See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260151361

Early Child-Parent Attachment and Peer Relations: A Meta-Analysis of

Recent Research

Article  in  Journal of Family Psychology · February 2014

DOI: 10.1037/a0035736 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
66 3,793

5 authors, including:

Susanna Pallini Roberto Baiocco

Università Degli Studi Roma Tre Sapienza University of Rome
66 PUBLICATIONS   327 CITATIONS    210 PUBLICATIONS   1,955 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Barry Howard Schneider Sheri Madigan

Boston College, USA The University of Calgary
150 PUBLICATIONS   4,604 CITATIONS    79 PUBLICATIONS   1,589 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual People's Attitudes towards Sexual Minority People: The Adherence to Traditional Gender Roles View project

Existential and pastoral research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Roberto Baiocco on 03 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Family Psychology © 2014 American Psychological Association
2014, Vol. 28, No. 1, 118 –123 0893-3200/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0035736

BRIEF REPORT

Early Child–Parent Attachment and Peer Relations:

A Meta-Analysis of Recent Research

Susanna Pallini Roberto Baiocco

University of Rome Tre Sapienza University of Rome
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Barry H. Schneider Sheri Madigan

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

University of Ottawa Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto

Leslie Atkinson
Ryerson University

A central tenet of Bowlby’s attachment theory is that early child– caregiver attachment is reflected in the
quality of the child’s interpersonal relationships throughout life. Schneider, Atkinson, and Tardif (2001)
conducted a meta-analysis of studies conducted up to 1998 to corroborate that contention. They found a
significant but small to moderate effect size (r ⫽ .20). Their finding that studies of friendship bonds had
higher effect sizes than studies of other interpersonal relationships has important theoretical ramifica-
tions. The present brief report is a meta-analysis that covers research conducted for the same purpose
since 1998. The sample consists of 44 studies with a total of 8505 participants. The overall effect size
r of .19 (adjusted r ⫽ .12; 95% confidence interval, .08 –.17) in the current study was similar in
magnitude to the effect size reported in the 2001 meta-analysis, documenting consistency in the
predictive power of attachment theory. However, we failed to replicate the moderating effect of
friendship. One possible explanation for these findings is that the friendships of school-age children and
adolescents no longer invoke very high levels of intimacy. Effect sizes are higher in studies conducted
outside North America than in U.S.- and Canada-based studies.

Keywords: attachment, meta-analysis, peer relations

Caregiver– child attachment influences the quality of close in-
terpersonal relationships later in the child’s life (Bowlby, 1973).
However, the complexity of hypothesized intervening mechanisms
and their abstractness make it difficult to translate the complex
components of this theory into empirical research (Thompson &
Raikes, 2003). Perhaps the most challenging obstacle is the reality
that internal working models—mental representations of the at-
tachment bonds—are not readily amenable to empirical measure-
ment. Further, the processes linking early child– caregiver attach-
ment to behavior and relationships later in life act in interplay with
Susanna Pallini, Department of Education Sciences, University of Rome
Tre, Rome, Italy; Roberto Baiocco, Department of Developmental and
Social Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy; Barry H.
Schneider, School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada; Sheri Madigan, Hospital for Sick Children and the Department of
Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Leslie At-
kinson, Department of Psychology, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Susanna
Pallini, Via Milazzo 11b, 00185 Rome, Italy. E-mail: susanna.pallini@
uniroma3.it
118
the many changes inherent in children’s cognitive, social, and
emotional development. Undaunted by such obstacles, researchers
invested heavily in research testing the varied outcomes linked
with early attachment. Arguing for theoretical clarity, Thompson
and Raikes (2003) dispute the contention that early attachment
should necessarily be linked to all aspects of subsequent adjust-
ment. Instead, attachment might be expected to predict intimate
family and peer relationships most specifically. This contention
must be weighed against evidence that early attachment affects
humans fundamentally and even physiologically (Diamond & Fa-
gundes, 2010). This suggests a wide array of sequelae, attenuating
arguments for a narrower position.
Schneider, Atkinson, and Tardif (2001) presented a meta-
analysis of 63 studies conducted up to 1998 on effect size linking
attachment and children’s peer relations. They reported an overall
effect size of r ⫽ .20. This effect size was not moderated by
method used to measure attachment. There were two important
participant effects: mean effect size was significantly larger for
middle childhood versus preschool aged children. Of considerable
theoretical import, effect size was significantly higher for outcome
measures pertaining to close friendship than for other less intimate
aspects of peer relations. We present herein a meta-analysis of
 ATTACHMENT AND PEER RELATIONS
studies that appeared since publication of the Schneider et al.
(2001) article. Recent studies reflect several methodological re-
finements, including growing recognition that parent– child attach-
ment can be disorganized, such that many children who would
have been considered secure in earlier studies are now classified as
insecure. The methodology of meta-analysis has also advanced
dramatically (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009).
Importantly, recent societal changes have sometimes been seen
as attenuating the intimacy inherent in peer relationships, espe-
cially close friendships. Goodwin (2009) notes that intimacy may
be incompatible with the individualism that accompanies the
“modernizing” transformation of many contemporary societies. In
their sociological treatise on trends in the history of friendship since
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
World War II, Peel, Reed, and Walker (2009) argue that the last half
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
of the 20th century witnessed the historic peak of the importance of
voluntary close friendships, at the expense of the clan and extended
family. It is not clear, however, that friendship ever became as
important to boys and men as it did to girls and women. One
reason cited for a possible more recent decline is that social
interaction increasingly occurs in larger, more anonymous and
lonely communities, schools, and institutions than previously. The
lack of rich social interaction at the group level fails to spawn
intimate relationships at the dyadic level. However, the most
salient reason is that, especially for young people, a greater portion
of social interaction is occurring by means of electronic commu-
nication. Terkle (2011) presents an influential treatise on online
relationships entitled Alone Together: Why We Expect More of
Technology and Less of Each Other. She observed that, although
it has become easy to dub an online interactions “friendships,” the
relationships bear little resemblance to the traditional notions of
friendship and are, in particular, devoid of intimacy. If intimacy is
declining, attachment theory may be less relevant to relationships
than when it was first formulated. The distinction discussed earlier
between narrow and broad outcomes of attachment becomes less
compelling. However, Schneider and Amichai-Hamburger (2010)
observe that the Internet may in fact facilitate close interpersonal
relating by individuals who have trouble being intimate in face-
to-face encounters. In any case, Fletcher, Simpson, Campbell, and
Overall (2013) hasten to highlight that intimacy is programmed
into the interpersonal relationships of humans as a result of a
lengthy evolutionary process that is not easily modified.
Based on theory and on the results reported by Schneider et al.
(2001), we hypothesized that overall effect size would be signifi-
cantly different from zero, with larger effect sizes for older chil-
dren than for preschoolers. We also hypothesized that there would
be a significantly larger effect for studies focusing on friendship
than for large-group peer relationships.
Method
Selection of Studies
To generate samples comparable with the 2001 meta-analysis,
we used the same keywords in searching PSYCINFO, PUBMED
and ProQuest Dissertations. We also scanned the references of
articles retrieved and contacted researchers working in this area.
Our search included studies available between 1999 and 2012.
Inclusion/exclusion criteria were identical to those used in the
2001 meta-analysis: original data, measure of attachment to a
119
parent other than self-report, collected before the child reached age
18, include a quantitative measure of children’s peer relations
other than self-report, feature assessment of attachment and peer
relations, include data on securely and insecurely attached partic-
ipants or a continuous measure of attachment, written in English or
another language understood by our research team (French, Italian,
Spanish). These criteria resulted in inclusion of 44 studies with
8505 participants. Each study was coded for the following: a)
attachment measure (e.g., Strange situation, Q-sort); b) attachment
figure (e.g., father, mother); c) dimension(s) of peer relations (e.g.,
peer-directed aggression, friendship, prosociality); d) source of
information about peer relations (e.g., observation, peer report,
teacher report); e) degree of familiarity (peers or friends); f) gender
of child; g) mean age of participants when attachment and h) peer
relations were measured; i) time between the measurement of
attachment and peer relations; j) specific subject characteristics
(e.g., diagnosed atypical behavior, low SES, parents divorced); k)
country; l) publication date; and m) dissemination (i.e., journal
article, thesis, book). Agreement on coding and application of
inclusion/exclusion criteria was established by having the second
author corate; agreement between first and second authors was
94%.
Meta-Analytic Procedures
We calculated effect size as r, the correlation between attach-
ment security and peer relations outcome. Where studies involved
multiple outcomes (e.g., popularity, leadership, withdrawal), we
calculated a mean effect size, such that each study is represented
by one effect in a given meta-analysis. However, many studies
included measures of both friendship and peer relations, such that
the exclusion of either would result in substantial data loss. Be-
cause the distinction between close friendships and relations with
other peers may be particularly important (Schneider et al., 2001),
we followed Hallion and Ruscio’s (2011) strategy of conducting
three nonindependent meta-analyses. The first included all peer
relations studies, the second included only close friendships, and
the third involved only peers who were not close friends.
We conducted analyses as outlined by Borenstein et al. (2009)
using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 2.0 software (Boren-
stein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2005). We used random
effects analyses. All effect sizes were weighted by sample size. We
adjusted the observed values to account for potential publication
bias using Duval and Tweedie’s (2000) trim-and-fill procedures.
We used Q-statistics to assess heterogeneity of effect sizes across
studies. We used Q-statistics and method of moments regression
analyses to assess for moderating effects in the full sample (Bo-
renstein et al., 2009), when the number of studies warranted it; we
did not pursue the search for moderators in the close friendship and
nonclose friendship subsamples because of low power.
Results
Effect Sizes Involving Total Sample
Random effects analyses indicated an overall effect size of r ⫽
.19, p ⬍ .001; 95% confidence interval (CI) ⫽ .15–.23 (see Figure
1). Duval and Tweedie’s trim-and-fill procedure resulted in an
estimated unbiased effect size of r ⫽ .12, CI ⫽ .08 –.17. Effect
 120 PALLINI, BAIOCCO, SCHNEIDER, MADIGAN, AND ATKINSON

Meta Analysis
Study name Statistics for each study Correlation and 95% CI

Lower Upper
Correlation limit limit Z-Value p-Value

Verschueren & Marcoen, 1999 0.298 0.084 0.486 2.697 0.007

Bohlin et al., 2000 0.252 0.054 0.431 2.484 0.013
Contreras et al., 2000 0.310 0.065 0.520 2.462 0.014
DeMulder et al., 2000 0.195 -0.008 0.383 1.884 0.060
Attili, 2001 0.541 0.408 0.652 6.878 0.000
Denham et al., 2001 0.215 0.054 0.365 2.603 0.009
Granot & Mayseless, 2001 0.195 0.011 0.367 2.072 0.038
Allen et al., 2002 0.210 0.036 0.372 2.355 0.019
Bar-Haim et al., 2002 -0.293 -0.503 -0.051 -2.357 0.018
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Burns, 2002 0.064 -0.237 0.354 0.410 0.682

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Schmidt et al., 2002 -0.204 -0.459 0.082 -1.403 0.161

Carlson et al., 2004 0.202 0.059 0.336 2.763 0.006
McElwain & Volling, 2004 0.190 -0.183 0.515 0.999 0.318
Milligan, 2004 -0.001 -0.255 0.253 -0. 008 0.994
Wood et al., 2004 0.375 0.058 0.623 2.299 0.022
Zimmermann, 2004 0.466 0.193 0.672 3.194 0.001
Allen et al. 2005 0.120 -0.025 0.260 1.627 0.104
Bohlin et al., 2005 0.320 0.121 0.494 3.093 0.002
Booth la Force et al., 2005 0.080 -0.075 0.231 1.011 0.312
Monks et al., 2005 0.211 0.019 0.388 2.153 0.031
Rydell et al., 2005 0.193 0.008 0.365 2.041 0.041
Szewczyk-Sokolowski et al., 2005 0.250 0.054 0.427 2.489 0.013
Bosquet & Egeland, 2006 0.209 0.053 0.355 2.615 0.009
Laible, 2006 0.451 0.200 0.646 3.367 0.001
Allen et al., 2007 0.208 0.058 0.349 2.703 0.007
Balent ine, 2007 0.243 0.094 0.382 3.156 0.002
Simpson et al., 2007 0.207 -0.016 0.411 1.819 0.069
Wood, 2007 0.430 0.089 0.681 2.434 0.015
Dykas et al., 2008 0.194 0.053 0.328 2.680 0.007
Kerns et al., 2008 0.004 -0.187 0.195 0.041 0.968
Agnor, 2009 0.110 -0.106 0.316 1.000 0.317
Bolin & Hagekull, 2009 0.260 0.087 0.418 2.915 0.004
Chango et al., 2009 0.050 -0.095 0.193 0.673 0.501
Lindsey et al., 2009 0.160 -0.062 0.367 1.416 0.157
Shomaker & Furman, 2009 0.209 0.072 0.338 2.977 0.003
Smeekens et al., 2009(1) 0.190 0.004 0.364 1.999 0.046
Smeekens et al., 2009(2) 0.191 0.005 0.364 2.010 0.044
Stacks & Oshio, 2009 0.054 -0.177 0.279 0.455 0.649
Vu, 2009 0.087 -0.282 0.434 0.453 0.650
McElwain et al., 2011 0.052 -0.003 0.107 1.837 0.066
Roskam et al., 2011 0.310 0.136 0.465 3.422 0.001
Vaughn et al., 2011 0.240 -0.082 0.516 1.469 0.142
Verissimo et al., 2011 0.240 -0.101 0.531 1.385 0.166
Barone & Lionetti, 2012 0.152 -0.097 0.383 1.196 0.232
0.164 0.138 0.190 12.199 0.000
-1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00

Favours A Favours B

Figure 1. Forest plots showing the association between attachment and peer relations.

sizes across studies were heterogeneous, Q(43) ⫽ 99.92, p ⬍ .001.
Moderator analyses revealed a significant difference in effect size,
Q(1) ⫽ 8.66, p ⬍ .01, between North American (n ⫽ 29; ES ⫽
.16; CI ⫽ .12–.20) and European (n ⫽ 13; ES ⫽ .28; CI ⫽
.21–.35) samples. Although there was a nonsignificant decline in
effect size over time, neither this nor any other moderating vari-
ables (attachment measure, attachment metric [classificatory vs.
dimensional], attachment figure, average ages at assessment of
attachment and outcome, time between attachment and outcome
measures, source of the outcome measure, percent males in the
sample) proved significant.
Effect Size for Close Friendship Outcomes Only
We conducted a supplementary analysis using only the data
from the friendship variables. The mean effect of .17 (SD ⫽ .13)
was not substantially different from the pattern of results that
emerged in the main analyses. Duval and Tweedie’s trim-and-fill
 ATTACHMENT AND PEER RELATIONS
procedure resulted in slight modification, with an estimated unbi-
ased effect size of r ⫽ .14, CI ⫽ .07–.19.
Discussion
The overall average effect size in the new sample is similar to
that reported by Schneider et al. in 2001. This bolsters the con-
tention that early child–parent bonds are related to children’s
subsequent relationships with peers. There are, however, some
important differences in the moderators of effect size in the two
meta-analyses. We failed to replicate the previous finding that
effect sizes are higher for friendship than for other aspects of peer
relations. Accordingly, the following section pertains specifically
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
to the two subsamples on friendship although the sample sizes are
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
too small for statistical comparison. The discussion concludes with
some remarks on the implications of the small-to-moderate overall
effect, which emerged in both this and the previous meta-analysis.
There were comparable numbers of friendship studies in the two
samples, 12 in the 2001 article, and 11 in the present sample. Thus,
although the construct of friendship received more emphasis in
1990s than previously, this enthusiasm did not translate into more
research. The two samples are similar in terms of the relative
proportions of Q-sort and strange situation methods for measuring
attachment and the proportions of measurement strategies in as-
sessing peer relations. There was, however, a substantial age
difference between the friendship subsamples in this (M ⫽ 69
months) and the earlier meta-analysis (M ⫽ 41 months). Age
differences cannot be invoked to explain the failure to find the
expected higher effect for friendship than for other aspects of peer
relations because age difference is in the wrong direction; intimacy
increases rather than decreases in peer relationships from school
age onward (e.g., Berndt, 2007). Therefore, the most likely expla-
nation of this failure to replicate is that the friendships of school-
age children and adolescents are less intimate than they once were,
possibly because of the societal changes discussed earlier. Because
most contentions that intimacy is declining in relationships pertain
to the United States, this explanation might account for the sig-
nificant cultural moderation that emerged only in the current
sample. It is important to remember that our non–North American
samples are mostly from European and Mediterranean cultures
where family life is particularly intensive and influential (Stanton,
1995) and not from Japan, for example, where extremely close and
interdependent attachment dynamics may lead to insecure attach-
ment in the Western sense (Rothbaum, Rosen, Ujiie & Uchida,
2002). We present this interpretation of our findings with some
reticence because of the limited sample size.
Although we focused on attachment, attachment might not be
solely responsible for the predicting outcome but might predict
outcome together with other simultaneous processes (Thompson &
Raikes, 2003). This is but one possible interpretation, however, of
a recurrent pattern of small effects. Another possibility is that the
effect sizes do not fully reflect the impact of early attachment
because of the many complications mentioned at the start of the
introduction in reducing attachment theory to elements that can be
measured realistically. At this point, we can assume that the link
between attachment security and peer relations is established.
Intriguing issues remain pertaining to the potentially changing
association between attachment and close relationships and the
role that cultural factors might play.
121
It is important to bear in mind several limitations of this study.
Some of the cell sizes were small, making it difficult to detect
possible moderators of effect size. Our decision to separate more
recent studies from those in the original meta-analysis is consistent
with our objective of conducting a true replication. We established
that the important moderator of friendship is not differentially
related to the ESs for attachment in the sample of recent studies.
This update is of substantial theoretical importance. However, our
decision may have obscured other potential moderators of ES that
might have emerged in a combined sample. Finally, our exclusion
criteria led to the omission of a number of problematic studies,
mostly conducted with adolescents, in which both attachment and
peer relations were measured by self-report.
References
ⴱ
Studies marked with an asterisk were included in the meta-analysis.
ⴱ
Agnot, C. J. (2009). A proposed model of friendship quality and attach-
ment in preschool children (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database (UMI No. 3360141)
ⴱ
Allen, J. P., Marsh, P., McFarland, C., McElhaney, K. B., Land, D. J.,
Jodl, K. M., & Peck, S. (2002). Attachment and autonomy as predictors
of the development of social skills and delinquency during midadoles-
cence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 56 – 66.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.70.1.56
ⴱ
Allen, J. P., Porter, M., McFarland, C., McElhaney, K. B., & Marsh, P.
(2007). The relation of attachment security to adolescents’ paternal and
peer relationships, depression, and externalizing behavior. Child Devel-
opment, 78, 1222–1239. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01062.x
ⴱ
Allen, J. P., Porter, M. R., McFarland, F. C., Marsh, P., & Mc Elhaney,
K. B. (2005). The two faces of adolescents’ success with peers: Ado-
lescent popularity, social adaptation, and deviant behavior. Child Devel-
opment, 76, 747–760. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00875.x
ⴱ
Attili, G. (2001). Ansia da separazione e misura dell’attaccamento nor-
male e Patologico [Separation anxiety and normal and psychopatholog-
ical attachment measure]. Bologna, Italy: Unicopli.
ⴱ
Balentine, A. C. (2007). The relation of early attachment with kindergar-
ten social preference: An examination of intervening relational and
behavioral processes (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses database (UMI No. 3259667)
ⴱ
Bar-Haim, Y., Aviezer, O., Berson, Y., & Sagi, A. Attachment in infancy
and personal space regulation in early adolescence. Attachment & Hu-
man Development, 4, 68 – 83. doi:10.1080/14616730210123111
ⴱ
Barone, L., & Lionetti, F. (2012). Attachment and social competence: A
study using MCAST in low-risk Italian preschoolers. Attachment &
Human Development, 14, 391– 403. doi:10.1080/14616734.2012
.691653
Berndt, T. J. (2007). Children’s friendships: Shifts over a half-century in
perspectives on their development and their effects. In G. W. Ladd (Ed.),
Appraising the human developmental sciences: Essays in honor of
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (pp. 138 –155). Detroit, MI: Wayne State
University Press.
ⴱ
Bohlin, G., & Hagekull, B. (2009). Socio-emotional development: From
infancy to young adulthood. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50,
592– 601. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00787.x
ⴱ
Bohlin, G., Hagekull, B., & Andersson, K. (2005). Behavioral inhibition
as a precursor of peer social competence in early school age: The
interplay with attachment and nonparental care. Merrill-Palmer Quar-
terly: Journal of Developmental Psychology, 51, 1–19. doi:10.1353/mpq
.2005.0001
ⴱ
Bohlin, G., Hagekull, B., & Rydell, A. M. (2000). Attachment and social
functioning: A longitudinal study from infancy to middle childhood.
Social Development, 9, 24 –39. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00109
 122 PALLINI, BAIOCCO, SCHNEIDER, MADIGAN, AND ATKINSON
ⴱ
Booth-LaForce, C., & Oxford, M. L. (2008). Trajectories of social with-
drawal from grades 1 to 6: Prediction from early parenting, attachment,
and temperament. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1298 –1313. doi:
10.1037/a0012954
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2005).
Comprehensive meta-analysis Version 2: A computer program for re-
search synthesis [Computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009).
Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley. doi:10.1002/
9780470743386
ⴱ
Bosquet, M., & Egeland, B. (2006). The development and maintenance of
anxiety symptoms from infancy through adolescence in a longitudinal
sample. Development and Psychopathology, 18, 517–550. doi:10.1017/
S0954579406060275
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. Vol. 2: Separation: Anxiety and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
anger. London, UK: Hogarth Press.
ⴱ
Burns, S. R. (2002). Attachment security as a predictor of preschoolers’
prosocial responses to mothers and peers (Doctoral Dissertation). Re-
trieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database (UMI No.
3076087)
ⴱ
Carlson, E. A., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2004). The construction of
experience: A longitudinal study of representation and behavior. Child
Development, 75, 66 – 83. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00654.x
ⴱ ⴱ
Chango, J. M., McElhaney, K. B., & Allen, J. P. (2009). Attachment
organization and patterns of conflict resolution in friendships predicting
adolescents’ depressive symptoms over time. Attachment & Human
Development, 11, 331–346. doi:10.1080/14616730903016961
ⴱ
Contreras, J. M., Kerns, K. A., Weimer, B. L., Gentzler, A. L., & Tomich,
P. L. (2000). Emotion regulation as a mediator of associations between
mother-child attachment and peer relationships in middle childhood.
Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 111–124. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.14
.1.111
ⴱ
DeMulder, E. K., Denham, S., Schmidt, M., & Mitchell, J. (2000). Q-sort
assessment of attachment security during the preschool years: Links
from home to school. Developmental Psychology, 36, 274 –282. doi:
10.1037/0012-1649.36.2.274
ⴱ
Denham, S., Mason, T., Caverly, S., Schmidt, M., Hackney, R., Caswell,
C., & DeMulder, E. (2001). Preschoolers at play: Co-socialisers of
emotional and social competence. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 25, 290 –301. doi:10.1080/016502501143000067
Diamond, L. M., & Fagundes, C. P. (2010). Psychobiological research on
attachment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 218 –225.
doi:10.1177/0265407509360906
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot based
method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis.
Biometrics, 56, 455– 463. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x
ⴱ
Dykas, M. J., Ziv, Y., & Cassidy, J. (2008). Attachment and peer relations
in adolescence. Attachment & Human Development, 10, 123–141. doi:
10.1080/14616730802113679
Fletcher, G., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., & Overall, A. (2013). The
science of intimate relationships. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Goodwin, R. (2009). Changing relations: Achieving intimacy in a time of
social transition. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511551796
ⴱ
Granot, D., & Mayseless, O. (2001). Attachment security and adjustment
to school in middle childhood. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 25, 530 –541. doi:10.1080/01650250042000366
Hallion, L. S., & Ruscio, A. M. (2011). A meta-analysis of the effect of
cognitive bias modification on anxiety and depression. Psychological
Bulletin, 137, 940 –958. doi:10.1037/a0024355
ⴱ
Kerns, K. A., Brumariu, L. E., & Abraham, M. M. (2008). Homesickness
at summer camp: Associations with the mother-child relationship, social
self-concept, and peer relationships in middle childhood. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly: Journal of Developmental Psychology, 54, 473– 498. doi:
10.1353/mpq.0.0010
ⴱ
Laible, D. (2006). Maternal emotional expressiveness and attachment
security: Links to representations of relationships and social behavior.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: Journal of Developmental Psychology, 52,
645– 670. doi:10.1353/mpq.2006.0035
ⴱ
Lindsey, E. W., Caldera, Y. M., & Tankersley, L. (2009). Marital conflict
and the quality of young children’s peer play behavior: The mediating
and moderating role of parent-child emotional reciprocity and attach-
ment security. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 130 –145. doi:10.1037/
a0014972
ⴱ
McElwain, N. L., Booth-LaForce, C., & Wu, X. (2011). Infant-mother
attachment and children’s friendship quality: Maternal mental-state talk
as an intervening mechanism. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1295–
1311. doi:10.1037/a0024094
ⴱ
McElwain, N. L., & Volling, B. L. (2004). Attachment security and
parental sensitivity during infancy: Associations with friendship quality
and false-belief understanding at age 4. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 21, 639 – 667. doi:10.1177/0265407504045892
ⴱ
Milligan, K. V. (2004). Attachment security and friendship quality in
early childhood: A theoretical and methodological reconceptulization
(Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & The-
ses database (UMI No. NQ94358)
Monks, C. P., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (2005). Psychological
correlates of peer victimization in preschool: Social cognitive skills,
executive function and attachment profiles. Aggressive Behavior, 31,
571–588. doi:10.1002/ab.20099
Peel, M., Reed, L., & Walker, J. (2009). The importance of friends: The
most recent past. In B. Caine (Ed.), Friendship: A history (pp. 316 –355).
London, UK: Equinox.
ⴱ
Roskam, I., Meunier, J. C., & Stievenart, M. (2011). Parent attachment,
childrearing behavior, and child attachment: Mediated effects predicting
preschoolers’ externalizing behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 32, 170 –179. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2011.03.003
Rothbaum, F., Rosen, K., Ujiie, T., & Uchida, N. (2002). Family systems
theory, attachment theory, and culture. Family Process, 41, 328 –350.
doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.41305.x
ⴱ
Rydell, A. M., Bohlin, G., & Thorell, L. B. (2005). Representations of
attachment to parents and shyness as predictors of children’s relation-
ships with teachers and peer competence in preschool. Attachment &
Human Development, 7, 187–204. doi:10.1080/14616730500134282
ⴱ
Schmidt, M. E., Demulder, E. K., & Denham, S. (2002). Kindergarten
social-emotional competence: Developmental predictors and psychoso-
cial implications. Early Child Development and Care, 172, 451– 462.
doi:10.1080/03004430214550
Schneider, B. H., & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2010). Electronic commu-
nication: Escape mechanism or relationship-building tool for shy, with-
drawn children and adolescents? In K. H. Rubin & R. J. Coplan (Eds.),
The development of shyness and social withdrawal (pp. 236 –261). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Schneider, B. H., Atkinson, L., & Tardif, C. (2001). Child-parent attach-
ment and children’s peer relations: A quantitative view. Developmental
Psychology, 37, 86 –100. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.37.1.86
ⴱ
Shomaker, L. B., & Furman, W. (2009). Parent-adolescent relationship
qualities, internal working models, and attachment styles as predictors of
adolescents’ interactions with friends. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 26, 579 – 603. doi:10.1177/0265407509354441
ⴱ
Simpson, J. A., Collins, W. A., Tran, S., & Haydon, K. C. (2007).
Attachment and the experience and expression of emotions in romantic
relationships: A developmental perspective. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 92, 355–367. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.355
ⴱ
Smeekens, S., Riksen-Walraven, J. M., & Van-Bakel, H. J. A. (2009). The
predictive value of different infant attachment measures for socioemo-
 ATTACHMENT AND PEER RELATIONS
tional development at age 5 years. Infant Mental Health Journal, 30,
366 –383. doi:10.1002/imhj.20219
ⴱ ⴱ
Stacks, A. M., & Oshio, T. (2009). Disorganized attachment and social
skills as indicators of Head Start children’s school readiness skills.
Attachment & Human Development, 11, 143–164. doi:10.1080/
14616730802625250
Stanton, M. E. (1995). Patterns of kinship and residence. In B. B. In-
goldsby, & S. Smith (Eds.), Families in multicultural perspective: Per-
spectives on marriage and the family (pp. 97–116). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
ⴱ
Szewczyk-Sokolowski, M., Bost, K. K., & Wainwright, A. B. (2005).
Attachment, temperament, and preschool children’s peer acceptance.
Social Development, 14, 379 –397. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2005
.00307.x
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Terkle, S. (1911). Alone together: Why we expect more of technology and
less of each other. New York, NY: Basic Books.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Thompson, R. A., & Raikes, H. A. (2003). Toward the next quarter
century: Conceptual and methodological changes for attachment the-
ory. Developmental Psychopathology, 15, 691–718. doi:10.1017
.S0954579403000348
ⴱ Child Psychology, 88, 83–101. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2004.02.002
Vaughn, B. E., El-Sheikh, M., Shin, N., Elmore-Staton, L., Krzysik, L., &
Monteiro, L. (2011). Attachment representations, sleep quality and adap-
tive functioning in preschool age children. Attachment & Human De-
velopment, 13, 525–540. doi:10.1080/14616734.2011.608984
ⴱ Revision received November 27, 2013
Veríssimo, M., Santos, A. J., Vaughn, B. E., Torres, N., Monteiro, L., &
Santos, O. (2011). Quality of attachment to father and mother and
View publication stats
123
number of reciprocal friends. Early Child Development and Care, 181,
27–38. doi:10.1080/03004430903211208
Verschueren, K., & Marcoen, A. (1999). Representation of self and
socioemotional competence in kindergartners: Differential and com-
bined effects of attachment to mother and father. Child Development, 70,
183–201. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00014
ⴱ
Vu, J. A. (2009). Representations of relationships children have with
mothers, teachers, and friends, and their relation to Social Competence
(Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & The-
ses database (UMI No. 3374978)
ⴱ
Wood, J. J. (2007). Academic Competence in preschool: Exploring the
role of close relationships and anxiety. Early Education and Develop-
ment, 18, 223–242. doi:10.1080/10409280701282868
ⴱ
Wood, J. J., Emmerson, N. A., & Cowan, P. A. (2004). Is early attachment
security carried forward into relationships with preschool peers? British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 245–253. doi:10.1348/
026151004323044591
ⴱ
Zimmermann, P. (2004). Attachment representations and characteristics
of friendship relations during adolescence. Journal of Experimental
Received May 23, 2013
Accepted December 5, 2013 䡲