were tested by computing
correlations between global ratings and scores for avoidance, resistance and security
based on two attachment assessments. In the present study, because only one
attachment assessment was available, a multivariate ANOVA was performed in order
to identify attachment group differences.
In order to determine whether the ratings scales were related to infant attachment
classifications, a 3 (attachment group) 6 6 (rating scale) MANOVA was conducted,
with attachment as the between subject variable and scores on the rating scales as the
dependent variables. The analysis revealed a significant effect (F (12, 192) = 2.90,
p 5 0.001). Follow-up t-tests were used to compare the identified group against all
others.
AVOIDANT GROUP Drawings from the avoidant group were expected to be rated
higher than the others on emotional distance and tension/anger. The latter was
omitted from analysis because of low reliability but drawings of the avoidant group
received significantly higher ratings on emotional distance than the others (M = 4.00,
SD = 1.86 vs. M = 3.07, SD = 1.37); t (102) = 2.22, p 5 0.05) (one-tailed).
RESISTANT GROUP Drawings from the resistant group were predicted to be rated
higher than the others for vulnerability and role reversal. Both of these predictions
were confirmed: vulnerability (M = 4.28, SD = 1.27 vs. M = 3.60, SD = 1.52); t
(110) = 1.79, p 5 0.05 (one-tailed); role reversal (M = 3.94, SD = 1.24 vs. M = 3.02,
SD = 1.16); t (101) = 2.86, p 5 0.01) (one-tailed).
SECURE GROUP Drawings from the secure group were expected to receive higher
ratings for vitality/creativity and family pride than the others and lower ratings for
global pathology. Two of these predictions were confirmed. The drawings of the
secure group were rated higher than the others on family pride (M = 4.63, SD = 1.32
vs. M = 3.95, SD = 1.39; t (111) = 7 2.52, p 5 0.01) (one-tailed) and lower on global
pathology (M = 3.53, SD = 1.54 vs. M = 4.29 (t (116) = 2.70, p 5 0.01) (one-tailed).
Thus, five of the six scales entered in the analyses revealed significant differences in
the predicted direction.
Table 6 Association between family drawing classifications and infant attachment status at 12
months (ABC)
Attachment classifications
Secure (B) 75 12 5 92
Avoidant (A) 2 9 2 13
Resistant (C) 1 1 11 13
Total 78 22 18 118
Table 7 Hierarchical regression predicting total number of markers from measures of early
attachment, controlling for child cognitive functioning and concurrent life stress and emotional
health (N = 104)
Overall
Key: I. Predicting number of markers from attachment controlling for concurrent cognitive functioning,
maternal stress and child socioemotional health.
*p 5 0.10; **p 5 0.05
DISCUSSION
This study had four objectives: (1) to assess the validity of discrete signs for
identifying attachment history in drawings; (2) to investigate the possibility that
markers drawn from clinical practice might also reflect attachment history; (3) to test
the prediction that global interpretation of drawing signs would be more effective in
identifying attachment history than individual signs and (4) to evaluate the
independent contributions of attachment history to drawing style above the effects
of current functioning and family stress. Findings relevant to each are discussed in
turn.
markers that distinguished drawings from the avoidant group in our study had been
considered markers of general insecurity (neutral or negative facial affect) or
resistance (exaggerated facial features). Fury et al. (1997) had a similar experience with
the original scheme of markers by Kaplan and Main (1986) and made appropriate
adjustments by moving markers from one category to another. For example, in the
original Kaplan & Main (1986) report, floating figures characterized the avoidant
group, but in Fury et al. (1997) this is listed as a general insecurity marker. In our
study, this was a marker of resistance. Although we could continue to shift these
markers from one category to another in line with the most recent data, it seems more
prudent to think of the full list of markers as potential indicators of insecurity rather
than of specific forms of insecurity.
experience of a child may provide the clinician additional insight into the etiology of
problems and their likely trajectory, while revealing opportunities for intervention.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The longitudinal study on which this paper is based was supported by grants from the
Medical Research Council of Canada, Ontario Medical Health Foundation, the
Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundtion, and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of
Ontario to Susan Goldberg.
NOTES
REFERENCES
Abidin, R. R. (1986). Parenting Stress Index (2nd edn). Charlottesville, VA: Pediatric Psychology
Press.
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and 1991 Child Behavior
Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Arend, R., Gove, F., & Sroufe, L. A. (1979). Continuity of individual adaptations from infancy
to kindergarten: A predictive study of ego resiliency and curiosity in preschoolers. Child
Development, 50, 950 – 959.
Bates, J. E., Maslin, C. A., & Frankel, K. A. (1985). Attachment and the development of behavior
problems. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds), Growing points of attachment theory and
research, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 1 – 2 Serial No.
209, 167 – 193.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Bretherton, I., Ridgeway, D., & Cassidy, J. (1990). Assessing internal working models of the
attachment relationship: An attachment story completion task for 3-year-olds. In M.T.
Greenberg, D. Cicchetti & E.M. Cummings (Eds), Attachment in the preschool years
(pp. 273 – 310). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Burns, R. C., & Kaufman, S. H. (1972). Actions, styles and symbols in kinetic family drawings (K-
F-D): An interpretive manual. New York: Bruner/Mazel.
Carlson, E. A. (1998). A prospective longitudinal study of attachment disorganization/
disorientation. Child Development, 69, 1107 – 1129.
Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. (1994). The insecure-ambivalent pattern of attachment: Theory and
research. Child Development, 65, 971 – 991.
Cassidy, J., Marvin, R. S.with the Macarthur Working Group (1992). Attachment organization
in preschool children: Procedures coding manual, unpublished document. University of
Virginia.
36 A TTA C HM EN T & H U MAN D EVEL OPME NT VOL . 5 N O. 1
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody picture vocabulary test: Revised. Circle Pines,
MN. American Guidance Service.
Erickson, M. F., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship between quality of
attachment and behavior problems in a preschool high-risk sample. In I. Bretherton &
E. Waters (Eds) Growing points of attachment theory and research, Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 1 – 2 Serial No. 209, 147 – 166.
Fury, G., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1997). Children’s representation of attachment
relationship in family drawings. Child Development, 68, 1154 – 1164.
Goldberg, S., Gotowiec, A., & Simmons, R. J. (1995). Infant-mother attachment and behavior
problems in healthy and chronically ill preschoolers. Development and Psychopathology, 7,
267 – 282.
Greenberg, M. T. (1999). Attachment and psychopathology in childhood. In J. Cassidy &
P.R. Shaver (Eds), Handbook of attachment. (pp. 469 – 496). 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: Tavistock/
Routledge.
Grossman, K. E., Grossmann, K., & Zimmerman, P. (1999). A wider view of attachment
exploration. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds), Handbook of attachment. (pp. 760 – 786).
New York: Guilford.
Hillburn-Cobb, C. (1996). Adolescent-parent attachments and family problem-solving styles.
Family Process, 35, 57 – 82.
Janus, M., Middlebrook, S., & Simmons, R. J. (1993, March). Attachments of healthy medically
compromised 4-year-olds: Observations, questions and family drawings. Presented at
Meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development. New Orleans, LA.
Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1985). Internal representations of attachment at six years as indicated
by family drawings and verbal responses to imagined separations. In M. Main (Chair),
Attachment: A move to the level of representation. Symposium conducted at the meeting of
the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto, Canada.
Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1986). A system for the analysis of children’s drawings in terms of
attachment. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, University of California,
Berkeley, CA.
Lieberman, A. (1977). Preschooler’s competence with a peer: Relations with attachment and
peer experience. Child Development, 48, 1277 – 1287.
Lyons-Ruth, K., Alpern, L., & Repacholi, B. (1993). Disorganized infant attachment
classification and maternal psychosocial problems as predictors of hostile-aggressive
behavior in the preschool classroom. Child Development, 64, 572 – 585.
Lyons-Ruth, K., Connell, D., & Zoll, D. (1989). Finding organization in disorganization:
Lessons from research on maltreated infants’ attachments to their caregivers. In D.
Cicchetti & V. Carlson (Eds) Child maltreatment (pp. 464 – 493). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and adulthood: A
move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds) Growing points of
attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 50, 1 – 2 Serial No. 209, 66 – 104.
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/ disoriented
during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & Cummings E.
M. (Eds), Attachment in the preschool years (pp. 121 – 160). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Pianta, R. C., Longmaid, K., & Ferguson, J. E. (1999). Attachment based classifications of
children’s drawings: psychometric properties relations with children’s adjustment in
kindergarten. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 244 – 255.
M A D I G AN E T A L.: F A M IL Y D RA WI N G S A ND EA R LY AT TA CH M EN T 37
1 2 3 4 5 6
*p 5 0.01