Disorg Attachment Socialization

Emotion Socialization as a Framework for Understanding the Development of Disorganized Attachment
Carey Anne DeOliveira, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, London Health Sciences Centre, Heidi Neufeld Bailey, University of Guelph, Greg Moran and David R. Pederson, University of Western Ontario
Abstract Recent years have seen the emergence of accounts of the origins of the Disorganized attachment relationship in early motherinfant interaction, each building on the pioneering work of Main and Hessedysfunctional emotional processes gure prominently in all these accounts. This paper applies a framework based on two complementary theories of emotion socialization, Gianino and Tronicks (1992) Mutual Regulation Model and Gergely and Watsons (1996) Social Biofeedback Theory, to suggest an emotion-based mechanism consistent with recently proposed models of the development of Disorganized attachment. The framework is used to generate hypothetical accounts of the role of dysfunctional emotional processes and maladaptive emotion socialization in early motherinfant interaction in the development of Disorganized attachment along two distinct pathways, one associated with actual abuse of the infant and the other associated with maternal unresolved trauma. Keywords: disorganization; attachment; emotion; maternal behavior; socialization Over the past several years an increasing number of researchers in the eld of parent child attachment have recognized the importance of a consideration of Disorganized/ Disoriented attachment behavior to a thorough understanding of the precursors and outcomes of the attachment relationship. While the Secure attachment pattern has been portrayed most often as optimal, the Avoidant and Ambivalent attachment strategies may also be viewed as adaptive and organized, each reecting a coherent behavioral strategy to maximize caregiver availability and regulate emotions based on expectations of caregiver availability and responsiveness (Cassidy, 1994; Main, 1991). Disorganized attachment behavior, in contrast, suggests the breakdown or absence of a strategy for enlisting the caregiver support necessary for the infant when confronted with stressful situations (Main & Solomon, 1990). Physiological evidence suggests that children in Disorganized relationships are overwhelmed by negative emotions,
Correspondence should be addressed to: Carey Anne DeOliveira, Ph.D., Child and Parent Resource Institute, 600 Sanatorium Road, London, Ontario, Canada L6H 3W7. Email: CareyAnne.DeOliveira@lhsc.on.ca
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
438
Carey Anne DeOliveira et al.
lacking effective strategy for coping with the stress (Hertsgaard, Gunnar, Farrell & Nachmias, 1995; Spangler & Grossmann, 1993). Disorganized attachment has been linked to poor social and emotional developmental outcomes and cited as a risk factor for later psychopathology, including internalizing and externalizing difculties (Carlson, 1998; Greenberg, 1999; Lyons-Ruth, Alpern & Repacholi, 1993; Lyons-Ruth, Easterbrooks & Cibelli, 1997; Lyons-Ruth & Jacobvitz, 1999; Solomon, George & De Jong, 1995). Although the quality of the early attachment relationship is reected in a variety of domains and has been shown to be associated with important behavioral, social, and cognitive sequelae (Main, 1983, 1991; Moss, Parent, Gosselin & Dumont, 1993; Sroufe, 1983), the emotional arena plays a special role in the development of the rst relationship. Attachment is dened as an enduring affectional tie that one person forms with another (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters & Wall, 1978), and the effective dyadic regulation of emotions is one of the dening features of Secure attachment (Sroufe, 1996). Amini and colleagues (1996) and Schore (1996) have extrapolated from recent research in the animal literature to surmise that maternal emotional responsiveness and attunement can become ingrained in implicit memory, changing the neural structure of the infant brain, thus becoming pivotal determinants of long-term emotional development. Cassidy (1994) has provided a model of the developmental linkages between the three primary attachment relationships and distinct patterns of socialization and regulation of affect. She discussed how emotion regulation can be part of an infants adaptive strategy which serves the function of helping to maintain the relationship with the attachment gure. According to Cassidy, an infant in a Secure relationship displays exible emotion expression in conjunction with his or her expectations that the caregiver will respond sensitively. She contended, in contrast, that Avoidant infants overregulate, or minimize their emotion expression. This tactic is considered adaptive in a relationship where the expression of emotions, especially negative emotions, can be construed as detrimental to the childs strategy of remaining close to a potentially rejecting attachment gure. Cassidy claimed that Ambivalent children under-regulate their emotion. She contended that this strategy helps the child maintain contact and with an inconsistently available parent by heightening dependency needs and gaining maternal attention. In a recent study, infant affect regulatory competencies at 4 months of age predicted 12-month attachment classications (Braungart-Rieker, Garwood, Powers & Wang, 2001). Furthermore, these authors found that Avoidant children showed higher levels of self-regulation at 4 months, while Ambivalent children exhibited a high tendency for distress, coupled with less sensitive parenting. They observed variability in the tendency for distress within the Secure category (with B1B2 children appearing more easygoing than B3B4 children). Nonetheless, in the relationships later classied as Secure, there appeared to be a good t between infant temperament and maternal behavior, with most Secure children exhibiting at least moderate self-regulatory abilities (Braungart-Rieker et al., 2001). In contrast with the primary attachment classications, current theoretical models do not link the Disorganized attachment classication to a distinct and coherent pattern of emotion socialization and regulation. Rather, the behaviors displayed by Disorganized infants, and the implications of these behaviors, suggest that Disorganized attachment may be seen as theoretically representing a fundamental dysregulation of emotion. As we describe below, the behavior of disorganized infants suggests that they are experiencing intense negative affect but that they are unable to regulate this affect within the attachment relationship.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004
Social Development, 13, 3, 2004
Disorganized Attachment and Emotion Socialization
439
Disorganized infants display a wide array of inexplicable, odd, disorganized, disoriented, or conicted behaviors in the parents presence (Main & Solomon, 1990). Many of these behaviors involve the simultaneous or sequential display of contradictory behaviors: for example, an infant might simultaneously reach for her mother while averting her head or leaning away from her, or might cry insistently at the door for her mother but then become silent and avoid her when she enters. Children may display freezing or stilling behavior, ceasing all movement with a dazed expression; alternatively, they may display frenetic activity, mistimed movements, or stereotypes. Some behaviors directly indicate that the infant is afraid of the mother (e.g., running quickly away from the mother with hunched shoulders when she enters the room) while others suggest disorientation (e.g., raising hands to mouth when mother returns with a confused expression). While these behaviors are overtly dissimilar, they all suggest that the infant is considerably disoriented or distressed, but cannot directly approach his or her caregiver for support (Main & Solomon, 1990). In the following discussion, we review extant theories of the development of Disorganized attachment. These theories may not technically be couched within the classical theoretical framework of emotional development but we argue that the interactional mechanisms of each rely critically on disruptions in emotion socialization or regulation processes. This focus on the proximal and direct interpersonal mechanisms involved in the development of Disorganized attachment does not detract from the complementary theory and research directed at understanding the broader social developmental context including, most importantly, the family (see, e.g., Greenberg, 1999). A Brief Overview of the Developments in Research and Theory Regarding Disorganized Attachment In the period since the formal identication of Disorganized attachment (Main & Solomon, 1986) and Main and Solomons (1990) seminal paper describing Disorganized attachment behavior, a number of insightful and inuential theories have been introduced to explain the processes inuencing the development of Disorganized attachment relationships. Main and Hesse (1990) proposed a conceptually appealing account of how a parents frightening or frightened behavior might lead to Disorganized infant attachment behavior: they suggested that when infants of such parents look to the caregiver for security and safety they are simultaneously frightened, experiencing an unresolvable conict between the incompatible desires to approach and to ee. This conict leaves the infant without access to either strategy and with no resort but the Disorganized behavior that is characteristic of such infants in stressful situations with the parent. Because approach/avoidance conict is a repeated and stable feature of interactions with the caregiver, such Disorganized behavior becomes a reection of the infants underlying Disorganized cognitive representation of their relationship. While abusive behavior by the caregiver clearly provides the basis of the fear essential to this model, it is less readily apparent how this account could accommodate the link between maternal Unresolved attachment status and Disorganized attachment (Ainsworth & Eichberg, 1991; see van IJzendoorn, 1995, for review) in the absence of such abuse. Main and Hesse (1990) address this issue by invoking the trauma experienced by the mother herself, a developmental prerequisite of the Unresolved state of mind: the traumatized adults continuing state of fear, together with its interactional/behavioral concomitants (frightened and/or frightening behavior) is the
440
mechanism linking unresolved trauma to the infants display of Disorganized/disoriented behavior (p. 163). The same inability to monitor discourse consistently during the Adult Attachment Interview that underlies her classication as Unresolved impairs her ability to monitor interactive behavior with her infant, unintentionally exposing her child to her continuing state of fear. Such maternal behavior may be expressed briey or subtly, thus escaping detection by commonly employed assessments of maternal sensitivity. Even in the absence of abuse, then, this strange, unpredictable, and potentially threatening behavior stands to frighten the infant, creating the approach/avoidance conict in stressful situations that Main and Hesse see as the origin of Disorganized attachment. Main and Hesses model has provided researchers with an effective heuristic framework for identifying and measuring infant and parental behaviors associated with Disorganized attachment. Moreover, its functional approach to explaining infant behavior, with its emphasis on internal emotional conicts, is interpretable within recent elaborations of attachment theory that have emphasized the role of emotions and emotion socialization (Cassidy, 1994; Sroufe, 1996). Stimulated by Main and Hesses model of Disorganization, Jacobvitz and colleagues videotaped mothers and their 8month-old infants during structured and play interactions in the home, and found that mothers classied as Unresolved with respect to loss on the AAI (Main & Goldwyn, 1998) displayed signicantly more frightening, frightened, and/or dissociative behavior (fr-behavior) during these interactions than mothers who were not classied as Unresolved (Jacobvitz, Hazen & Riggs, 1997, as cited in Lyons-Ruth & Jacobvitz, 1999). Similarly, Schuengel, Bakermans-Kranenburg, and van IJzendoorn (1999) videotaped interactions in the home for up to four hours, and found that mothers of Disorganized infants displayed signicantly more fr-behavior than did mothers of infants who were not Disorganized. However, in their report of individual case studies, Schuengel and colleagues (1999) noted the existence of discordant dyads, in which mothers were not Unresolved but displayed fr-behavior, and their infants were not Disorganized. They suggested that the inconsistency of fr-behavior might inuence the development of Disorganized attachment more than simply its presence or severity, and that future research on fr-behavior take into account the broader interactive context in which it occurs. Other researchers also have urged the situating of maternal frightened and frightening behavior in the broader context of motherchild interactions. According to Lyons-Ruth, Bronfman, and Atwood (1999), for example, a high level of fr-behavior would interfere seriously with a mothers ability to provide her child with critically important appropriate and adaptive affect regulatory assistanceespecially in stressful circumstances. These authors argue that the traumatic and unintegrated nature of the mothers experiences diminishes her ability to monitor and respond appropriately to her infants distress, particularly when the expression of distress is unequivocal. Many traumatized mothers have an aura of helpless passivity in the face of their childs attachment-related emotions such as fear; this passivity is experienced by the child as profound unresponsiveness (Lyons-Ruth et al., 1999). The authors reasoned that in order for such a pattern of interaction to leave the child with no option but disorganization, as hypothesized by Main and Hesse (1990), the mothers fr-behavior must be either chronic or include incidents that are highly traumatic. A mother who acts in a manner that provokes this level of fear and then fails to modify her behavior in response to such obvious distress, i.e., to repair the failed interaction, must have a pervasive inability to respond in times of fear and stress in the helpful, soothing manner
441
necessary to serve the age-appropriate co-regulatory function for her infant (LyonsRuth et al., 1999). Developing the same hypothesis, Solomon and George proposed that mothers of Disorganized infants experience a disruption in the caregiving system, a system organized around the protection of the infant (George & Solomon, 1999; Solomon & George, 1999). The caregiving system is considered good enough when mothers feel able to provide a protective function under conditions of risk or threat to the child. These researchers have found that mothers of Disorganized infants tended to describe situations in which they were unable to assuage clear feelings of fear or distress in their children, and were sometimes either directly or indirectly the cause of these feelings. When asked about their ability to handle caregiving situations, there were strong themes of inadequacy, helplessness, and losing control (George & Solomon, 1999, p. 662). These mothers felt helpless to control their own affect and to respond to emotions in their children. Solomon and George (1999) further observed that Bowlbys original description of children who had been separated from their mothers for long periods of time paralleled the behavioral description of Disorganized infants. From here, they proposed that, like infants separated from their mothers, Disorganized infants experience a chronic activation of the attachment system, but as a result of their mothers inability to effectively terminate the activation of attachment system by providing security and reducing arousal rather than because of her absence. According to Bowlby (1973), infants in such circumstances cope with the experience of chronic activation of the attachment system by excluding these strong attachmentrelated feelings (e.g., fear, anxiety, sadness) from consciousness, a defensive process resulting in segregated systems. The resulting display of Disorganized attachment behavior upon reunion with the caregiver is presumed to be due to the separate and contradictory inuences of these segregated systems on the infants interactive behaviors. Whereas Bowlbys introduction of segregated systems attributed a relatively complex defensive process to the infant, Liotti (1999) has suggested that a simpler mechanism would sufce: Disorganized infants, deprived of the necessary maternal scaffolding, simply cannot integrate conicting attachment-related information and therefore fail to develop a coherent attachment strategy. Rather than proposing dissociation as a defense against painful emotions, dissociation is portrayed as a developmental consequence of multiple incoherent, unintegrated models of attachment (Liotti, 1999). In an abusive relationship, for example, a parent may act angry and punitive toward a child, and then respond with guilt or helplessness, provide nurturance to the child, and possibly also seek comfort from the child. In this case, the child is faced with the challenge of integrating multiple representations of the self as a victim, persecutor, and rescuer (Liotti, 1999). Clearly the emotions associated with these three self-representations would be conicting and severely discrepant. In the next section of the paper we explore the likely impact of these multiple, unintegrated meanings on the childs developing emotional representations and regulatory capacities. Disorganized Attachment from the Perspective of Emotional Dysregulation: A Framework for Integrating Theories of Disorganization A common feature of the different theories of disorganization reviewed up to this point is a focus on disruptions in affective features of motherinfant interactions, with each account placing more or less emphasis on both the behavioral and representational
442
aspects of this equation. These disruptions in the normal developmental pattern are attributed to a toxic mixture of fear, sadness, and anger, with a sense of helplessness pervading the dysfunctional attachment relationship. These theorists, then, share the conviction that Disorganized attachment reects a dysfunction in the mutual regulation and socialization of these emotions within the attachment relationship. Physiological data add credence to the thesis that the infants Disorganized behavior reects an overall decit in emotion regulatory capacity (Hertsgaard et al., 1995; Spangler & Grossmann, 1993, 1999). Spangler and Grossmann (1993) measured affective arousal using a prole analysis of infant cardiac responsiveness in the Strange Situation. They found that Disorganized infants showed signicantly higher cardiac activation when they were left alone in the room, while the proles for organized Avoidant and Secure infants were relatively level across the eight episodes (Spangler & Grossmann, 1993). In addition, measures of adrenocortical activity revealed that Disorganized children continued to be emotionally aroused up to 30 minutes following the Strange Situation when other children had returned to a base rate of arousal (Spangler & Grossmann, 1993, 1999). These ndings suggest that Disorganized children may be generally decient in their ability to regulate emotions in times of acute stress (Spangler & Grossmann, 1999). It is clear, then, that current accounts of the origins of Disorganization point to disruptions in emotional processing both at a behavioral and a representational level as key factors in development. We turn next, therefore, to a consideration of the process of emotion socialization within early motherinfant interaction and draw on two current theories of normative emotional development as sources of insight regarding the particular atypical processes that might lead to the Disorganized attachment relationship. Together, the two theories provide a comprehensive heuristic framework for exploring the developmental process, the rst focussing on the infants acquisition of emotion regulatory behaviors and strategies, the second on the fundamental attachment of meaning to signals of affect and the basic socialization of emotional expression. The Functionalist Approach to Affect and Emotion Socialization: Gianino and Tronicks Mutual Regulation Model Any comprehensive account of the development of emotion regulation must incorporate a mechanism that provides the individual with the ability to adapt his or her strategy to optimize its function in a variety of contexts. This concept is epitomized in Thompsons (1994) denition of emotion regulation as the extrinsic and intrinsic processes responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and modifying emotional reactions, especially their intensive and temporal features, to accomplish ones goals (p. 27). Emotion regulation or dysregulation, then, is a measure of the individuals ability to adapt his or her emotional strategy to changing environmental factors that may lie well beyond the immediate context. Early caregiving must provide a scaffold of interaction that shapes the infants acquisition of a exible and adaptive style of emotional responding in service of his or her goals. No interaction proceeds perfectly smoothly, as there must always be mismatches and interactive aws: for example, a synchronous bout of free play may become asynchronous if the child becomes overly aroused and uncomfortable. These unavoidable problems are the focus of Gianino and Tronicks (1992) Mutual Regulation Model of the development of emotion regulation. The authors proposed that mother and infant
443
are motivated to regulate their interaction to achieve a synchronous and pleasant state. Infants use affect to signal that their interactive goals are being thwarted: when overstimulated, for example, an infant may communicate her distaste for the mothers behavior by signaling distress or anger. According to this theory, a sensitive mother will respond by modifying her behavior appropriately. Infants are thus able to use their signals to successfully modify the interaction, thereby developing a sense of efcacy through their ability to regulate their own internal state and sustain social engagement (Tronick, Cohn & Shea, 1986); the self is represented as effective, interactions as positive and reparable, and the caregiver as reliable (Tronick, 1989). Most infants will also experience instances of more anomalous stress, in which they are not able to repair the interaction and achieve their interactive goals and, therefore, cannot meet the dual objectives of self-regulation and social engagement. They continue to feel stress and negative affect for as long as the distortion persists and they remain motivated to interact (Gianino & Tronick, 1992). Finding a social interactive strategy to be ineffective, the infant may resort to other coping behavior to regulate the negative arousal, for example, by averting attention from the interactive partner, directing attention to an object, or self-soothing. The attachment literature provides ample examples of such strategies. Infants in Avoidant relationships, when faced with maternal rejection of negative signals, must nd other means of regulating their negative emotions. Spangler and Grossmann (1993) and Braungart and Stifter (1991) observed that such infants exhibited self- and objectdirected regulatory behavior during the stressful episodes of the Strange Situation and, thus, were able to restrict their expressions of negative affect. Even though they outwardly expressed low levels of distress, measures of cardiac functioning indicated the Strange Situation was as stressful for infants in Avoidant relationships as it was for the other infants (Spangler & Grossmann, 1993). Preoccupied mothers display an unpredictable pattern of distortions and attunement in response to both positive and negative infant affect, and appear most attentive to positive affect (Haft & Slade, 1989). Faced with such an uneven pattern of maternal interactive behavior, children in Ambivalent relationships might be expected to elevate levels of negative affect in order to have some impact on an unpredictable and sometimes unresponsive partner. Thus, while Avoidant infants eventually abandon the goal of social interaction in service of self-regulation, Ambivalent infants may develop a strategy of heightened negative emotionality in order to gain their mothers attention and responsiveness (Cassidy, 1994). Crittenden (1992) discussed how Resistant (or coercive) preschool children continue to exaggerate their displays of affect as a predominant means of regulating the behavior of their primary caregivers. Although children in Avoidant and Ambivalent relationships must resort to less direct strategies than infants in Secure relationships to sustain the mother as a more-or-less reliable secure base, these strategies retain a coherency and organization capable of providing the foundation for the emergence of normative emotion regulation. In contrast, when irreparable interactions are a chronic component of the motherinfant relationship, children are at risk for developing unambiguously maladaptive patterns of emotion regulation. Infants with mothers who are consistently, profoundly unresponsive or unavailable learn that it is ineffective and potentially disorganizing to attempt to communicate their emotions directly to their caregivers. Instead they attempt to use other coping behavior to regulate their negative arousal. Such circumstances dene the emergent Disorganized attachment relationship (Lyons-Ruth et al., 1999; Main & Hesse, 1990). According to Solomon and George, mothers of Disorganized infants
444
may chronically fail to repair interactions, due to their feelings of helplessness (George & Solomon, 1999; Solomon & George, 1999). Infants raised in this caregiving environment face signicant barriers to the development of a sense of being able to effectively use their emotions for internal or environmental regulation. In the preschool and early school years, children previously classied as Disorganized have been observed to use a relatively organized (controlling) strategy in their relationship with their caretaker: those infants who displayed disorganized attachment behavior at 12 months of age are more likely to later develop rigid defensive strategies, presumably in anticipation of and in an effort to avoid stress and anxiety (Main & Cassidy, 1988; Main, Kaplan & Cassidy, 1985). Although not discussing Disorganization, Gianino and Tronick (1992) have suggested that an infant adopting such defensive patterns will do so even if they are so extreme as to constrict his overall ability to maintain engagement with the surround and, more generally, even if they restrict his immediate and longer term options; in short, even if they curtail his autonomy (p. 64). Thus, the development of what could be considered a rigid emotion regulatory style may preclude the acquisition of a range of alternative responses, and perhaps impede representational integration. Despite the dissimilarity of infant disorganized and preschool controlling behaviors, inherent similarities have been noted that suggest a continuing lack of representational integration. Infant disorganized behavior evident in times of attachment-related distress is thought to represent the breakdown of multiple strategies aimed at conicting goals (Spangler & Grossmann, 1999). This same process has also been observed to occur in later years, despite the development of defensive strategies: Liotti (1999) concludes that, in the preschool and early school years, controlling children appear to act in a goal-directed manner if their actions are viewed within the context of one of the multiple unintegrated representations of the self and other (either controlling, coercive, or disarming behavior patterns) but notes that, for some of these children, the appearance of a coherent strategy breaks down when the child is faced with attachment-related stress. There is evidence to suggest that even though disorganized children may appear to have an organized (controlling) strategy in their relationship with their caretaker, at the representational level attachment themes remain unresolved, helpless, and chaotic. Main, Kaplan, and Cassidy (1985) found that 6-year-old children, previously classied as Disorganized, responded to pictures depicting separation themes with depressed and disorganized narratives and affect. Solomon, George and De Jong (1995) examined attachment-related themes in the doll play of 6-year-olds. They found that children classied as controlling in a reunion paradigm had doll play that the researchers classied as frightened.Their play either had clear themes of chaos, helplessness, or disintegration, or was very constricted and inhibited (coupled with apparently frightened affect). To summarize, according to the functionalist analysis of Gianino and Tronick, an infants emotional regulatory strategy is shaped by a mothers response to his or her attempts to regulate negative arousal through modulation of the environment. The theory extends our understanding of early emotional development by way of its emphasis on the active contribution of the infant to a truly dyadic affect regulation process. An infants emotions function to communicate his or her ongoing appraisal of the interaction. Displays of positive or negative affect help the child to shape the interaction so as to achieve mutual regulation, assuming that the relationship also features a sensitive partner who can read and respond to such communications (Gianino
445
& Tronick, 1992). When mothers modify their behavior in response to their infants emotions, infants develop a sense of themselves as self-regulating agents. On some occasions infants may also delve into their repertoire of self-regulatory behaviors such as avert, object attend, or self-soothe behaviors. Infants who have a history of interacting with a sensitive, responsive mother are in fact, more competent at utilizing a variety of self-regulatory behaviors in a exible and appropriate manner. Conversely, when an infant feels helpless at controlling the social environment, it is more difcult for him or her to explore the object environment and utilize object engagement as a self-regulatory strategy (Gianino & Tronick, 1992). Therefore, infants who are chronically exposed to irreparable interactions may fail to develop effective strategies for both dyadic and self-regulation. When faced with a stressful attachment-relevant experience they would likely display disorganized attachment behavior indicative of a collapse of strategy. A number of studies examining infant behavior in normal interactions (Tronick, Ricks & Cohn, 1982), with still face procedures (Gianino & Tronick, 1992; Murray & Trevarthen, 1985; Rochat, 1997), and in interactions where mothers are asked to simulate depression (Tronick et al., 1986), have supported the basic tenets of this model, although the model remains to be empirically related to Disorganized attachment. Experiential Origins of Implicit Affective Knowledge: Gergely and Watsons Social Biofeedback Theory of Parental Affect Mirroring Gianino and Tronicks (1992) Mutual Regulation Model provides an elegant account of the dyadic developmental process that underlies the infants emergence as a skillful interactive practitioner, able to adapt emotional expression to the complex dynamics of human social relationships. Although not explicitly specied, the model must assume a non-experiential basis for the more rudimentary elements of affective regulation, i.e. a functional understanding of the dispositional content of affective expression, an implicit act-as-knowing ability to use affect as feedback in the mutually regulated, goal-directed process they propose. These fundamental abilities, prerequisite for the child to function as a partner in the Mutual Regulation Model, are viewed as pre-adapted, hard-wired, constitutional, or instinctive features of the newborn human. This is somewhat congruent with the Differential Emotions Theory perspective of Ekman (1973) and Izard (1978, 1990), who presume that particular affects are reex-like and appear in accordance with developmental timetables. Although this suggestion is not unreasonable, it places a heavy burden on the genotype and fails to provide an account of the substantial variation in such abilities observed in young infants. Other theorists such as Lewis and Michalson (1983, 1985) and Emde, Osofsky, and Buttereld (1993), have argued that infants younger than 6 months of age have undifferentiated internal experiences of positive and negative arousal but that specic emotions are differentiated at the cognitive interpretive level only over the rst year of life through interactions with the caregiver (Lewis & Michalson, 1983). Malatesta and Haviland (1985) also suggest, based on their extensive research in the area of motherinfant interactions, that maternal mirrored expressions of emotion may help infants begin to differentiate between categorical feeling states by enabling the infant both to view and feel the emotion at the same time, leading to an association between expression and internal experience. We would agree with these authors and speculate that there is likely some mediating socialization process by which infants develop an understanding of expressionexperience concordance, such that they may utilize their
446
own affective experiences, and the presumed experiences of their interactive partners, to meet their relational goals. We turn now to an alternative developmental account of the origins of these abilities which proposes that they arise from the more-or-less normative species-specic pattern of early motherinfant interaction. Gergely and Watson (1996, 1999) based their intricate theory of the socialization of emotional representations on the principles of contingency detection and maximization. Watson (1979, 1985) had previously suggested that by 5 months of age most infants are not only capable of detecting contingency but show a predisposition to explore high but imperfect degrees of contingencies between their own action and environmental responses, as are found in early motherinfant interaction (Watson, 1985; Gergely & Watson, 1996, 1999). In their recent work, these authors describe a contingency switch model, proposing that the infants tendency to explore preferentially feedback that is perfectly response-contingent switches at around 3 months toward a preference for less-than-perfect social contingencies (Gergeley, 2001; Nichols, Gergely & Fonagy, 2001). Contingency maximization refers to an infants motivation to increase both the conditional probability of a stimulus event given a response (sufciency index) and the conditional probability of a response having occurred given the presence of a stimulus event (necessity index). The concept is intuitive once graspedto illustrate, Gergely and Watson proposed that an infant will act so as (1) to increase the likelihood that its mother will smile after she (the infant) has smiled (the infants smile is sufcient to elicit a smile from the mother), and (2) to decrease the likelihood that the mother will smile in the absence of her own smile (the infants smile is necessary to elicit a smile from the mother). Gergely and Watson have proposed that this tendency of the infant to act so as to maximize contingency is the critical mechanism underlying the socialization of emotion by the mothers mirroring of infant affect in early interactions. Gergely and Watson (1996, 1999) argued that, although the newborns emotional expressions are associated with distinct internal state cues and goals, infants must develop associated emotional representations through experience (Gergely & Watson, 1996, 1999); expressions of affect initially are automatic, out of conscious awareness, and beyond the infants control (Gergely & Watson, 1996, 1999); and affect is regulated by the caregiver who is capable of reading the childs expressions and responding appropriately. They argued further that the child is capable of self-regulation of affect only following the development of emotional representational capacity through affect mirroring by the mother. The contingency maximization hypothesis predicts that if mothers reect or mirror their perception of their infants expressed emotion through facial expression and/or vocalization, infants will modify their own internal and external cues so that sufciency and necessity indices are maximized. To accomplish this, infants must vary those cues until they identify the set of internal and external state cues that displays the highest degree of contingent variation with the mothers mirrored expression. In this fashion, children become sensitized to internal state cues and identify the set of cues associated with a particular state (Gergely & Watson, 1996, 1999). These authors also argued that the infants perceptual system is predisposed to construct cognitive representations based on interaction with the external world. Such presymbolic representations are informed and shaped by the infants ability to perceive directly the specic intentions or dispositional information underlying a complex constellation of interactive behavior (Stern, 1985). Infants learn about and form particular representations regarding the dispositional content of emotions by associating
447
them with the contingent behavior and consequences accompanying the expressions (Gergely & Watson, 1996, 1999). This is consistent with the ideas of the theorists discussed earlier (Lewis & Michalson, 1983; Malatesta & Haviland, 1985) but goes further by proposing a specic and detailed process by which this learning takes place. The contingency maximization hypothesis describes how infants learn to identify particular internal and external state cues as being associated with distinct maternal emotional expressions, and how they subsequently then associate that set of cues with the dispositional properties of the particular mirrored emotion. Yet how is it that infants learn to identify the expressed emotions as belonging to themselves, rather than attributing them to their mothers? Gergely and Watson theorized that mothers mark their affect by exaggerating vocal intonation or facial contours, a meta-communication that modies the meaning of the action. The authors contended that mothers are predisposed to mark their affect-mirroring displays, making them perceptually distinct from their own expressions and thus avoiding misattribution by their infant. The marked expression is similar enough to the actual expression for the infant to recognize its dispositional content, but because it is marked, it is not associated with the antecedents and consequences of the mothers realistic emotion expression and therefore is decoupled from the referent (mother) and reanchored in the infant (Gergely & Watson, 1996, 1999). The infant interprets the emotion as his or her own because of the strong contingency between the parents affect reection display and the infants own emotional expressive behavior. Emotional marking, this tendency to exaggerate facial or vocal expressions when interacting with infants, is readily observed in everyday motherinfant interactions, most especially in baby talk or motherese. Many researchers have noted that caregivers communications to their infants are usually exaggerated and slowed down. Imitation is never a perfect match but rather a variation on the theme established by the infant (Kaye, 1979; Murray & Trevarthen, 1985; Tronick, Als & Adamson, 1979). Gergely and Watson originally borrowed the terms referential anchoring and referential decoupling from Leslies (1987) description of the phenomenon of pretend play. Indeed, one can draw analogies between the process of affect socialization that Gergely and Watson hypothesize to exist in infancy, and the later emergence of pretend play in early childhood. According to Leslie (1987), pretend play also involves two simultaneous representationswhat is actually perceived and what is pretend. Pretense modies the normal reference and truth of the representations it uses (Leslie, 1987). To offset this, according to Leslie, pretend representations must be marked off from primary representations. This is analogous to the perceptual markedness of emotional expressions in the affect-mirroring interactions. Just as it would undermine the primary representational system if pretense were not marked, so too would affect mirroring be confusing and ineffective if the displays were not marked. Marked expressions come to function as secondary representational structures when internal state cues corresponding to the emotion are activated in the infant (Gergely & Watson, 1996). Pretense representations are also metarepresentations, not to be taken at face value but to be reinterpreted. In pretend play, marked expressions are decoupled from normal inputoutput relations and reanchored in another agent, as in Leslies (1987) example in which the expressed content relating to a telephone may be reanchored in a banana when a child pretends that a banana is a telephone. Gergely and Watson make reference to a parallel process when they argue that marked emotion displayed in affect mirroring is decoupled from the mother and reanchored in the infant.
448
The marking process, or metacommunication, can also be observed in non-human animals. Exaggerated, anomalously slow actions characterize the behavior of a domestic dog in play with its owner and the ritualized interactions of species of wild canids serve a critical metacommunicative function (Smith, 1977). Such play and a variety of ritualized social behavior in humans and other animals must be marked such that actions and signals can be distinguished from the contextually distinct behavior, often aggressive, that it resembles. Analogously, an emotion must be marked in order to distinguish it from the real emotion. The Social Feedback Model of early affect socialization provides an experiential alternative to the assumption that the human infant is endowed at birth with an implicit understanding of the dispositional content of emotion signals and with a basic ability to use these signals as feedback to regulate interactions with his or her mother. Gergely and Watsons model is undeniably speculative but emerges from a rich empirical and theoretical literature invoking maternal contingent responsiveness in early social and emotional development (see, e.g., Lewis & Michalson, 1983; Malatesta & Haviland, 1982; Malatesta, 1985; Stern, 1985). The model is also consistent with a distinct trend in ethological theory and associated empirical ndings regarding early social development in non-human animals. This trend is perhaps best illustrated by the dramatic reconceptualization of the notion of imprinting, once assumed to be a xed, preadapted pattern associated with a rigid critical period. Bateson (1987) describes how the highly predictable, species-specic pattern of imprinting of newborns on the mother, previously portrayed as an innate, entirely endogenous process, has been shown to be dependent upon a very predictable set of early species-common experiences. Although not articulated explicitly, Gergely and Watsons (1996, 1999) Social Feedback Model proposes a parallel process for the human infant, where the moreor-less normative acquisition of basic, implicit affect knowledge may be achieved reliably and relatively homogenously across individuals because of the relative consistency of basic early motherinfant interaction rather than as the result of some hardwired endowment. Irrespective of the extent to which their model proves to be supported by future research, the Social Feedback Model provides a useful basis for building an experiential account linking aspects of early affect socialization to the development of distinct patterns of attachment. There is some research to support the link between contingent maternal affect mirroring and later security of attachment (Bigelow, 2001; Gergely, personal communication, 2002) and infant prosocial behavior toward the mother (Legerstee & Varghese, 2001). However, Gergely and Watson (1996, 1999) proposed that two quite different affect-mirroring styles that we feel may lead to the development of Avoidant and Ambivalent attachment relationships. In the rst, which they associated with Avoidant relationships, the mother marks her contingent emotional responses appropriately but the content of the response is incongruent with the affect displayed by her infant (Gergely & Watson, 1996, 1999). For example, expressions of negative affect such as sadness or fear are mirrored incongruently as a marked display of positive affect or the mother might not respond at all. This proposal of a defensive or ignoring response accords with evidence that mothers with Dismissing attachment representations consistently distort and misattune to negative affect, particularly when it is directed at them (Haft & Slade, 1989). It has also been found that mothers of Avoidant infants tend not to perceive or respond to negative emotions although they do acknowledge positive affect (Goldberg, Mackay-Soroka & Rochester, 1994; Myhal & Goldberg, 1994).
449
The consequence of such a pattern of maternal responsiveness is that these children come to attribute dispositional information to themselves that is incongruent with their actual emotional state (Gergely & Watson, 1996, 1999) and may later have difculty identifying and expressing negative emotions. In addition, they may misperceive emotions such as sadness as having dispositional characteristics of other, distinctly different emotions such as anger or happiness. Crittenden (1992) reported that Avoidant preschoolers often exhibit displays of false affect, including over-bright solicitous affect incongruent with the situation or inconsistent with the childs emotional state. These false displays are often accompanied by what Crittenden described as leakage or displays of affect that reect true feelings, particularly feelings of anger, fear, distress, and despair (Crittenden, 1992, p. 221). Main, Kaplan & Cassidy (1985) showed 6-year-olds a photograph of a child whose parents were leaving for two weeks, asking what the child would feel or do during the separation. Avoidant children passively denied the negative emotion that was primed for in this task, responding with silence or short answers followed by I dont know in response to further prompts by the examiner. The model of representational development in infancy described here clearly is not intended to serve also as an account of those symbolic representational processes occurring in later childhood. Rather, the model is focused on the limited but critical association between the early experience of impoverished or inconsistent affective interactions and subsequent deciencies in accurately recognizing and understanding distinct and differentiated emotions in themselves and their interactive partners. We further suggest that such deciencies are likely to set the stage for later difculties with higher order symbolic processes associated with affective understanding. The second affect-mirroring style that Gergely and Watson proposed as a precursor to maladaptive emotional regulation is characterized by an absence of markedness: mothers reect or mirror the childs negative affect but in an unmarked, realistic manner. Gergely and Watson (1996, 1999) argued that mothers with Preoccupied attachment representations are likely candidates for exhibiting such unmarked responses because of their difculties in conveying coping with affect. A Preoccupied mother in Haft and Slades (1989) study was unable to reect on her sons experience of abandonment and sadness during a separation because these emotions caused her to be ooded by her own internal experiences. A Preoccupied mother, then, may tend to respond to her infants expressions of fear, sadness, and anger with her own categorically congruent but unmarked, realistic affective expressions. Her infant will accurately attribute these emotions to the mother, perhaps escalating the infants negative emotional state. The interaction contains none of the elements required for the infant to develop representations of his or her own emotions, leaving the child to struggle to regulate her negative emotions without the benet of an emerging affect regulation strategy supported consistently in interactions with the mother. Consistent with this scenario, researchers have found an association between Ambivalent attachment and infant fussy/difcult temperament (Goldsmith & Alansky, 1987; Moran & Pederson, 1998). In the Strange Situation, Ambivalent infants exhibit the most negative affect, a shorter latency and rise time, and a slower recovery to both mother and stranger (Braungart & Stifter, 1991; Frodi & Thompson, 1985; Shiller, Izard & Hembree, 1986). Gergely and Watsons theory thus provides a framework to explore the socialization of expressions of emotion (external cues), emotional experiences (internal cues), and the link between these two factors. Different mirroring practices by mothers promote the socialization of different display rules and expectancies that reect their own social
450
norms. Although different from the contingent, congruent, and well-marked mirroring experienced by children in Secure relationships, infants in Avoidant and Ambivalent dyads also experience a substantial level of contingent and predictable responses from their mothers and are able to form representations of emotions that allow them to function within those relationships. As suggested by the theoretical accounts reviewed at the outset of this paper, the Disorganized attachment relationship is more aptly described as reecting a truly dysfunctional interactive pattern. The literature is congruent with the notion that within Disorganized relationships, in sharp contrast to organized attachment relationships, there is a profound disturbance in normative affect mirroring interactions. According to Main and Hesse (1990), mothers in Disorganized relationships with their infants display unmarked, realistic expressions of fear in interaction with their infants. Moreover, in the case of Disorganized relationships these ashes of fear are unpredictable and not contingent on the childs emotional expression. Schuengel et al. (1999) observed that some of the mothers in their study who were in organized attachment relationships with their infants displayed frightening behavior in the form of rough play; however, these mothers consistently used meta-signaling to indicate that the expression of anger or threat was pretend, thus modifying their meaning and removing their frightening potential. The theoretical models of Lyons-Ruth et al. (1999) and George and Solomon (1999) propose that mothers in Disorganized relationships themselves experience feelings of helplessness and lack of control over emotions in general and their childrens emotions in particular. Such feelings clearly would leave them less capable of marking and mirroring their childrens affect in the manner described by Gergely and Watson. Liottis (1999) theory would further suggest signicant disruptions in affect mirroring interactions between mothers and children in Disorganized attachment relationships. He suggests that mothers of Disorganized infants express simultaneous conicting emotional expressions (fear, anger, affection, helplessness), leading to conicting and incoherent emotional experiences in the child that in turn lead to multiple conicting representations of the attachment gure and the self. These conceptual accounts predict that such children are likely to encounter severe difculties in identifying, discriminating, and predicting distinct emotions in the self and others. Main and Hesse (1990), Lyons-Ruth et al. (1999), George and Solomon (1999), and Liotti (1999) each describe distorted maternal socialization environments linked to the development of Disorganized attachment; each theoretical account also alludes to accompanying difculties in emotional regulation. Within the context of Gergely and Watsons (1996, 1999) theory, however, this pattern of non-contingent, intense, aberrant, and/or dysregulated maternal affect is revealed as a specic interactive mechanism that will lead to signicant impairment in the development of the representation, detection, prediction, and containment of emotion for children in Disorganized relationships. Gergely and Watsons model therefore suggests an examination of mirroring and marking as a way of linking characteristics of maternal interactive behavior to the development of Disorganized relationships and infants associated emotion regulatory difculties. More particularly, Gergely and Watsons framework would direct the attention of future research to the specic dyadic processes in early mother infant emotion socialization interactions. For example, sequential analyses might explore the probability of a mother responding to her childs emotional signals, whether the response was affectively congruent, and whether the mothers affect was marked or unmarked. Based on the discussion in this paper we would further predict
451
that mothers in Disorganized relationships with their children would be more likely than other mothers to exhibit unmarked, categorically noncongruent, and non-contingent affective responses. Although Gergely and Watsons account provides a model of the interactive pathway to the development of aspects of the basic implicit, non-conscious representational elements essential to effective affect regulation, the model reveals little regarding how the infant acquires the skill to utilize affective signals in the complex arena of human interaction. Their description, in fact, of the actual regulation of affect provides the infant with little more than a mechanism of decrease in negative affect and increase in positive affect, principally through the pleasure associated with responsestimulus contingencies. As already discussed, Thompson (1994) reminds us that any comprehensive account of emotion socialization must encompass the development of interactive behavior related to the function of affect. Moreover, while maternal mirroring and the marking of infant emotional expressions are central features of early interaction, the richness of a mothers response to her infants emotional signals cannot be captured by these aspects alone. The previously presented Mutual Regulation Model of Gianino and Tronick (1992), drawn from the Functionalist perspective on emotion, provides the necessary complement to Gergely and Watsons theoretical account, delineating the complex dyadic processes contributing to early emotion socialization.
An Integrated Emotion Socialization Framework We have presented two quite different theoretical approaches to emotional socialization in infancy: Gianino and Tronick (1992) have proposed a model portraying the mother and infant as involved in a developmental process of dyadic mutual regulation whereby the infant becomes highly skilled at regulating his or her affect in adaptation to environmental change; Gergely and Watsons (1996, 1999) more speculative model provides a useful complementary framework for conceptualizing the interactive origins of the infants basic differentiation of emotions and an implicit understanding of their dispositional content, abilities necessary before the infant can fully engage in the truly dyadic process of mutual regulation described by Gianino and Tronick. Both of these models converge on different but equally important issues in emotional development. When combined, the two models comprise a set of overlapping, dynamic, and reciprocal processes that serve as a comprehensive framework for examining emotion socialization within the early motherinfant relationship. The core of the resulting Interactive Framework of Emotion Socialization is presented in Figure 1. The gure depicts the impact on the emotional socialization process of maternal and infant individual difference variables. The width of the arrows reects the weight of the theoretical link between the components of the gure. Bi-directional arrows indicate the cyclical, cumulative, and interactive effects of the different factors.
Components of the Figure The core of the gure deals with the two theoretical socialization processes posed by Gergely and Watson (1996, 1999) and Gianino and Tronick (1992), illustrated by the four boxes in the centre of Figure 1. We hypothesize that a mothers own representations of emotion and her emotion regulatory style affect both her method of mirroring
452

Infants Developing Emotional Representation
Affect Mirroring
Maternal Interpersonal Functioning and Emotion Regulatory Style
Infant Temperament/ Biological Factors
Development of Generalized Emotion Regulatory Style
Contingent Responsiveness
Infant Emotions and Emotion-relevant Behavior in Interactions
Figure 1. An interactive framework of emotion socialization.
her infants emotions and her responses to her infants attempts at self-regulation. Maternal affect mirroring then inuences the infants developing internal emotional representations, while maternal responsiveness inuences the emotions and emotionrelevant behaviors that the baby displays within the interaction. As has been suggested, the initiation of one of these processes, Social Biofeedback, is developmentally prerequisite to and supportive of the second, Mutual Regulation, but, of course, the two socialization processes occur simultaneously and dialectically (indicated by the arrows in Figure 1). The childs developing emotional styles and strategies are likely to have a reciprocal and reinforcing impact on the maternal socialization practices, as is indicated by the thinner arrows in the gure. Finally, we propose that these interactive processes occur repeatedly over the rst year of life, that they contribute to the development of the infants own particular emotion regulatory style, and that this style is adapted to the nature of the particular motherinfant relationship. This style, a reection of the babys rst emotional experiences, is then carried forth as an important inuence on new situations, challenges, and relationships throughout development. This framework, composed of the two complementary, overlapping emotion socialization processes, provides a context for the integration of extant theories of the development of Disorganized attachment relationships and the functions of Disorganized behavior. An organized strategy for dyadically regulating emotions fails to develop for children in Disorganized relationships, a decit reected in characteristic disorganized/disoriented behavior under the stress of the Strange Situation. When placed in a situation requiring regulatory assistance, the infant is unable to approach the caregiver for assistance in an organized fashion, or to utilize internalised strategies for selfregulation. In the next section of this paper we use this emotion socialization framework and the existing empirical literature to generate explanatory hypotheses regarding two distinct developmental pathways: rst, the empirically well-established association
453
between maltreatment and Disorganization; and, second, the less well-understood connection between the Disorganized attachment relationship and maternal unresolved trauma. Emotional Development of Maltreated Children While there is no evidence of maltreatment in the developmental histories of many Disorganized infants, a signicant proportion of infants who are known to have been maltreated develop Disorganized attachment relationships with their caregivers (Carlson et al., 1989; van IJzendoorn et al., 1999). We would expect such children to show pronounced difculties in emotional representation and regulation. In fact, according to Pollak, Cicchetti, and Klorman (1998), Emotion regulatory problems are among the best documented of the problems maltreated children display (p. 813). Maltreated children show more aggression, lability/negativity, regulatory difculties, and inappropriate affect than do non-abused children (Beeghly & Cichetti, 1994; Shipman et al., 2000). Maltreated children also have lower levels of emotional understanding, awareness, and empathy (Camras, Grow & Ribordy, 1983; Main & Goldwyn 1984; Shipman et al., 2000) and deciencies in their ability to attribute emotions to themselves and to others (Beegly & Cicchetti, 1994). The framework presented in this paper provides a systematic account of the developmental origins of these difculties at the levels of both emotional representation and regulation. Maternal Emotional Expressions, Perceptions, and Responses to Infant Affect in Abusive Samples Basic intuition would suggest that abusive behavior directly affects childrens emotional development through the chronic experience of intense negative affect evoked by the abusive episodes. There is also evidence, however, that abusive mothers have additional chronic, critical deciencies in their ability to understand, mirror, and respond to infant affect. Research indicates that abusive mothers provide a dysfunctional affect-mirroring environment for their children, differing from non-abusive mothers in emotional expression and signaling during interactions. In free play, abusive mothers display far more negative affect than do their non-abusing counterparts (Oldershaw, Walters & Hall, 1989; Wassermann, Green & Allen, 1983). Oldershaw et al. (1989) clustered abusive mothers into three categories based on their emotional behavior during interactions with their infants: emotionally distant mothers exhibited at affect, disinterest, and low involvement and displayed little positive or negative affect; intrusive mothers displayed both positive and negative emotions but also showed more disapproval, negativity, and threats than did other mothers; and hostile mothers displayed very low-quality affect in their interactive behavior, responding to their infants with negativity and hostility, and often ignoring, opposing, or humiliating them. Although these three categories were related to distinct behavior patterns, all abusive mothers demonstrated clearly deviant patterns of emotional expressions in interactions with their infants. Preliminary research indicates that in addition to distinct patterns of emotional display, abusive mothers are also less adept than non-abusive mothers at identifying and responding to emotions. Buttereld and Ridgeway (1993) showed mothers at risk for maltreatment pictures of infants spontaneous everyday facial expressions and
454
asked them to identify the infants feelings. Relative to control mothers, mothers at risk for maltreatment used fewer emotion categories; commonly chose one or two categories almost exclusively; used high negative or high positive emotion labels (e.g., joy and anger); and rarely used more subtle, lower intensity emotion labels, such as content, interested, or worried. Kropp and Haynes (1987) studied the ability of mothers to identify specic emotion states. Fourteen slides were chosen to represent two instances of each of seven discrete emotions: distress/pain, surprise, sadness, joy, interest, fear, and anger. Abusive mothers were less likely to identify correctly the emotion signals and were more likely to identify negative emotion signals as positive. This relative insensitivity of child abusers to negative emotions is likely to lead to their misperception of the affective state of others, and to contribute to inappropriate social responding. In spite of these apparent impairments in affect perception, abusive mothers have been shown to display intense negative reactions to inescapable infant emotion. Frodi and Lamb (1980) showed abusing and non-abusing mothers videotapes of crying and smiling infants. Both abusing and non-abusing mothers responded to the crying infant with increases in heart rate, skin conductance, and diastolic blood pressure; however, abusing mothers experienced greater increases in heart rate and rated themselves as signicantly more annoyed and less sympathetic toward the crying infant. The abusing mothers, in sharp contrast to non-abusing mothers, also showed strong physiological reactions to positive infant expressions and reported that they were less attentive, happy, and willing to interact with the smiling infant. Here, again, the pattern suggests a profound tendency to misperceive all infant emotional signals as aversive (Frodi & Lamb, 1980). This research strongly suggests that abusive mothers have distorted emotional representations associated with blunted, attened emotion, or a preponderance of extreme and often negative affect (Oldershaw et al., 1989). Their distorted view of infant emotions can only lead abusive mothers to match infant emotions incongruently, inappropriately, or not at all (Kropp & Haynes, 1987; Buttereld & Ridgeway, 1993). Consequently, their infants will be less likely to acquire the full, exible range of emotions typically socialized in non-abused children. Most importantly from the viewpoint of the developmental framework proposed here, their strong aversive emotional reactions to negative and sometimes positive emotions (Frodi & Lamb, 1980) predispose these mothers to mirror back unmarked, realistic emotional expressions of anger or distress in a fashion that may or may not be contingent on their childrens emotional signals, placing abused children at risk to develop distorted secondary representations of their own emotional states (Gergely & Watson, 1996, 1999). These children will have difculties recognizing and interpreting their own emotion states, and consequently, making accurate attributions and empathizing with emotional experiences of others. Consistent with this model and its predictions, Gaensbauer and Hiatt (1984) found a dramatic difference between the emotional expressions of abused and non-abused children. Two out of three abused infants were marked by an almost total lack of positive affect and disproportionate levels of anger and sadness. A third, neglected, infant demonstrated very at and blunted affect. Gaensbauer and Sands (1979) observed that abused infants exhibited a variety of distorted emotional communication patterns in interactions with their caregivers, including a lack of pleasure, inconsistency, and unpredictability in affective communications, shallowness of affect communication, ambiguity/ambivalence in affect expression, and negative affect messages.
455
Abused children also show deciencies in making attributions on the basis of others emotions and in recognizing and identifying those emotions. Beeghly and Cicchetti (1994) found that maltreated toddlers used signicantly fewer internal state words to describe their physiological state or their negative emotions, and were more restricted in attributing emotional states to themselves and to others. Camras, Grow, and Ribordy (1983) found that maltreated preschoolers were less skilled at recognizing different emotion expressions in others. On the basis of these results, then, it is not surprising that maltreated children fail to demonstrate appropriate concern or empathy in response to distress in other children; instead, they respond with fear, anger, or aggression (Main & Goldwyn, 1984). The results of extant research, then, present a picture that is congruent with Gergely and Watsons (1996, 1999) contribution to our emotion socialization framework: maltreating mothers show pronounced decits in their emotional awareness, acceptance, and consequent mirroring capabilities; in turn, abused children show deciencies in emotional expressiveness and understanding of emotions in the self and in others, posing difculties for the child in interaction with others and leaving anomalies at the level of representation. Of course, such consistencies with the results of existing research, much of which pre-dates the theory in question, cannot be taken as conrmatory evidence but it does lend credibility to its potential utility as part of a heuristic framework for further exploring this pathway to Disorganized attachment relationships. Having rst established an account of the interactive origins of abused infants inability to use their relationship with their mother to regulate their emotions effectively, the functionalist view of early motherinfant interaction (Gianino & Tronick, 1992) within our emotion socialization model suggests a developmental pathway through which a substantial number of maltreated infants may develop Disorganized attachment relationships with their caregivers (Carlson et al., 1989; van IJzendoorn et al., 1999). However dysfunctional, the distorted and ineffective emotional representations and behavioral style of the Disorganized infant function to control and inuence later social interaction and relationships. When a mother is not responsive to the childs cues, as in an Avoidant attachment relationship, the infant may adopt an alternative strategy involving a defensive, selfdirected style of regulation, containing rather than expressing his or her negative states. Based on Gianino and Tronicks (1992) Mutual Regulation Model we assume that abused infants, in contrast, have access neither to the mothers regulatory assistance nor to such a self-directed approach. The very signals that are used to elicit nurturance from non-abusive parents produce hostile or angry reactions from abusive parents (Thompson & Caulkins, 1996). When abused infants attempt the alternative strategy of withdrawal from interaction to protect their tenuous emotional equilibrium, abusive mothers tend to interpret this behavior as a personal rebuke, reacting with frustration and rejection which is often expressed through more angry or punitive behavior (Gaensbauer & Sands, 1979). The resulting emotional stress can only be perceived as anomalous even for a child with the best coping methods, and negative arousal escalates to the point of traumatization. The infant is trapped in the irresolvable conict described by Main and Hesse (1990) in which it is potentially dysfunctional both to approach or signal the parent, or to attempt other forms of self-regulation. When this interactional dynamic is considered within the emotion socialization framework described here, abused infants will encounter substantial difculty in accomplishing the developmental task of acquiring an effective strategy for regulating their emotion within the relationship with their caregiver by the end of the rst year. Instead
456
they are overwhelmed by emotionsemotions that are both deregulated and disabling. This circumstance gives rise to a pattern of disorganization reecting either a conict between or the reciprocal inhibition of behavioral systems (Main & Solomon, 1986). There is an apparent lack of, or collapse of, a consistent strategy for organizing responses to the need for comfort and security when under stress (Lyons-Ruth, 1996, p. 67). These early, dysfunctional experiences with emotional arousal have a detrimental impact on the general emotion regulatory style of the infant, the developmental output of the model presented in Figure 1. As infants mature into early childhood the resultant Disorganized attachment strategy of infancy becomes much more controlled, planful, and coercive (Crittenden, 1992), perhaps because it is the childs only recourse in an effort to organize him- or herself with respect to the environment. The style of emotional expression and regulation that abused children exhibit in their Disorganized relationships with their mothers extends to a more generalized dysfunctional style of emotion regulation. In short, past experiences distort their perceptions of the world and form the starting point of a maladaptive developmental journey for many maltreated children. The hyper-vigilant and controlling style that is evident in the abused pre-schoolers gives way to aggressive interactive behavior in early childhood (Carlson, 1998; Lyons-Ruth, 1996) and to the ready assimilation of aggressive cues in their environments (Rieder & Cicchetti, 1989). The chronic stress of early childhood also has an impact on the physiological and behavioral regulatory competencies of the abused child. As it does in other animals, chronic and repeated stress in early development leads to dampened reactivity in humans, reducing further the childs already impoverished emotional regulatory capacities (Hart, Gunnar & Cicchetti, 1995). Shipman and colleagues (2000) found that sexually abused girls had lower emotional understanding scores, increased lability/negativity, and greater emotion dysregulation than did non-abused girls. Further, Shield and Cicchetti (1998) found that maltreated children showed more aggression, regulatory difculties, inappropriate affect, and subclinical dissociation than did non-abused children. They also found that severity of emotional disturbance was related to abuse severity and complexity. Individuals who were abused as children are more likely to exhibit self-destructive behavior, eating disorders, aggression against others, and substance abuse (Briere, 1992, in press; Herman, Perry & van der Kolk, 1989; van der Kolk & Fisler, 1994). As suggested by van der Kolk & Fisler (1994), these behaviors are best understood as vain attempts at self-regulation. The emotion socialization framework described here also suggests a downwardly spiraling developmental process where the ineffective emotion socialization processes of the abusive relationship have an additive disruptive impact on the experience of the abuse itself, further increasing a childs vulnerability to disorganization and emotion dysregulation. That is, abuse tends to prevent the infant from developing an effective emotion regulation strategy, the absence of such a strategy leaves the infant particularly vulnerable to the destructive social developmental aspects of abuse described previously, and a Disorganized relationship becomes the most likely developmental outcome. Empirically, we expect that the more distorted the maternal emotion socialization processes (assessed within the context of videotaped interactions, or through experimental tasks, paradigms, or interviews) the more likely it is that maltreatment will be associated with a Disorganized attachment relationship. Analogously, the existence of an appropriate social emotional relationship with a non-abusing caregiver would provide children with some resiliencies by strengthening their emotional under Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004
457
standing and sense of efcacy in using emotions to modify their social world (Gianino & Tronick, 1992). This process could ameliorate or buffer the long-term effects of the abuse experience on the childs emotion regulatory functioning. Clearly, more extensive investigation is required in order to disentangle the specic processes by which general emotion socialization and dysregulation within caregiverchild relationships acts as a risk or protective factor in the development of the childs regulatory competencies. The Transmission of Unresolved Trauma Within the Integrated Model While it is relatively easy to explain why the experience of abuse will disorganize the attachment relationship, a more challenging task is to explain why failure to monitor discourse while discussing loss or abuse is also predictive of Disorganized attachment. A meta-analysis of empirical studies (van IJzendoorn, 1995) found that 53% of parents classied as Unresolved (as assessed by the Adult Attachment interview; Main & Goldwyn, 1998) were found to be involved in Disorganized relationships with their infants. Main and Hesse (1990) proposed that those characteristics which predispose mothers to fail to monitor discourse during the Adult Attachment Interview, a key diagnostic sign of Unresolved attachment, are also likely to impair in a similar manner their interactions with their infants. For example, thoughts related to loss or abuse may intrude into the Unresolved mothers awareness during interaction, producing a contextually anomalous fearful expression. Some Unresolved mothers have been observed to display dissociative behavior, such as an immobile, trance-like state (Jacobvitz et al., 1997, as cited in Lyons-Ruth & Jacobvitz, 1999; Main & Hesse, 1990), behavior thought to be particularly frightening and/or disorienting to the infant because the child cannot connect it to the interaction or the immediate environment. Within Gergely and Watsons Social Biofeedback Model these distortions in maternal interaction would be seen as severely impairing her ability to mirror infant affect and especially to mark her own emotional displays, elements of interaction that are essential to the development of the infants ability to understand his or her fear. Furthermore, if when the infant experiences fear and displays negative affect, the mother becomes dramatically unresponsive or exhibits clear signs of fear herself, the infant is unable to engage the mother in the joint regulation of the infants fearful experiencethe dyadic process that Gianino and Tronick see as critical to the effective development of an affect regulation strategy. Thus, when confronting fear in the Strange Situation the infant cannot draw upon a repertoire of organized coping responses and behaves instead in a Disorganized manner. The Unresolved classication within the Adult Attachment Interview can be associated with either loss or abuse in the parents history. Unresolved loss has been studied quite extensively, both directly (Ainsworth and Eichberg, 1991; Schuengel et al., 1999) and indirectly through the selection of low-risk samples in which abuse histories are less common (Benoit & Parker, 1994; Fonagy, Steele & Steele, 1991; Steele, Steele & Fonagy, 1996). The patterns of frightened and frightening interactive behavior associated with Unresolved status have also been studied primarily in samples where trauma is unlikely to be prevalent and mothers are more likely to be Unresolved with respect to loss (Jacobvitz et al., 1997, as cited in Lyons-Ruth & Jacobvitz, 1999; Schuengel et al., 1999). Preliminary evidence suggests that, in the case of Unresolved attachment associated with loss, these maladaptive maternal interaction patterns originate in a failure
458
to resolve or integrate the loss, rather than in the experience of loss itself (see Ainsworth & Eichberg, 1991; Schuengel et al., 1999). It has been suggested that the similar interactive distortions observed in mothers classied as Unresolved with respect to abuse also arise from a failure to resolve the experience (Lyons-Ruth & Jacobvitz, 1999; Main & Hesse, 1990); however, empirical evidence for such a common developmental pathway is sparse, especially where abuse is involved. Some of the difculty in exploring the developmental processes associated with individuals Unresolved with respect to abuse (as opposed to loss) may be related to the fact that ethical considerations have limited the systematic probing of abuse experiences in the Adult Attachment Interview (Hesse & Main, 2000). Extended follow-up probes regarding loss experiences are intended to uncover lapses in the monitoring of reasoning or discourse that might otherwise not become apparent; however, since abuse is probed only briey, so as to avoid distress, comparable lapses in monitoring related to abuse are less likely to be revealed. A better understanding of the developmental pathway linking Unresolved attachment with respect to abuse will depend on empirical study more acutely targeted at the identication and description of the abuse experience and its resolution. The emotion socialization framework provides a useful heuristic perspective to guide such research through the construction of a hypothetical picture of the specic difculties a mother who is Unresolved with respect to abuse is likely to encounter in supporting her infants emotion socialization. In the section that follows we illustrate this picture by extrapolating from research ndings on the potentially enduring effects of early abuse, on clinical populations, and on maladaptive parenting by mothers with a history of abuse. Research with adult survivors of childhood abuse suggests that emotional difculties persist as the individual develops into adulthood. Symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) include the re-experiencing of a traumatic event as if it were reoccurring: this symptom shares many of the characteristics of Main and Hesses (1990) description of the intrusion of trauma-relevant thoughts into a mothers awareness during interactions with her infant. In addition, the experience of chronic abuse in childhood is associated with dissociation, difculty regulating social interactions, and severe disruptions in the ability to regulate negative emotions such as fear and anger (Bremner, Vermetten, Southwick, Krystal & Charney, 1998; Briere, 1992; Herman et al., 1989; Landecker, 1992; Terr, 1991; van der Kolk, 1996; van der Kolk & Fisler, 1994; Zanarini et al., 1997). The literature further suggests that adult victims of childhood trauma have greater difculties reecting on their own feelings and those of others (Fonagy et al., 1996; van der Kolk & Fisler, 1994). The enduring impact of the experience of abuse is likely to vary considerably across individuals (Shield & Cicchetti, 1998; Wolfe, Sas & Wekerle, 1994). In particular, we propose that individuals lacking the capacity to integrate these traumatic experiences remain Unresolved with respect to abuse, and are likely to experience more traumarelated symptomatology and greater emotion regulatory difculties than those who are not Unresolved. A similar relation between Unresolved status with respect to loss and trauma symptoms has recently been proposed (Fearon & Mansell, 2001). Research with psychiatric populations lends indirect support to this suggestion at its extreme: the Unresolved classication has been found to be considerably over-represented among inpatients with a diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD; Fonagy et al., 1995, 1996; Patrick Hobson, Castle, Howard & Maughan, 1994). A central feature of this diagnosis is the occurrence of extreme emotion uctuations together
459
with an inability to regulate these emotions (APA, 1994). Most of these same inpatients also reported histories of abuse (Fonagy et al., 1995, 1996; Patrick et al., 1994), consistent with the strong retrospective association between early abuse and the development of BPD (Landecker, 1992; Zanarini et al., 1997). In a study with adolescent psychiatric inpatients, Adam, Sheldon-Keller and West (1996) found that for females, Unresolved attachment was related to suicidal behavior. In addition, the Unresolved classication was also over-represented in a study of individuals with anxiety disorders (Manassis, Bradley, Goldberg, Hood & Swinson, 1994). Unresolved status, then, has been associated differentially with clinically signicant impairment of the regulation of negative emotions. Although suggestive of a developmental process, such indirect evidence must be conrmed by systematic studies of the prevalence of traumarelated symptoms, including emotion regulatory difculties, across the adult attachment classications. Invoking the arguments we have developed in the preceding section of this paper, mothers who have been signicantly abused as children and have failed to resolve and integrate this experience (i.e., are Unresolved with respect to abuse) are likely to have difculty understanding and regulating their own emotions and therefore may nd it particularly difcult to respond openly and exibly to their childrens emotions. This prediction is consistent with recent suggestions that Unresolved mothers lack the ability to contain their infants strong negative emotions, instead becoming dysregulated or feeling helpless when faced with these emotions (George & Solomon, 1999; Lyons-Ruth et al., 1999). Preliminary research provides some evidence that mothers with a history of abuse show evidence of impaired emotion socialization abilities. Burkett (1991) found that mothers with a history of familial sexual abuse were self rather than child-focused and used their children for emotional support. Lyons-Ruth and Block (1996) reported differential ndings for mothers with histories of sexual and physical abuse: mothers with a history of sexual abuse were less involved with their infants and were restricted in their emotional expression, while physical abuse in the absence of sexual abuse was associated with more hostile-intrusive behavior. Outside of these two studies, there is a dearth of research into the impact of maternal trauma on emotional processes within the motherchild relationship. Recent research from our laboratory provides support for the prediction that mothers with unresolved trauma have a tendency to perceptually distort their infants emotions, thus seriously impeding their ability to respond contingently to these emotions. A sample of adolescent mothers who had previously completed the AAI were asked to label infant emotions in Emde, Osofsky and Butterelds (1993) IFEEL Pictures stimuli. Mothers who were coded Unresolved in the AAI were more likely to attribute emotions to the infants that were only rarely reported by mothers in a normative sample (DeOliveira & Moran, 2001). We further found that Unresolved mothers, in response to Gottman, Katz, and Hoovens (1996) Meta-Emotion Interview, were more likely to describe difculties in regulating their own emotions and responding to emotions emerging in their toddlers than mothers in other AAI categories (DeOliveira & Pederson, 2001). The emotion socialization model described here provides a useful vehicle for testing specic pathways by which a mothers abuse history may have an impact on her emotion socialization capabilities. From the perspective of Gergely and Watsons (1996, 1999) framework, since mothers with a history of abuse tend to have more difculty reecting on their own and others emotions (Fonagy et al., 1996; van der Kolk
460
& Fisler, 1994) they may lack the ability to sufciently attune to infant affect and/or to recognize it as distinct from their own. In addition, intense and unpredictable vacillations of maternal affective expressions (due to intrusive thoughts or emotion regulatory difculties) would likely translate into a lack of mirroring and an absence of appropriate marking of infant emotions, leading instead to potentially frightening unmarked maternal expressions in interaction. As an end result, children of severely traumatized mothers who have failed to resolve their experiences would have signicant disturbances in their ability to understand and identify a exible range of emotions in themselves and to accurately predict others thoughts and behaviors based on a perception of their emotional state. This impairment in the development of representational structures, viewed within the Social Biofeedback Model (Gergely & Watson, 1996, 1999) as essential to effective affect regulation, leaves the child vulnerable to the negative developmental consequences of uncontrolled intense emotional experiences which are likely to be manifest in malfunctioning motherchild interactions and relationships (Gianino & Tronick, 1992). Trauma symptoms may interfere with a mothers ability to respond to her childs affect in a consistent and effective manner, and the child must therefore resort to regulatory strategies other than turning to the caregiver for assistance in response to stress. The restricted and rigid repertoire of coping skills that may develop from this context would leave children more vulnerable to emotion regulatory problems of their own throughout development. Such hypotheses regarding the impact of maternal trauma on specic emotion socialization processes and their associated outcomes clearly lend themselves to guiding future empirical investigation. Concluding Comments Recent accounts of Disorganized attachment have highlighted the apparent breakdown or absence of affect regulation strategies in infants in these relationships. In this paper we have drawn together two theories of emotion socialization to create a framework to understand and explore the developmental origins of disorganization within the motherinfant relationship. This framework is compatible with several current theories of the development of Disorganized attachment, each of which also draws our attention to profound disruptions in the dyadic regulation of emotion within the Disorganized motherchild relationship. One of the strengths of the integrated framework centering on emotion socialization as proposed in this paper is its utility in elucidating pathways in the socialization process that translate into testable hypotheses. Toward this end, we illustrate the application of the framework to understand the empirically established link between child maltreatment and emotion regulatory and socialization difculties, raising specic hypotheses regarding abuse and infant affective developmental outcomes. Further illustrating its utility, the framework is used to propose a developmental process through which the mothers own experience of childhood abuse impacts her likelihood to encounter systematic and critical difculties in emotional availability and responsiveness in her interactions with her own child, contributing toward the development of a Disorganized attachment relationship. Greenberg (1999) concludes that, in low-risk samples, Avoidant and Ambivalent attachment relationships are not consistently predictive of subsequent maladaptation or psychopathology. Disorganized attachment, on the other hand, has been linked to behavioral outcomes that strongly suggest severe disturbances in affect regulation,
461
including psychopathology, dissociative behavior, and disturbed interpersonal relationships in childhood and adolescence (Lyons-Ruth & Jacobvitz, 1999). This is particularly true for children from families under high levels of social psychological stress (Greenberg, 1999). Clearly, mothers from high social risk populations, especially mothers with their own traumatic histories, comprise an exceptionally vulnerable group for the development of disturbed, dysregulating motherchild interactions. Our focus on this relatively proximal level of analysis of the developmental process does not take away from the importance of pursuing the origins of Disorganized attachment at the higher level of analysis reected in broader family issues, nor is it incompatible with such accounts. For example, many authors have pointed to the important inuences of family structure, marital adjustment, and social-marital support on the quality of the parentchild attachment relationship (e.g., Atkinson et al., 2000; BraungartRieker, Courtney & Garwood, 1999; Braungart-Rieker & Karrass, 1999). The discussion in this paper underscores the importance of targeting future research regarding both basic developmental processes and clinical intervention toward understanding and ultimately assisting this particularly fragile group of motherinfant dyads. References
Adam, K. S., Sheldon-Keller, A. E. & West, M. (1996). Attachment organization and history of suicidal behavior in clinical adolescents. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 64, 264272. Ainsworth, M. D. S. & Eichberg, C. (1991). Effects on infantmother attachment of mothers unresolved loss of an attachment gure, or other traumatic experience. In C. M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 160183). London: Routledge. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E. & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Alexander, P. (1992). Application of attachment theory to the study of sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 185195. American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th edn). Washington, DC: Author. Amini, F., Lewis, T., Lannon, R., Louie, A., Baumbacher, G., McGuinness, T. & Schiff, E. Z. (1996). Affect, attachment, memory: Contributions toward psychobiologic integration. Psychiatry, 59, 213239. Atkinson, L., Paglia, A., Coolbear, J., Niccols, A., Parker, K. C. H. & Guger, S. (2000). Attachment security: A meta-analysis of maternal mental-health correlates. Clinical Psychology Review, 20, 10191040. Bateson, P. P. G. (1987). Biological approaches to the study of behavioural development. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 10, 122. Beeghly, M. & Cicchetti, D. (1994). Child maltreatment, attachment, and the self system: Emergence of an internal state lexicon in toddlers at high social risk. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 530. Benoit, D. & Parker, K. C. H. (1994). Stability and transmission of attachment across three generations. Child Development, 65, 14441457. Bigelow, A. E. (2001). Discovering self through other: Infants preference for social contingency. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 65, 335346. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol 2. Separation. London: Hogarth Press. Braungart, J. M. & Stifter, C. A. (1991). Regulation of negative reactivity during the Strange Situation: Temperament and attachment in 12-month-old infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 14, 349364. Braungart-Rieker, J. & Karrass, J. (1999). Parental protection in context. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 488491. Braungart-Rieker, J., Courtney, S. & Garwood, M. M. (1999). Mother and fatherinfant attachment: Families in context. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 535553.
462
Braungart-Rieker, J., Garwood, M. M., Powers, B. P. & Wang, X. (2001). Parental sensitivity, infant affect, and affect regulation: Predictors of later attachment. Child Development, 72, 252270. Bremner, J. D., Vermetten, E., Southwick, S. M., Krystal, J. H. & Charney, D. S. (1998). Trauma, memory, and dissociation: An integrative formulation. In D. Spiegel (Series Ed.) and J. D. Bremner & C. R. Marmar (Eds.), Progress in psychiatry: No. 54. Trauma, memory & dissociation (pp. 365402). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Briere, J. (1992). Child abuse trauma: Theory and treatment of the lasting effects. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Briere, J. (2002). Treating adult survivors of severe childhood abuse and neglect: Further development of an integrative model. In J. E. B. Myers, L. Berliner, J. Briere, C. T. Hendrix, C. Jenny & T. Reid (Eds.), The APSAC handbook on child maltreatment, 2nd edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. The IFEEL pictures: Description, administration, and lexicon. Burkett, L. P. (1991). Parenting behaviors of women who were sexually abused as children in their families of origin. Family Processes, 30, 421434. Buttereld, P. M. & Ridgeway, D. (1993). In R. N. Emde, J. D. Osofsky & P. M. Buttereld (Eds.), The IFEEL Pictures: A new instrument for interpreting emotions (pp. 7396). Madison: International Universities Press. Camras, L. A., Grow, J. G. & Ribordy, S. C. (1983). Recognition of emotional expression by abused children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 12, 325328. Carlson, E. A. (1997). A prospective longitudinal study of disorganized/disoriented attachment. In D. B. Jocobvitz (Chair), Caregiving correlates and longitudinal outcomes of disorganized attachments in infants. Symposium conducted at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, DC. Carlson, E. A. (1998). A prospective longitudinal study of attachment disorganization/disorientation. Child Development, 69, 11071128. Carlson, E. B. (1997). Trauma assessments: A clinicians guide. New York: Guilford Press. Carlson, E. B., Armstrong, J., Loewenstein, R. & Roth, D. (1998). Relationships between traumatic experiences and symptoms of posttraumatic stress, dissociation, and amnesia. In D. Spiegel (Series Ed.) & J. D. Bremner & C. R. Marmar (Vol. Eds.), Progress in psychiatry: No. 54. Trauma, memory, and dissociation (pp. 205228). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Carlson, V., Cicchetti, C., Barnett, D. & Braunwald, K. (1989). Finding order in disorganization: Lessons from research on maltreated infants attachments to their caregivers. In D. Cicchetti & V Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreatment: Theory and research on the causes and . consequences of child abuse and neglect (pp 494528). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Inuences of attachment relationships. In N. A. Fox (Ed.), The development of emotional regulation: Biological and behavioral considerations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 228249. Crittenden, P. M. (1992). Quality of attachment in the preschool years. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 209241. DeOliveira, C. A. & Moran, G. (2001). The impact of unresolved attachment and history of trauma on mothers perceptions of ambiguous infant emotion expressions. Poster session presented at the 2001 Biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, Minnesota. DeOliveira, C. A. & Pederson, D. R. (2001). Understanding the link between maternal AAI classications and maternal emotional styles and socialization behaviours. In D. R. Pederson and C. A. DeOliveira (Chairs). Attachment and the socialization of emotions. Symposium conducted at the 2001 Biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis Minnesota. Ekman, P. (1973). Cross-cultural studies of emotion. In P. Ekman (Ed.), Darwin and facial expression: A century of research in review. (pp. 169222). New York: Academic Press. Emde, R. N., Osofsky, J. D. & Buttereld, P. M. (1993). The IFEEL Pictures: A new instrument for interpreting emotions. Connecticut: International Universities Press. Fearon, R. M. P. & Mansell, W. (2001). Cognitive perspectives on unresolved loss: Insights from the study of PTSD. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 65, 380396.
463
Fonagy, P., Steele, H. & Steele, M. (1991). Maternal representations of attachment during pregnancy predict the organization of infant-mother attachment at one year of age. Child Development, 62, 891905. Fonagy, P., Leigh, T., Kennedy, R., Mattoon, G., Steele, H., Target, M., Steele, M. & Higgitt, A. (1995). Attachment, borderline states and the representation of emotions and cognitions in self and other. In D. Cicchetti & S. L. Toth (Eds.), Rochester symposium on developmental psychopathology: Vol. 6. Emotion, cognition, and representation (pp. 343370). New York: Rochester. Fonagy, P., Leigh, T., Steele, M., Steele, H., Kennedy, R., Mattoon, G., Target, M. & Gerber, A. (1996). The relation of attachment status, psychiatric classication, and response to psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 2231. Frodi, A. M. & Lamb, M. E. (1980). Child abusers responses to infant smiles and cries. Child Development, 51, 238241. Frodi, A. & Thompson, R. A. (1985). Infants affective responses in the Strange Situation: Effects of prematurity and quality of attachment. Child Development, 56, 12801290. Gaensbauer, T. J. & Hiatt, S. (1984). Facial communication of emotion in early infancy. In N. A. Fox & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The psychobiology of affective development (pp. 207 230). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gaensbauer, T. J. & Sands, S. K. (1979). Distorted affective communications in abused/ neglected infants and their potential impact on caretakers. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 18, 236250. George, C. & Solomon, J. (1999). Attachment and caregiving: The caregiving behavioral system. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 649670). New York: Guilford Press. Gergely, G. (2001). The obscure object of desire: Nearly, but clearly not, like me: Contingency preference in normal children versus children with autism. The Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 65, 411426. Gergely, G. & Watson, J. S. (1996). The social biofeedback theory of parent affect mirroring: The development of emotional self-awareness and self-control in infancy. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 77, 11811212. Gergely, G. & Watson, J. S. (1999). Early social-emotional development: Contingency perception and the social-biofeedback model. In Philippe Rochat et al. (Eds.), Early social cognition: Understanding others in the rst months of life (pp. 101136). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum. Gianino, A. & Tronick, E. Z. (1992). The mutual regulation model: The infants self and interactive regulation and coping and defensive capacities. In T. M. Field, P. M. McCabe & N. Schneiderman (Eds.). Stress and coping across development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Goldberg, S., MacKay-Soroka, S. & Rochester, M. (1994). Affect, attachment, and maternal responsiveness. Infant Behavior and Development, 17, 335339. Goldsmith, H. H. & Alansky, J. A. (1987). Maternal and infant temperamental predictors of attachment: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 805 816. Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F. & Hooven, C. (1996). Parental meta-emotion philosophy and the emotional life of families: Theoretical models and preliminary data. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 243268. Greenberg, M. T. (1999). Attachment and psychopathology in childhood. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 469496). New York: Guilford Press. Haft, W. l. & Slade, A. (1989). Affect attunement and maternal attachment: A pilot study. Infant Mental Health Journal, 10, 157172. Hart, J., Gunnar, M. & Cicchetti, D. (1995). Salivary cortisol in maltreated children: Evidence of relations between neuroendocrine activity and social competence. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 1126. Heller, S. S. & Zeanah, C. H. (1999). Attachment disturbances in infants born subsequent to perinatal loss: A pilot study. Infant Mental Health Journal, 20, 188199. Herman, J. L., Perry, C. & van der Kolk, B. A. (1989). Childhood trauma in borderline personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 146, 490494.
464
Hesse, E. & Main, M. (2000). Disorganized infant, child, and adult attachment: Collapse in behavioral and attentional strategies. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 48 (4), 10971127. Hertsgaard, L., Gunnar, M., Farrell, E. & Nachmias, M. (1995). Adrenocortical responses to the Strange Situation in infants with disorganized/disoriented attachment relationships. Child Development, 66, 11001106. Izard, C. E. (1990). Facial expressions and the regulation of emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 487498. Kaye, K. (1979). Thickening thin data: The maternal role in developing communication and language. In M. Bullowa (Ed.), Before speech (pp. 191206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Koos, O. & Gergely, G. (2001). A contingency-based approach to the etiology of disorganized attachment: The ickering switch hypothesis. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 65, 397410. Kopp, C. B. (1989). Regulation of distress and negative emotions: A developmental view. Developmental Psychology, 25, 343354. Kropp, J. P. & Haynes, O. M. (1987). Abusive and nonabusive mothers ability to identify general and specic emotion signals of infants. Child Development, 58, 187190. Landecker, H. (1992). The role of childhood sexual trauma in the etiology of borderline personality disorder: Considerations for diagnosis and treatment. Psychotherapy, 29, 234242. Legerstee, M. & Varghese, J. (2001). The role of maternal affect mirroring on social expectancies in three-month-old infants. Child Development, 72, 13011313. Leslie, A. M. (1987). Pretense and representation: The origins of theory of mind. Psychological Review, 94, 412426. Lewis, M. & Michalson, L. (1985). Faces as signs and symbols. In G. Zivin (Ed.), The development of expressive behavior: Biologyenvironment interactions. Orlando: Academic Press. Lewis, M. & Michalson, L. (1983). Childrens emotions and moods: Developmental theory and measurement. New York: Plenum Press. Liotti, G. (1999). Disorganization of attachment as a model for understanding dissociative psychopathology. In C. George & J. Solomon (Eds.), Attachment disorganization (pp. 291317). New York: Guilford Press. Lyons-Ruth, K. (1996). Attachment relationships among children with aggressive behavior problems: The role of disorganized early attachment patterns. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 6473. Lyons-Ruth, K. & Block, D. (1996). The disturbed caregiving system: Relations among childhood trauma, maternal caregiving, and infant affect and attachment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 17, 257275. Lyons-Ruth, K., Alpern, L. & Repacholi, B. (1993). Disorganized infant attachment classication and maternal psychosocial problems as predictors of hostile-aggressive behavior in the preschool classroom. Child Development, 64, 572585. Lyons-Ruth, K., Bronfman, E. & Atwood, G. (1999). A relational diathesis model of hostilehelpless states of mind: Expressions in motherinfant interaction. In C. George & J. Solomon (Eds.), Attachment disorganization (pp. 3370). New York: Guilford Press. Lyons-Ruth, K., Easterbrooks, M. A. & Cibelli, C. D. (1997). Infant attachment strategies, infant mental lag, and maternal depressive symptoms: Predictors of internalizing and externalizing problems at age 7. Developmental Psychology, 33, 681692. Lyons-Ruth, K. & Jacobvitz, D. (1999). Attachment disorganization: Unresolved loss, relational violence, and lapses in behavioral and attentional strategies. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 520554). New York: Guilford Press. Main, M. (1983). Exploration, play, and cognitive functioning as related to infantmother attachment. Infant Behavior and Development, 6, 167174. Main, M. (1991). Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring, and singular (coherent) vs. multiple (incoherent) models of attachment: ndings and directions for future work. In C. M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 12759). London: Routledge. Main, M. & Cassidy, J. (1988). Categories of response to reunion with parents at age 6: Predictable from infant attachment and stable over a 1-month period. Developmental Psychology, 24, 415426.
465
Main, M. & Goldwyn, R. (1998). Adult attachment scoring and classication system. Version 6.3. Unpublished manuscript. Main, M. & Goldwyn, R. (1984). Predicting rejection of her infant from mothers representation of her own experience: Implications for the abusedabusing intergenerational cycle. Child Abuse and Neglect, 8, 203217. Main, M. & Hesse, E. (1990). Parents unresolved traumatic experiences are related to infant disorganized attachment status: Is frightened and/or frightening parental behavior the linking mechanism? In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 161182). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago 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 (12, Serial No. 209), 66104. Main, M. & Morgan, H. (1996). Disorganization and disorientation in infant Strange Situation behavior. In L. K. Michelson & W. J. Ray (Eds.), Handbook of dissociation: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical perspectives. New York: Plenum Press. Main, M. & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of an insecure-disorganized/disoriented attachment pattern. In T. B. Brazelton & M. W. Yogman (Eds.), Affective development in infancy (pp. 95124). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Main, M. & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 121160). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Malatesta, C. Z. (1985). Developmental course of emotion expression in the human infant. In G. Zivin (Ed.), The development of expressive behavior: Biologyenvironment interactions. Orlando: Academic Press. Malatesta, C. Z. & Haviland, J. M. (1982). Learning display rules: The socialization of emotion expression in infancy. Child Development, 53, 9911003. Malatesta, C. Z. & Haviland, J. M. (1985). Signs, symbols, and socialization. In M. Lewis & C. Saarni (Eds.) The socialization of emotion (pp 89115). New York: Plenum Press. Manassis, K., Bradley, S., Goldberg, S., Hood, J. & Swinson, R. P. (1994). Attachment in mothers with anxiety disorders and their children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 33, 11061113. McFarlane, A. C. & Yehuda, R. (1996). Resilience, vulnerability, and the course of posttraumatic reactions. In B. A. van der Kolk, A. C. McFarlane & L. Weisaeth (Eds.), Traumatic stress: The effects of overwhelming experience on mind, body, and society (pp. 129154). New York: Guilford Press. Moran, G. & Pederson, D. R. (1998). Proneness to distress and ambivalent relationships. Infant Behavior and Development, 21, 493503. Moss, E., Parent, S., Gosselin, C. & Dumont, M. (1993). Attachment and the development of metacognitive and collaborative strategies. International Journal of Educational Research, 19, 555571. Murray, L. & Trevarthen, C. (1985). Emotional regulation of interactions between two-montholds and their mothers. In T. M. Field & N. A. Fox (Eds.), Social perception in infants (pp. 177198). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Myhal, N. K. & Goldberg, S. (1994). Infant attachment and maternal perception of facial emotions. Unpublished manuscript, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario. Nichols, K., Gergely, G. & Fonagy, P. (2001). Experimental protocols for investigating relationships among motherinfant interaction, affect regulation, physiological markers of stress responsiveness, and attachment. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 65, 371379. Oldershaw, L., Walters, G. C. & Hall, D. K. (1989). A behavioral approach to the classication of different types of physically abusive mothers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35, 255279. Owen, M. T. & Cox, M. J. (1997). Marital conict and the development of infantparent attachment relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 152164. Patrick, M., Hobson, R. P., Castle, D., et al. (1994). Personality disorder and the mental representation of early social experience. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 375388. Pollak, S., Cicchetti, D. & Klorman, R. (1998). Stress, memory, and emotion: Developmental
466
considerations from the study of child maltreatment. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 811828. Rieder, C. & Cicchetti, D. (1989). Organizational perspective on cognitive control functioning and cognitive-affective balance in maltreated children. Developmental Psychology, 25, 382 393. Rochat, P. (1997). Social cognition in the rst 9 months. Paper presented at the Conference on Developmental Processes in Early Social Understanding, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Sagi, A., Grossmann, K. E., Joels, T., Scharf, M. & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1999). The Holocaust child survivors study: Attachment across generations, Part I: Some theoretical and methodological considerations. In A. Sagi (Chair), On the developmental sequelae of catastrophic holocaust childhood experiences across generations. Symposium conducted at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM. Sandberg, D., Lynn, S. J. & Green, J. P. (1994). Sexual abuse and revictimization: Mastery, dysfunctional learning, and dissociation. In S. J. Lynn & J. W. Rhue (Eds.), Dissociation: Clinical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 242267). New York: Guilford Press. Schore, A. N. (1996). The experience-dependent maturation of a regulatory system in the orbital prefrontal cortex and the origin of developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 5987. Schuengel, C., Bakermans-Kranengurg & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1999). Attachment and loss: Frightening maternal behavior linking unresolved loss and disorganized infant attachment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 5463. Schuengel, C., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H. & Blom, M. (1999). Unresolved loss and infant disorganization: Links to frightening maternal behavior. In C. George & J. Solomon (Eds.), Attachment disorganization (pp. 7194). New York: Guilford Press. Shield, A. & Cicchetti, D. (1998). Reactive aggression among maltreated children: The contributions of attention and emotion dysregulation. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 381395. Shiller, V. M., Izard, C. E. & Hembree, E. A. (1986). Patterns of emotion expression during separation in the Strange Situation procedure. Developmental Psychology, 22, 378382. Shipman, K., Zeman, J., Penza, S. & Champion, K. (2000). Emotion management skills in sexually maltreated and nonmaltreated girls: A developmental psychopathology perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 4762. Smith, J. W. (1977). The behavior of communication: An ethological approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Solomon, J. & George, C. (1999). The effects of attachment of overnight visitation in divorced and separated families: A longitudinal follow-up. In C. George & J. Solomon (Eds.), Attachment disorganization (pp. 243264). New York: Guilford Press. Solomon, J., George, C. & De Jong, A. (1995). Children classied as controlling at age six: Evidence of disorganized representational strategies and aggression at home and at school. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 447463. Spangler, G. & Grossmann, K. E. (1993). Biobehavioral organization in securely and insecurely attached infants. Child Development, 64, 14391450. Spangler, G. & Grossmann, K. E. (1999). Individual and physiological correlates of attachment disorganization in infancy. In J. Solomon & C. George (Eds.), Attachment disorganization (pp. 95124). New York: Guilford Press. Sroufe, L. A. (1983). Infantcaregiver attachment and patterns of adaptation in preschool: The roots of maladaptation and competence. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Minnesota symposium in child psychology, Vol. 16 (pp. 4181). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Sroufe, L. A. (1996). Emotional development: The organization of emotional life in the early years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Steele, M., Steele, H. & Fonagy, P. (1996). Associations among attachment classications of mothers, fathers, and their infants: Evidence for a relationship-specic perspective. Child Development, 67, 541555. Stern, D. N. (1985). The interpersonal world of the infant: A view from psychoanalysis and developmental psychology. New York: Basic Books. Sweet, S. D., McGrath, P. J. & Symons, D. (1999). The roles of child reactivity and parenting context in infant pain response. Pain, 80, 655661.
467
Terr, L. C. (1991). Childhood traumas: An outline and overview. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 1020. Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of denition. In N. A. Fox (Ed.), The development of emotion regulation: Biological and behavioral considerations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(23, Serial No. 240). Thompson, R. A. & Caulkins, S. D. (1996). The double-edged sword: Emotion regulation for children at risk. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 163182. Tronick, E. Z. (1989). Emotions and emotional communication in infants. American Psychologist, 44, 112119. Tronick, E. Z., Als, H. & Adamson, L. (1979). Structure of early face-to-face communicative interactions. In M. Bullowa (Ed.). Before speech (pp. 349372). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tronick, E. Z., Ricks, M. & Cohn, J. (1982). Maternal and infant affective exchange: Patterns of adaptation. In T. Field & A. Fogel (Eds.), Emotion and early interaction (pp. 83100). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tronick, E., Cohn, J. & Shea, E. (1986). The transfer of affect between mothers and infants. In I. Brazelton & T. Berry (Eds.), Affective development in infancy (pp. 1126). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. van der Kolk, B. A. (1989). The compulsion to repeat the trauma: Re-enactment, revictimization, and masochism. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 12, 389411. van der Kolk, B. A. (1996). The complexity of adaptation to trauma: Self-regulation, stimulus discrimination, and characterological development. In B. A. van der Kolk, A. C. McFarlane & L. Weisaeth (Eds.), Traumatic stress: The effects of overwhelming experience on mind, body, and society (pp. 129154). New York: Guilford Press. van der Kolk, B. A. & Fisler, R. E. (1994). Childhood abuse and neglect and loss of selfregulation. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 58, 145167. van der Kolk, B. A., McFarlane, A. C. & Weisaeth, L., Eds. (1996). Traumatic stress: The effects of overwhelming experience on mind, body, and society. New York: Guilford Press. van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1995). Adult attachment representations, parental responsiveness, and infant attachment: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the Adult Attachment Interview. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 387403. van IJzendoorn, M. H., Schuengel, C. & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (1999). Disorganized attachment in early childhood: Meta-analysis of precursors, concomitants, and sequelae. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 225249. Wasserman, G. A., Green, A. & Allen, R. (1983). Going beyond abuse: Maladaptive patterns of interaction in abusing motherinfant pairs. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 22, 245252. Watson, J. S. (1979). Perception of contingency as a determinant of social responsiveness. In E. Thoman (Ed.), The origins of social responsiveness (pp. 3364). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Watson, J. S. (1985). Contingency perception in early social development. In T. M. Field & N. A. Fox (Eds.), Social perception in infants (pp. 157176). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Wolfe, D. A., Sas, L. & Wekerle, C. (1994). Factors associated with the development of posttraumatic stress disorder among child victims of sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 18, 3750. Zanarini, M. C., Williams, B. S., Lewis, R. E., Reich, R. B., Vera, S. C., Marino, M. F., Levin, A., Yong, L. & Frankenburg, F. R. (1997). Reported pathological childhood experiences associated with the development of borderline personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 11011106. Zeanah, C. H., Danis, B., Hirshberg, L., Benoit, D., Miller, D. & Heller S. S. (1999). Disorganized attachment associated with partner violence: A research note. Infant Mental Health Journal, 20, 7786.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by Doctoral Fellowships for the rst two authors from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, by a Postdoctoral Fellowship for the rst author from the Ontario Mental Health Foundation, and by research grants to the third and fourth authors from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Health Canada, and the Ontario Mental Health Foundation.

Disorg Attachment Socialization

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Disorg Attachment Socialization

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Emotion Socialization as a Framework for Understanding the Development of Disorganized Attachment

Carey Anne DeOliveira et al.

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Disorganized Attachment and Emotion Socialization

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Carey Anne DeOliveira et al.

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Disorganized Attachment and Emotion Socialization

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Carey Anne DeOliveira et al.

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Disorganized Attachment and Emotion Socialization

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Carey Anne DeOliveira et al.

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Disorganized Attachment and Emotion Socialization

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Carey Anne DeOliveira et al.

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Disorganized Attachment and Emotion Socialization

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Carey Anne DeOliveira et al.

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Disorganized Attachment and Emotion Socialization

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Carey Anne DeOliveira et al.

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Disorganized Attachment and Emotion Socialization

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Carey Anne DeOliveira et al.

Maternal Interpersonal Functioning and Emotion Regulatory Style

Infant Temperament/ Biological Factors

Development of Generalized Emotion Regulatory Style

Infant Emotions and Emotion-relevant Behavior in Interactions

Figure 1. An interactive framework of emotion socialization.

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Disorganized Attachment and Emotion Socialization

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Carey Anne DeOliveira et al.

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Disorganized Attachment and Emotion Socialization

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Carey Anne DeOliveira et al.

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Disorganized Attachment and Emotion Socialization

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Carey Anne DeOliveira et al.

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Disorganized Attachment and Emotion Socialization

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Carey Anne DeOliveira et al.

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Disorganized Attachment and Emotion Socialization

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Carey Anne DeOliveira et al.

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Disorganized Attachment and Emotion Socialization

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Carey Anne DeOliveira et al.

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Disorganized Attachment and Emotion Socialization

Social Development, 13, 3, 2004

Carey Anne DeOliveira et al.