0%(1)0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (1 suara)
448 tayangan25 halaman
Book: Attachment Across the Life Cycle
Chapter 8
Mary Main
Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring, and singular (coherent) vs. multiple (incoherent) models of attachment
Judul Asli
Main 1991 Metacognitive Knowledge Metacognitive Monitoring and Singular vs Multiple Models of Attachment
Book: Attachment Across the Life Cycle
Chapter 8
Mary Main
Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring, and singular (coherent) vs. multiple (incoherent) models of attachment
Hak Cipta:
Public Domain
Format Tersedia
Unduh sebagai PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
Book: Attachment Across the Life Cycle
Chapter 8
Mary Main
Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring, and singular (coherent) vs. multiple (incoherent) models of attachment
Hak Cipta:
Public Domain
Format Tersedia
Unduh sebagai PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
Edited by Colin Murray Parkes, Joan Stevenson!inde and Peter Marris
"irst #ublished $%%$ by &outled'e $$ (e) "etter Lane, London, EC*P *EE Simultaneously #ublished in the +SA and Canada by &outled'e ,% -est ./th Street, (e) 0ork, (0 $111$ 2his edition #ublished by in the 2aylor 3 "rancis eLibrary, ,11$4 Part 55 Cha#ter 6 Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring, and singular (coherent) vs. multiple (incoherent) models of attachment 7##4 $,8$/%9 "indin's and directions for future research Mary Main #4 $,: 2his cha#ter concerns some #otential relations bet)een metaco'nitive kno)led'e, metaco'nitive functionin', and #rocesses related to attachment4 "ollo)in' a revie) of recent )ork concernin' metaco'nition, re#resentation, and mental models, 5 su''est that difficulties )ith the ;a##earance reality; distinction and the dual codin' of sin'le entities )ill make a youn' child vulnerable to res#ondin' to unfavourable attachment e<#eriences by develo#in' ;multi#le 7conflictin' or incom#atible9 models; of attachment4 5 ne<t discuss individual differences in the narratives )hich adults #roduce durin' structured, hourlon' intervie)s re'ardin' their o)n attachment histories4 -hen a #arent #resents a coherent sin'ular model of her attachment history, the infant is ty#ically =ud'ed ;secure; on the basis of its behavioural res#onse to that #arent in a structured #4 $,8 se#arationandreunion observation4 -hen a #arent #resents instead incoherent, multi#le models of her e<#eriences and its influence, or im#lausible ideation, the infant is ty#ically =ud'ed insecure in this observation4 >ur #ilot studies are indicatin' relatively advanced metaco'nitive monitorin' in secure children, difficulties )ith accessin' early memories in insecure children, and, as e<#ected, failure to com#rehend the #rivacy of thou'ht in :yearolds =ud'ed insecureambivalent )ith mother4 "inally, 5 su''est some directions for further research4 5n a series of recent studies, behaviourbased assessments of individual differences in the infant;s res#onse to se#aration from and reunion )ith the #arent in the Ains)orth Stran'e Situation 7Ains)orth et al.$%869 have been com#ared )ith individual differences in both the #arent;s re#resentations of his or her attachment history, and the child;s later re#resentations of attachment related situations4 2hese studies 7e4'4 Main et al4 $%6/ have sho)n si'nificant relations bet)een the ?uality of the infant;s attachment to the #arent 7secure, insecureavoidant, insecureambivalent, insecuredisor'ani@edAdisoriented9 and 7$9 the adult;s reconstruction of his or her attachment history, as )ell as 7,9 the child;s later re#resentation of self and others4 #4 $,6 2he connections bet)een behaviourbased infant attachment assessments and attachmentrelated re#resentations seen in these studies are diverse, and can be considered in several )ays4 At one level, re#resentational res#onses may sim#ly echo or ;reflect; some com#onent of the behavioural res#onses ori'inally used to identify the cate'ory4 &e#resentations directly reflective of e<#erience andAor the behaviours used to identify the cate'ory are demonstrated )hen a .yearold =ud'ed secure )ith mother on the basis of #ositive res#onses to reunion )ith her #ortrays similarly #ositive reunion res#onses in a dollfamily 7Bretherton et al. in #ress9, or )hen a :yearold )ho )as =ud'ed avoidant of #ro<imity and contact )ith the mother in the Stran'e Situation later dra)s a family lackin' in arms 7Ba#lan and Main $%6%94 At a more com#le< level, )e can also see a reflective matchin' in the connection established bet)een, e4'4, a #arent;s #ro#ensities to be ;Cismissin' of Attachment; durin' the Adult Attachment 5ntervie), and the infant;s tendency to ;dismiss; 7avoid and i'nore9 the #arent in the Ains)orth Stran'e Situation 7Main and Dold)yn in #ressE Ains)orth and Eichber' in this volume94 &e#resentational vs4 metare#resentational #rocesses can be rou'hly distin'uished in terms of thinking vs4 thinking about thought, or, at a dee#er level, #ossessin' a mental re#resentation of an e<#erience vs4 bein' able to reflect on its validity, nature, and source4 "or individuals differin' in attachment or'anisation, 5 su''est that metare#resentational 7metaco'nitive9 #rocesses may differ as strikin'ly as those re#resentational #rocesses )hich seem sim#ly to reflect the infant behaviour #atterns ori'inally identifyin' #lacement in a 'iven attachment cate'ory4 2he mental #rocesses of secure individuals may then be distin'uished from those of insecure individuals not only in terms of their content, but also in terms of their flexibility and readiness for examination4 2he essay o#ens )ith a discussion of re#resentation, internal )orkin' models, and ;multi#le; models of attachment fi'ures and attachmentrelated situations, follo)ed by a brief revie) of recent literature concernin' early metaco'nition4 5 then e<amine the hy#othesis that the youn' child;s failure to have ac?uired certain as#ects of the ;a##earancereality; distinction, and her difficulty )ith the dualcodin' of sin'le entities, may make her #articularly vulnerable to develo#in' ;multi#le; 7conflictin'Aincom#atible9 models in res#onse to the unfavourable attachmentrelated events4 2he basis of this hy#otheses is a relatively recent literature in metaco'nition, )hich su''ests that children under the a'e of . do not understand the merely re#resentational nature of their o)n 7or other;s9 thinkin', because they are as yet unable to o#erate u#on 7or ;metare#resent;9 it4 (ot havin' a metaco'nitive distinction bet)een a##earance and reality available, they are unable to ima'ine that some #ro#ositions are in fact )ithout validityE that some individuals believe thin's )hich are not trueE and that they themselves may have false beliefs at #resent or may have #4 $,% harboured false beliefs in the #ast4 2hese as#ects of metaco'nitive kno)led'e have im#ortant conse?uences for socialemotional develo#ment 7"lavell et al. $%6:9, and have usually been mastered by a'e :4 "ollo)in' the above discussion of #otential relations bet)een metaco'nition and vulnerability to the creation of multi#le models of attachment durin' childhood, 5 turn to the differin' narratives #roduced by adults in res#onse to the Adult Attachment 5ntervie) 7Deor'e et al. $%6/94 2he most strikin' feature of the narrative #roduced by a #arent )hose infant is =ud'ed secure )ith him or her in the Ains)orth Stran'e Situation is its coherence. 2his coherence a##ears both in an analysis based u#on Drice;s ;ma<ims; )ith res#ect to coherence of discourse 7Drice $%8/9, and in terms of overall #lausibility, and su''ests that the adult is )orkin' )ith a sin'ular model of his or her attachmentrelated e<#eriences 7cf4 JohnsonLaird $%6.94 Parents of insecure infants, in contrast, #resent ;multi#le; models of attachmentrelated e<#eriences, andAor strikin' la#ses in #lausibility4 2hese studies link the coherence of a onehour narrative concernin' an adult;s attachment history to an e<ternal criterion F the infant;s res#onse to that adult as a #arent in a stressful situation 7Main and Dold)yn in #ress9, and, relatedly, the #arent;s behaviour to)ard the infant 7Cro)ell and "eldman $%6694 5n the fourth section of this essay 5 e<amine the #ro#osal that children =ud'ed secure )ith the #arent7s9 are likely, on avera'e, to be more advanced than insecure children )ith res#ect to metaco'nitive kno)led'e and metaco'nitive monitorin' of attachmentrelated e<#eriences4 "or youn' children, these e<#eriences are e<#ected not only to influence the develo#ment of certain firstorder re#resentations 7in #hiloso#hical terms4 #ro#ositional attitudes such as ;5 believe that 5 am an un)orthy #erson;9, but may also influence the child;s ability to create and mani#ulate second order re#resentations 7metare#resentations9 such as ;5 find myself believin' that 5 am an un)orthy #erson F )hyG;4 5n other )ords, e<#eriences )ith the #arents may not only alter the contents of the youn' child;s mind, but may also alter her ability to operate upon those contents. Pilot studies su''estin' su##ort for this hy#othesis are revie)ed, and the essay ends )ith some su''estions for future studies4 REPRESEN!"#N, "NERN!$ %#R&"N' M#(E$S, !N( )M*$"P$E) M#(E$S + !N #,ER,"E% #- RE.EN $"ER!*RE Representation 2he recent interest in the connections bet)een attachment and attachment re#resentation leads naturally to a concern )ith the nature of re#resentation itself4 2he ob=ective of this section is to revie) some recent )ork involvin' #4 $.1 mental re#resentation and metaco'nition, )ith a vie) to considerin' the conce#t of the ;internal )orkin' model; and differences observed in the coherence of that model across individuals4 A first distinction bet)een re#resentations is that bet)een re#resentational artifacts 7such as dra)in's, or intervie) transcri#ts9 and the internal #rocesses )hich they are #resumed to re#resent 7Mandler $%6.94 Althou'h )e infer the nature of a child;s or adult;s internal re#resentations of attachment from her re#resentational artifacts, it is the internal re#resentation itself )hich is of interest to attachment theorists4 2)o initial ?uestions are: 7$9 -hat is the form 7or forms9 taken by internal re#resentation, and, relatedly, 7,9 should )e #resume that thinkin' unfailin'ly follo)s the rules of formal lo'icG 2he continuin' dialo'ue amon' #hiloso#hers, com#uter scientists, and #sycholo'ists indicates that the form taken by internal re#resentations remains unkno)n4 2hus, it is at #resent undetermined )hether thinkin' 7and by im#lication, the ;internal )orkin' model;9 is entirely reducible to #ro#ositions 7"odor $%86E Pylyshyn $%6*9, or mental ima'ery 7Bosslyn $%6.9, or )hether thou'ht of both or several kinds is #ossible 7Paivo $%8$E see also Anderson $%6.94 >ne of the most interestin' recent accounts of mental modellin' has deem#hasised the role #layed by syllo'istic lo'ic in individual com#rehensions of reality4 JohnsonLaird 7$%6.9 #ro#oses that there are at least three ma=or kinds of re#resentations, or ;o#tions for encodin' information;: #ro#ositional re#resentations, ima'es, and mental models4 JohnsonLaird;s conce#t of the mental model is closely tied to Craik;s ;)orkin' model; 7$%*.9, and emer'ed from his efforts to make sense of the kinds of e<#licit and im#licit inferences #eo#le make in #roblemsolvin' tasks, e4'4 in the mani#ulation of syllo'isms4 An e<amination of the #atternin' of sub=ect errors convinced him that individuals ultimately develo# an inte'rated set of ;#ictures; of the #remises )hich is then submitted to a Po##erianlike test to determine )hether there is any )ay of inter#retin' the #remises that is consistent )ith a denial of the conclusion4 2his is not to say that reasonin' does not sometimes take the form of #ro#ositional lo'ic, but that reasonin' can also take #lace )ithout usin' formal lo'ic, by usin' mental models4 Althou'h much of the research discussed by JohnsonLaird consists in the study of sub=ects; shortterm res#onses to e<#erimental situations, his more 'eneral discussion is fre?uently focused u#on Craik;s broader conce#t4 2hinkin' utilisin' ;mental models; )ith res#ect to attachment mi'ht therefore be e<#ected to follo) a similar #ath4 2)o further issues concernin' use are 7$9 limits on rationality and 7,9 the relation bet)een #erformance on tests of lo'ic and familiarity )ith the contents4 As most #sycholo'ists are no) a)are, the ma=ority of adult sub=ects make systematic reasonin' errors under some conditions, or may #4 $.$ en'a'e in ;ma'ical thinkin'; re'ardin' materially im#ossible sym#athetic conta'ions amon' ob=ects 7-ason and JohnsonLaird $%8,E Bahneman and 2versky $%6,E &o@in et al.$%6:94 5n the discussion of the #otential relations bet)een reasonin' and security status )hich mi'ht be uncovered in future e<#eriments 7belo)9, )e should remain a)are that some errors in reasonin' should be e<#ected in even the most secure and intellectually so#histicated of sub=ects4 5n addition, if thinkin' about human relationshi#s resembles other forms of thinkin' 7)hich it #robably does F see Case $%6/9, then some errors in reasonin' re'ardin' attachmentrelated issues should also be e<#ected4 "inally, some recent investi'ations su''est that individuals #erform more effectively on tests )hich #resumably involve abstract lo'ic if they are familiar with the contents 7JohnsonLaird, et al. $%8,E -ason and JohnsonLaird $%8,94 Similarly, Pia'et has fre?uently ar'ued that formal o#erations are most likely to develo# in areas for )hich an individual has considerable e<#erience of concrete o#erations4 2his relation of 'oodness of reasonin' to familiarity of content is of s#ecial interest, since it bears u#on the )ay in )hich adult reasonin' re'ardin' attachmentrelated issues may de#end u#on ade?uate com#rehension of earlier e<#erience4 "nternal working models Bo)lby 7$%8.9, follo)in' Craik 7$%*.E as see Bretherton $%6/9, has selected the term ;internal )orkin' model; to describe the individual;s internal re#resentation of the )orld, his attachment fi'ures, himself, and the relations amon' them4 Amon' other thin's, the internal )orkin' model is e<#ected to contain a rou'handready sketch of the environment and the self )hich can be mentally mani#ulated #rior to undertakin' #ossible future action4 2he internal )orkin' model is conceived as an inte'ral and necessary com#onent of the attachment behavioural system 7see Bretherton;s dia'rammatic sketch re #lacement of the internal )orkin' model in relation to the attachment behavioural system 7Bretherton $%6/: $1994 At a broader level, the internal )orkin' model must contain multi#le re#resentations )hich reference not only direct e<#eriences re'ardin' the attachment fi'ure, but also conce#ts of the self )hich are derived from such e<#eriences 7Bo)lby $%8.: Bretherton $%6/94 -ith res#ect to attachment fi'ures, for e<am#le, the model should contain information re'ardin' )ho the attachment fi'ure7s9 areE )here they are currently locatedE and ho) likely they are to res#ond to bids for access4 As noted above, it is clear that some model of the )orld must e<ist in individuals ca#able of #lannin' and re#resentin' actions 7Bo)lby $%8.E Craik $%*.E see also Cennett $%86E JohnsonLaird $%6.94 2he term stands for the fact that )e have models of the )orld )hich enable us to act in ne) situations )ithout rethinkin' each #4 $., situation from the be'innin'E )hich may be mentally mani#ulatedE )hich are in #art the #roduct of e<#erienceE and )hich may be in #art unconscious4 5t is )hen )e attem#t to assess an individual;s ;internal )orkin' model; of someone or somethin' on the basis of his or her re#resentational artifacts, or describe systematic differences in the thinkin' of individuals, that )e become most a)are of the difficulties )ith any literal inter#retation of the conce#t4 5n contrast to the ;inte'ration of information relevant to attachment; seen in secure children and adults 7Main et al. $%6/9 is the incoherence and lack of inte'ration of, or lack of access to, information seen in those )ho are insecure )ith res#ect to attachment4 Pressed to describe and evaluate their attachment e<#eriences and relations, insecure individuals fre?uently #resent a =umble of contradictory thou'hts, feelin's, and intentions )hich can only loosely be described as a ;model;4 As used to characterise an insecure individual;s conce#tualisations re'ardin' attachment, then, the term ;internal )orkin' model; is only a ;conce#tual meta#hor; 7Bretherton $%6/9 and may be some)hat misleadin'4 Multiple models 2o account for incoherence of ideation re'ardin' attachment in troubled individuals and, in e<treme cases, for some forms of #sycho#atholo'y, Bo)lby 7$%8.9 introduced the term ;multi#le models;, a term that su''ests models )hich are contradictory or incom#atible in that both or several could not be true at one time4 An e<am#le of multi#le models )ould be contradictory ideas re'ardin' attachment fi'ures and the self, or re'ardin' the e<istence, nature, and inter#retation of attachment related events4 Accordin' to Bo)lby, ;the hy#othesis of multi#le models, one of )hich is hi'hly influential but relatively or com#letely unconscious, is no more than a version, in dynamic terms, of "reud;s hy#othesis of a dynamic unconscious; 7Bo)lby $%8.: ,1/94 Bo)lby;s usa'e of the term ;multi#le models; is not, of course, intended to reference the multi#licity, embeddin', and hierarchy of mental models )hich inevitably characterises normal mental life4 2hat an adult mind may contain models of diverse as#ects of reality, as )ell as models of itself and #ossible realitiesE that some models are contained )ithin, or contain othersE that hierarchies of models of increasin' de'rees of abstraction e<ist 7Stern;s &5DS F &e#resentations of 5nteractions )hich are Deneralised F may #rovide the basic levelE see Stern $%6/: $$*9E that conte<t affects models, and levels of abstraction or embeddedness interact is taken for 'ranted4 2hus, Bo)lby;s conce#t of multi#le models refers not to the diversity of models of differin' #arts or as#ects of reality 7includin', of course, #ossibility9 mentioned above, but rather to multi#le and im#licitly contradictory models of the same as#ect of reality4 5t refers, in short, to multi#le models of a thin' )hich ou'ht to have a sin'ular model4 #4 $.. Because it is sim#ler to discuss contradictions bet)een #ostulates than bet)een mental ima'es, for the remainder of this essay 5 shall discuss multi#le 7and sin'ular9 models of attachment in terms of propositions4 2his a##roach is taken for heuristic #ur#oses only: it does not im#ly that thinkin' about relationshi#s cannot take #lace in terms of mental ima'inin' or mental models4 Such #ro#ositions consist of t)o #arts: a #re#ositional attitude 7believin', ho#in', )antin', fearin', desirin'9 and a related content 7that my attachment fi'ure )ill res#ond #ositively to me )hen 5 a##roach her, that my attachment fi'ure dislikes me, etc494 ;Multi#le models; of attachmentrelated events )ould then be described as conflictin' #ro#ositions such as, e4'4, ;5 believe that mother is unfailin'ly lovin' and has al)ays acted in my best interestA5 believe that mother is ridiculin' and re=ectin' and does not consider my interests; 7an e<am#le of conflictin' contents9, or, ;5 fear that father )ill leave this familyA5 ho#e that father )ill leave this family; 7an e<am#le of conflictin' #re#ositional attitudes94 (ote that #re#ositional attitudes can be seen as instances of the recursive embeddin' of mental models )ithin mental models 7JohnsonLaird $%6.94 As 5 )ill sho) shortly, ho)ever, )hile youn'er thinkers have beliefs, ho#es, fears, and full #ro#ositional attitudes, they do not usually understand that re#resentations are e<#ected to be ;semantically evaluable; 7"odor $%689, i4e4 that any 'iven re#resentation is #resumed to have satisfaction conditions F conditions )hich may or may not be met in the )orld, but )hich are necessary to affirmin' the truthvalue of the #ro#osition4 Even thou'h the very youn' child reco'nises the distinction bet)een ;#retend; and ;real; entities 7Bretherton $%6*E Leslie $%689, then, it is only the older child )ho reco'nises that our understandin' of the ;real; )orld as )ell as the ;#retend; )orld is re#resentational and can in fact be counterfactual4 2hus, most youn' children fail to allo) for a distinction bet)een ;reality; 7)hich can never be directly com#rehended9 and our limited and diverse re#resentational 'ras# of that ;reality; as human bein's 7Bant;s noumenal #henomenal distinction94 And, as 5 )ill discuss later, because the youn' child )ill not look for counterfactual conditions, she )ill be be all the more vulnerable to the early develo#ment of multi#le models4 ME2AC>D(525>(, 2!E APPEA&A(CE&EAL520 C5S25(C25>(, A(C EA&L0 C5""5C+L25ES -52! 2!E ;C+ALC>C5(D; >" S5(DLE E(2525ES 2he term metaco'nition refers to co'nition as a tar'et of thou'ht, )hether declarative and stateable 7;5 kno) that false belief is #ossible;9 or, in a some)hat more mysterious sense 7see Marshal and Morton $%869, #rocedural4 7;5 am #resently multi#ly accessin' my multi#le co'nitions for contradictions and fallacies, )hich may lead to the si'nificant if unstateable #4 $.* intuition that 5 am in error;94 2he consideration of multi#le models of attachment leads directly to the to#ic of metaco'nition, since it is likely that )here multi#le contradictory models of the self or of e<#erience e<ist, either metaco'nitive kno)led'e has yet to develo# or there have been failures of corrective metaco'nitive monitorin'4 Metaco'nition as a to#ic in its o)n ri'ht )as dra)n to the attention of develo#mentalists by "lavell 7$%8%9 in an article entitled ;Metaco'nition and co'nitive monitorin': a ne) area of co'nitive develo#mental in?uiry;4 2he term metaco'nition has been described by Bro)n and her collea'ues 7Bro)n et al4 $%6.9 as referrin' to one;s ;kno)led'e and control of the domain co'nition; and more s#ecifically to knowledge about cognition 7e4'4 the a##earancereality distinction9 and the regulation of cognition 7e4'4 crosscheckin' for error94 2he regulation of cognition, or metacognitive monitoring, includes #lannin' activities, monitorin' them, and checkin' outcomes4 5t necessarily includes the selfre'ulation of kno)led'e )hich should occur )hen the thinker becomes a)are of contradictions bet)een #resently held ideas, a state )hich ideally ou'ht to lead to co'nitive reor'anisation 75nhelder et al. $%8*E Barmiloff Smith $%8%94 Bro)n #oints out that the notion, if not the term, has a lon' history, since Binet, fascinated by individual differences in his dau'hter;s styles of selfre'ulation, selected autocriticism as a central com#onent of intelli'ence 7Binet $%1%, cited in Bro)n et al4 $%6.: $$894 5n contrast to the re'ulation of co'nition, knowledge about cognition refers to the secondorder co'nition F a theoretically stateable secondorder or ;meta;re#resentation rather than the re#resentation itself4 2hus the sim#le #ro#osition, ;5 am an un)orthy #erson; is not an e<am#le of metaco'nition, )hereas the thou'ht that ;5 am a #erson )ho thinks that 5 am an un)orthy #erson rather fre?uently; is a secondorder re#resentation and an e<am#le of metaco'nitive kno)led'e4 Metaco'nitive kno)led'e is described by Bro)n et al4 as ;relatively stable, stateable, often fallible, and latedevelo#in' information that human thinkers have about their o)n co'nitive #rocesses and those of others;4 5t is, in fact, only )hen learners have ac?uired some a##reciation of the fallible nature of kno)led'e that they can consider their o)n co'nitive #rocesses as ob=ects of reflection4 Some critical as#ects of the ability to ste# back and consider 7one;s o)n9 co'nitive #rocesses as ob=ects of thou'ht and reflection is ac?uired by a minority of children by . years of a'e, and sim#le forms have been ac?uired by most 7but not all9 children by : years4 the a##earancereality distinction is an e<am#le of kno)led'e about co'nition )hich, as Bro)n notes 7Bro)n et al4 $%6.9, 'radually becomes relatively stable and stateable, but )hich is fallible 7one can be incorrect re'ardin' )hich is )hich9 and )hich is latedevelo#in' 7not bein' understood by youn' thinkers F even in sim#le form F until ty#ically around * years of a'e94 Bno)led'e of the a##earancereality distinction is an instance of the more #4 $./ 'eneral kno)led'e that the same ob=ect or event can be re#resented 7a##rehended, e<#erienced, etc49 in different )ays by the same #erson at different times, and can be re#resented differently by different #eo#le 7"lavell et al4 $%6:94 "or develo#mentalists, the a##earancereality distinction is the e<am#le of metaco'nition par excellence, since it is ;the distinction )hich #robably #rovides the intellectual basis for the fundamental e#istemolo'ical construct common to science, HfolkI #sycholo'y, reli'ion and myth, of a real )orld Hunderlyin'I and He<#lainin'I the #henomenal one; 7Braine and Shanks $%:/: ,*$,, cited in "lavell et al4 $%6:94 Ac?uisition of this distinction is #art of the ac?uisition of ;commonsense meta#hysics; 7"or'uson and Do#nik $%669, )hich holds that ;there is a sin'le )orld of ob=ects, events, states of affairs, #eo#le and other sentient bein's )hich 5 7and others9 e<#erience #erce#tually and think about, and that this )orld is inde#endent of the thou'hts and e<#eriences 5 and others have of it;4 5t is on this basis that children come to understand representational diversity 7)hat others kno), 5 may notE )hat 5 kno), others may notE )hat 5 or others think may be false9 and representational change 7)hat 5 thou'ht 2hursday, 5 do not think today, and may not think tomorro) 7Do#nik and Astin'ton $%66994 Most of these as#ects of metaco'nitive kno)led'e are available to :yearolds 7albeit in limited form F see Chandler 7$%6699, )hile most .yearolds have not ac?uired this understandin'4 5f the results of these e<#eriments can be a##ro#riately e<tended from the laboratory, then )e can #osit that belo) * years of a'e the child is not usually e?ui##ed to ?uery either her o)n re#resentations of reality or those offered by attachment fi'ures4 A related source of early vulnerability to multi#le models is the #ossibility that youn' children have s#ecial difficulty )ith the ;dualcodin'; of sin'le entities4 2he dualcodin' deficit hy#othesis has been advanced )ith res#ect to the ;one)ord; sta'e of lan'ua'e learnin' by Markman 7$%6*E see also Clark $%689 and is discussed )ith res#ect to the a##earancereality distinction by "lavell 7"lavell et al4 $%6:94 2he su''estion is that youn' children, )orkin' )ith an ;assum#tion of mutual e<clusivity; 7Markman $%6*9, are unable to fit the same item into t)o cate'ories at once F a seemin' disadvanta'e )hich may actually assist )ith early lan'ua'e learnin', )hen learnin' that somethin' is a ;do'; rules out that it could also be a ;cat;4 &esearch on children;s understandin' of social roles )ould also seem to bear out the notion that children e<#erience this ty#e of difficulty, since accordin' to one study .yearolds cannot see ho) the same #erson can be simultaneously a doctor and a father or both a father and a 'randfather 7-atson $%6*94 2he dualcodin' hy#othesis is closely related to the notion develo#ed by neoPia'etian theorists 7Case $%6/E "ischer $%619 that there is a limit to the number of #ro#ositions )hich the youn' child can mana'e simultaneously, and that #ro#ositions or re#resentations involvin' conflictin' or o##osin' #4 $.: emotions )ill be #articularly difficult to hold in )orkin' memory4 "or e<am#le, "ischer 7$%619 re#orted that youn' children have difficulty com#rehendin' that the same #erson can be both ;nice; and ;mean;4 5n a #articularly ele'ant recent study, !arter and Buddin 7$%689 )ere able to demonstrate that the 'reat ma=ority of *yearolds use allornone thinkin' re'ardin' emotions, and )ere unable to inte'rate sets of #ositive and ne'ative emotions either in 'eneral or )ith res#ect to a #articular tar'et, these emotions bein' vie)ed as conce#tually distinct and therefore incom#atible4 2!E APPEA&A(CE&EAL520 C5S25(C25>(, C+ALC>C5(D, A(C EA&L0 J+L(E&AB5L520 2> 2!E C>(S2&+C25>( >" ;M+L25PLE M>CELS; 0oun' children have al)ays been #resumed more vulnerable than older children and adults to unfavourable attachmentrelated e<#eriences4 Some reasons mentioned to date include the youn' child;s 'reater de#endence u#on others, her more easily activated and less easily modulated attachment behaviour, her less fully develo#ed understandin' of the conce#ts of s#ace and time, 'reater e'ocentricity, and increased vulnerability to en'a'in' in ma'ical thinkin' )ith res#ect to #layin' a causal role in mali'nant events 7Bo)lby $%6194 !o)ever, difficulties )ith the a##earancereality distinction and )ith the dualcodin' of sin'le entities #rovides us )ith still other reasons to sus#ect vulnerabilities to the creation of multi#le 7incom#atible9 models in res#onse to unfavourable events in early childhood4 ,ulnera/ilit0 to unfavoura/le interaction patterns Bo)lby 7$%8.9 has su''ested that unfavourable interaction #atterns )ith attachment fi'ures may render the youn' child vulnerable to the develo#ment of multi#le models of the attachment fi'ure, and, relatedly, to the develo#ment of multi#le models of the self4 5f )e consider this early vulnerability in the li'ht of the ne) literature concernin' metaco'nition, )e can see that the ability to o#erate u#on #ro#ositions, to embed )orkin' models, or to reco'nise alternative )orlds, is likely to lead to an advanta'e for the older as o##osed to the youn'er child in similar circumstances4 &elatedly, althou'h the )orkin' model of the self is #robably endan'ered by unfavourable interactions )ith an attachment fi'ure at any a'e 7;5 am a bad #erson, since my attachment fi'ure re=ects me;9, an older child F )ho has attained understandin' of the a##earancereality distinction and its corollary, re#resentational diversity F )ill be advanta'ed4 As o##osed to a youn'er child, this child can ;o#erate u#on; or metare#resent a #ro#osition such as ;5 am a bad #erson; as follo)s: 5 may be a bad #erson because my #4 $.8 attachment fi'ure seems to think so, but, on the other hand, she has been found )ith false beliefs in other circumstances;4 +nderstandin' that #eo#le may actually be e<#eriencin' a different emotion than the one they e<#ress 7!arris et al4 $%6:9, or that a s#eaker can deliberately lie 7-immer et al4 $%6*9 should also assist a /yearold in situations in )hich a .yearold remains vulnerable4 Both the ;dualcodin' hy#othesis; and children;s ne)ly re#orted difficulties )ith com#rehendin' the #ossibility of re#resentational chan'e add to our understandin' of the difficulties and vulnerabilities of the child )hose #arent is #rone to stron' and un#redictable chan'es in 7'oodAbad9 mood andAor res#onsiveness4 5f, for e<am#le, youn' children have difficulties )ith the dualcodin' of sin'le entities, then the e<#erience of e<tended interactions )ith an attachment fi'ure )hose behaviour is un#redictable and hi'hly conflictin' 7such as the insecure#reoccu#ied #arents of insecure ambivalent children F see Ains)orth et al4 $%86E Crom)ell and "eldman $%669 must make the develo#ment of an or'anised overvie) of that fi'ure es#ecially unlikely, and the develo#ment of multi#le models concernin' that fi'ure corres#ondin'ly 'reater4 -hile, at a clinical level, the youn' child;s vulnerability to the creation of multi#le models of attachmentrelated e<#eriences has lon' been reco'nised, the dualcodin' hy#othesis su''ests more s#ecifically 7a9 that insecure-ambivalent children )ill be es#ecially vulnerable 7b9 'iven difficulties in the codin' of e<#eriences )hich are in fact contradictory4 5n addition, difficulties in holdin' #ersonal re#resentational chan'es in mind 7;)hat 5 thou'ht yesterday 5 do not think today; F Astin'ton and Do#nik $%66E Do#nik and Astin'ton $%669 )ill still further increase the likelihood of the develo#ment of multi#le models for these children4 A child )ho has hi'hly contradictory e<#eriences )ith the same attachment fi'ure )ill be more likely to develo# and maintain an insecureambivalent attachment or'anisation if she is too youn' to remember #rior feelin's in the face of ne) and different e<#eriences4 ,ulnera/ilit0 to trauma A source of ;multi#le models; of s#ecial interest to Bo)lby is the #arent;s denial or distortion of traumatic interactions or events )hich have in fact been observed 7Bo)lby $%8.94 !ere the child may be #resented )ith at least t)o contradictory ima'es or memories 7both stored in lon'term memory, one )itnessed, one taken from the #arent;s #erha#s fre?uently offered verbal accountAdistortionAdenial of the event9, )hile bein' en=oined to reco'nise and remember only one4 5n a recent article 7;>n kno)in' )hat you are not su##osed to kno), and feelin' )hat you are not su##osed to feel;9 Bo)lby cites the )ork of Cain and "ast 7$%8,9 )ho studied */ children bet)een the a'es of * and $*, all of )hom had lost a #arent by #4 $.6 suicide and had become #sychiatrically disturbed, many of them severely 7Bo)lby $%6694 About one ?uarter had #ersonally )itnessed some as#ect of a #arent;s death and had been sub=ected to #ressure from the survivin' #arent to believe that they )ere mistaken in )hat they had seen or heard, and that the death had not been due to suicide but to illness or accident4 Cases Bo)lby cites include a 'irl )ho discovered her father;s body han'in' in a closet and )as told he died in a car accident, and t)o brothers )ho found their mother )ith slit )rists, but )ere told she had died by dro)nin'4 Cain and "ast concluded that many of the children;s #sychiatric #roblems 7includin' feelin's of unreality9 )ere directly traceable to e<#eriences of these kinds4 5n one set of studies of the a##earancereality distinction in youn' children, "lavell and his collea'ues 7"lavell et al4 $%6.9 su''ested that some difficulties e<#erienced in makin' these distinctions mi'ht be due to ;a s#ecific metaco'nitive limitation, namely, a difficulty in analysing the nature and source of their own mental representations; 7italics mine94 A recent study by Do#nik and Draf 7$%669, focused s#ecifically u#on children;s memory for source, su''ested that memory for the sources of beliefs or information is ac?uired only bet)een . and / years of a'e4 Do#nik and Draf found that in recallin' an event, most .yearolds )ere unable to distin'uish )hether their memory came from direct observations, inference, or from havin' been told about it by others, and their #erformance ty#ically did not im#rove )ith trainin'4 "ouryearolds )ere often initially able to remember the source of an item of information, but after only a brief delay they for'ot the source F )hile retainin' the information itself4 -hile memory for #ersonally im#ortant information may be less vulnerable than memory in brief laboratory e<#eriments to such sur#risin' omission of sourcemarkin', this findin' certainly su''ests that children under . )ill be more likely than older children to develo# multi#le models in res#onse to #arental misconstructions, denials, and dece#tions re'ardin' events the child directly )itnesses4 5f she is not able to mark the source of ;information; to'ether )ith the information itself, a child under . years )ho directly observes one thin' but is told somethin' else )ill be at the least e<tremely vulnerable to ;multi#le models; of the same event4 $ (ote in addition that )hereas an older child mi'ht not only remember the t)o diver'ent items to'ether )ith accurate markin' as to source, for the older child events )itnessed are also likely to have a 'reater ;truth value; than those inferred or told4 "or a child )ho does not yet com#rehend the #ossibly counterfactual nature of information, there is no evidence of a com#arable hierarchy4 Diven that the )ork in co'nitive develo#ment revie)ed here is so recent, it is not sur#risin' that attachment theorists have tended to em#hasise mental suffering as o##osed to co'nitive factors, as the #rimary e<#lanation for the early ;defensive e<clusion; of a 'iven idea from further #rocessin' 7as #4 $.% see Peterfreund $%8$E Bo)lby $%6194 !o)ever, )hile the recent )ork revie)ed here calls for increased attention to the role of co'nitive factors in the develo#ment of multi#le models of attachment, )e should bear in mind that attem#ts to avoid mental sufferin' can #robably lead to the same develo#ment as late as adulthood 7)hen, #resumable, neither dualcodin' nor the various a##earancereality distinctions #resent difficulty94 Particularly #oi'nant e<am#les of e<#eriences of multi#le models durin' adulthood involve loss of a child or s#ouse4 2hus, for e<am#le, $, of ,1 )ido)s in a 2okyo study re#orted difficulty believin' that their husbands )ere dead : )eeks follo)in' a road accident4 >ne re#orted that she )ould 'o to the tram)ay sto# at the hour her husband used to return home from )ork, and another )ould 'o to the door )hen she head a motorbike, su##osin' it to be her husband;s 70anomoto et al4 $%:%, cited in Bo)lby $%61: $./94 Althou'h individual differences in attachment or'anisation may have #layed some role in the develo#ment of incom#atible beliefs re'ardin' the s#ouse;s state as both alive and dead, the difficulty of fully acce#tin' the mental sufferin' attendant u#on a sudden loss is likely to have #layed the stron'est #art4 A22AC!ME(2&ELA2EC (A&&A25JES: C>!E&E(CE JS4 5(C>!E&E(CE 5( AC+L2 C5SC>+&SE P&EC5C2S SEC+&520 JS4 5(SEC+&520 >" 5("A(2 A22AC!ME(2 2he Berkely Adult Attachment 5ntervie) 7Deor'e et al4 $%6/9 is a structured intervie) re'ardin' an individual;s early attachment relationshi#s and e<#eriences, and evaluations of the effects of these e<#eriences on #resent functionin'4 As noted earlier, the coherence of the resultin' narrative has been found stron'ly linked to external criterion F namely, to the yearold infant;s res#onse to the structured se#aration and reunion e#isodes of the Ains)orth Stran'e Situation4 2hus, stron' corres#ondences bet)een adult and infant attachment cate'ories a##ear )hether the adult intervie) is conducted / years follo)in' the Stran'e Situation 7Main and Dold)yn in #ress9E only a fe) months follo)in' the Stran'e Situation 7Ains)orth and Eichber' in this volume9E or before the first child is born 7-ard et al4 $%6%94 5t a##ears therefore that )hen an intervie) focused u#on an individual;s history is a##roached 7a9 usin' not the individual;s retros#ective account as such, but rather coherence, cohesiveness and plausibility as the basic forms of analysis, 7b9 hy#otheses can be constructed re'ardin' the #redicted relation bet)een #articular forms of intervie) res#onse and infant#arent behaviour #atterns observed in other settin's4 2hese hy#otheses are 7c9 susce#tible to disconfirmation4 !ere, 5 first describe the Ains)orth Stran'e Situation and the four ma=or infant#arent attachment cate'ories4 5 ne<t describe the Adult Attachment #4 $*1 5ntervie), the four ma=or ;adult attachment cate'ories;, and the central forms of intervie) analysis4 he Strange Situation1 infant2parent attachment categories 2he Stran'e Situation is a structured laboratory #rocedure in )hich infants are observed res#ondin' to t)o brief se#arations from, and reunions )ith, the #arent4 2he #rocedure )as first utilised in con=unction )ith a yearlon' study of the interactions of a sam#le of ,: Baltimore infants and mothers 7:161 hours of observation #er dyad94 Stron' relations )ere found bet)een maternal behaviour in the home and infant res#onse to the laboratory #rocedure 7Ains)orth et al4 $%8694 5nfant res#onses to this situation are cate'orised as follo)s4 Secure (Group !. 2he infant sho)s si'ns of missin' the #arent on de#arture, seeks #ro<imity u#on reunion, and then returns to #lay4 5n the Baltimore study, this res#onse )as associated )ith maternal ;sensitivity to infant si'nals and communications; 7Ains)orth et al4 $%86E for a revie) of succeedin' studies see Bretherton $%6/94 "nsecure-avoidant (Group #!. 2he infant sho)s fe) or no si'ns of missin' the #arent, and actively i'nores and avoids her u#on reunion4 2his #attern )as associated )ith maternal insensitivity to infant si'nals, and s#ecifically )ith re=ection of attachment behaviour 7Ains)orth et al4 $%86E see also Main and -eston $%6$94 "nsecure-ambivalent (Group $!. 2he infant is distressed and hi'hly focused on the #arent, but cannot be settled by the #arent on reunion, often e<#ressin' an'er and seekin' contact in ?uick succession and 'enerally failin' to return to #lay4 5n Baltimore, this cate'ory )as found associated )ith maternal insensitivity and un#redictability of maternal res#onsiveness4 "nsecure-disorganised%disoriented (Group &!4 A recent revie) of videota#es of Stran'e Situation behaviour of many infants considered unclassifiable in the A, B, C system indicated that these infants in fact e<hibited a diverse array of ;disor'anised andAor disoriented behaviours; such as free@in' of all movement, or stereoty#es in the #arent;s #resence 7Main and Solomon in #ress94 Parental behaviour associated )ith the ;C; cate'ory is not yet kno)n4 Main and !esse 7in #ress9 hy#othesise that unresolved trauma may lead the #arents to be fri'htened andAor fri'htenin' at times, )hich )ould #lace the infant in a momentarily irresolvable conflict situation and could lead to disor'anisedAdisoriented 7;conflict;9 behaviours as outcome4 2o date, the continuin' study of individual differences in infant attachment or'anisation has sho)n inde#endence of A, B, C, and C cate'ories across #arents and other care'ivers4 2herefore, by ;the #arents of secure infants; 5 )ill mean only those individual #arents )ith )hom an infant has been =ud'ed secure4 , #4 $*$ he !dult !ttachment "nterview 2he Adult Attachment 5ntervie) is a structured, $/?uestion, semiclinical intervie) focusin' lar'ely u#on an individual;s early attachment e<#eriences and their effects and influences4 2o)ard the be'innin' of the intervie), the sub=ect is asked to choose five ad=ectives )hich best describe the relationshi# )ith each #arent durin' childhood4 2he sub=ect is then asked for e#isodic memories illustratin' each of these choices of ad=ective4 Later, the sub=ect is asked )hat she did )hen u#set durin' childhoodE to )hich #arent she may have felt closer, and )hyE )hether she ever felt re=ected or 7later9 threatened by the #arents in any )ayE )hy the #arents may have behaved as they didE ho) the relationshi# )ith #arents may have chan'ed over timeE and ho) these early e<#eriences 7includin' e<#eriences of ma=or loss u# to the #resent time9 may have affected adult functionin' and #ersonality4 2he techni?ue has been described as one of attem#tin' to ;sur#rise the unconscious;7Deor'e et al4 $%6/9, and a ?uick revie) of the intervie) format sho)s that it #rovides am#le o##ortunities for a s#eaker to contradict, or fail to su##ort, earlier or succeedin' statements4 Ces#ite the fact that many adults have had dis#arate e<#eriences )ith their differin' attachment fi'ures, a single classification for overall ;state of mind )ith res#ect to attachment; can be reliably assi'ned to each verbatim intervie) transcri#t 7Main and Dold)yn in #ress94 Jud'ements are made on the basis of an assessment of the coherence of the transcri#t and other as#ects of #resent state of mind rather than retros#ective re#orts4 Adults cate'orised as SecureAautonomous )ith res#ect to attachment ty#ically have infants =ud'ed secure )ith them in the Stran'e SituationE adults =ud'ed Cismissin' of attachment have avoidant infantsE adults =ud'ed Preoccu#ied by #ast attachments have ambivalent infantsE and adults =ud'ed +nresolved )ith res#ect to traumatic attachmentrelated events have disor'anisedAdisoriented infants4 7Jud'ements are of course made blind: see Ains)orth and Eichber' 7this volume9 for a more com#lete descri#tion of the adult cate'ories49 Because infant Stran'e Situation behaviour is #resumed ultimately reliant u#on #arental behaviour to)ards the infant in the home situation, the underlyin' association is bet)een the adult;s intervie) res#onses and the same adult;s behaviour to)ards the infant4 Cro)ell and "eldman 7$%669 tested this association directly by com#arin' Secure, Cismissin', and Preoccu#ied mothers in interactions )ith their #reschoolers durin' a toolusin' task4 Secure mothers )ere su##ortive and 'ave clear, hel#ful assistance4 Cismissin' mothers )ere less )arm: they focused on task com#letion and often seemed cool and remote4 Mothers in the Preoccu#ied cate'ory #resented the task instructions in a confusin' and dyssynchronouns manner4 5n kee#in' )ith Ains)orth;s ori'inal descri#tions of the mothers of Drou# C infants, these mothers )ere un#redictable in their res#onsiveness: #4 $*, at times )arm and 'entle, they )ere at other times coercive, an'ry, and #u@@led4 "nterviews with the parents of secure infants' (Singular( models of attachment-related events, and coherence of discourse 5n the ori'inal Bay Area study, the stron'est correlate of infant security of attachment to a 'iven #arent )as the overall ;coherence; of the #arent;s #resentation of 7his or9 her o)n attachment history4 2he #arents of the $1 very secure 7B.9 infants in this study )ere hi'hly coherent durin' the Adult Attachment 5ntervie), receivin' a modal score of 6 on the %#oint scale4 2hese #arents focused easily on the ?uestionsE sho)ed fe) de#artures from usual forms of narrative or discourseE easily marked the #rinci#les or rationales behind their res#onsesE and struck =ud'es as both collaborative and truthful4 Both #arents )ho seemed to have e<#erienced insecure or even traumatic childhoods, and #arents )ho en=oyed lovin' relationshi#s and stable circumstances had secure infants so lon' as they )ere coherent in describin', discussin', and evaluatin' the effects of their e<#eriences4 2he #arents of secure infants also 'ave the im#ression of havin' easy access to childhood memories: the modal score for the $1 #arents of the ;very secure; B. infants on insistence on lack of recall for childhood )as $ 7% is hi'h94 5n our first Bay Area study, )e identified a coherent transcri#t as one in )hich the =ud'e felt satisfied that her o)n assessment of the sub=ect;s e<#eriences and their effects )as very close to that )hich the sub=ect her self #rovided4 As a sim#le e<am#le, if the sub=ect described her #arents as acce#tin', the =ud'e found no contradictory evidence )ithin the transcri#t, and if the sub=ect described herself as #resently bein' relatively free of efforts to #lease the #arent, the =ud'e;s internal analysis of the intervie) led to a'reement4 >ur ori'inal definition of coherence as a##lied to the intervie) transcri#t )as then close to that recently offered by JohnsonLaird 7$%6.9, )ho su''ests that a necessary and sufficient condition for discourse to be coherent is that ;it is #ossible to construct a sin'le mental model from it;4 Coherent sub=ects seemed to be )orkin' )ith a sin'ular model, )hether of favourable or unfavourable e<#eriences and their effects4 An interest in the Adult Attachment 5ntervie) as discourse has led me to increasin' s#ecification of the rules for identifyin' coherent transcri#ts in terms of Drice;s ma<ims4 Drice 7$%8/9 formulated a 'eneral, overridin' #rinci#le of coherent conversation called the Coo#erative Princi#le4 Arran'ed beneath this su#erordinate #rinci#le are the four ma<ims of: ). *uality F be truthful, and have evidence for )hat you say4 +. *uantity F be succinct, and yet com#lete4 #4 $*. ,. -elation F be relevant4 .. Manner F be clear and orderly4 >f these, the ma<im of ?uality is taken as the most im#ortant4 5n the most recent edition of the Adult Attachment scorin' system 7Main and Dold)yn $%6%9 )e have attended to the above ma<ims in #rovidin' s#ecifications for ratin' ;coherence of transcript;4 -e are, ho)ever, a)are that a s#eaker can remain coherent )hile #referrin' not to ans)er our ?uestions, and, follo)in' Mura 7$%6.9, )e allo) for le'itimate ;licensin'; in violation of these ma<ims4 "or e<am#le, s#eakers can ;license; refusals to ans)er by sayin' they find a ?uestion too #ersonal or emotionally difficult )ithout bein' considered to violate the ma<im of ?uantity4 (ote that this licensin' still a##eals to the hi'her #rinci#le of ;bein' coo#erative; 7Mura $%6.94 "nterviews with the parents of avoidant and ambivalent infants' multiple models of attachment- related events, and incoherencies 5n our ori'inal Bay Area study, )e found that the #arents of A and C infants )ere relatively incoherent in their intervie) transcri#ts, e<hibitin' lo'ical and factual contradictionsE inability to stay )ith the intervie) to#icE contradictions bet)een the 'eneral descri#tors of their relationshi#s )ith their #arents and actual autobio'ra#hical e#isodes offeredE a##arent inability to access early memoriesE anomalous chan'es in )ordin' or intrusions into to#icE sli#s of the ton'ueE meta#hor or rhetoric ina##ro#riate to the discourse conte<tE and inability to focus u#on intervie) ?uestions4 5n addition, from an internal e<amination of the transcri#t =ud'es seldom a'reed )ith the sub=ects; descri#tion of their histories andAor their #resent attitudes and evaluations, su''estin' that in hour lon' intervie) these adults )ere e<hibitin' 7a9 multi#le models of their histories and attitudes )hile 7b9 seemin'ly intendin' to #resent a sin'ular model4 Earlier, )e summarised these transcri#t characteristics of the #arents of A and C infants as evidencin' difficulties in obtainin' access to attachmentrelated informationE in maintainin' organisation in attachmentrelated informationE and in #reventin' attachmentrelated information from under'oin' distortion 7Main and Dold)yn $%6*94 2he most interestin' emer'in' 7in#ro'ress9 findin' a##ear, ho)ever, to be more s#ecific: Parents of infants )ho have been =ud'ed insecure in differin' )ays 7avoidant, ambivalent, or disor'anisedAdisoriented9 durin' the Stran'e Situation a##ear to feature differin' ty#es of incoherence of discourse4 Briefly, )e find that the Cismissin' #arents of avoidant infants are usually distin'uished for their insistence u#on their inability to recall childhood4 Jiolatin' the maxim of /uality 7;5 have evidence for )hat you say;9, these adults often also seem to ;idealise; their #arents as sho)n in the use of #4 $** e<tremely favourable relationshi# descri#tors )hich are unsu##orted, or actively contradicted, by autobio'ra#hical memories4 . E<cessively succinct and conse?uently incom#lete in their res#onses, their transcri#ts often violate the maxim of /uantity4 As o##osed to #arents of avoidant infants, the Preoccu#ied #arents of ambivalent infants violate the ma<im of ?uantity throu'h failures to be succinct 7often #roducin' e<tremely lon' intervie) res#onses9, and violate the ma<im of ?uality in une<#lained oscillations of vie)#oint4 Jiolations of the maxim of relevance a##ear fre?uently in the form of tan'ential or irrelevant res#onse, in )hich the s#eaker occasionally a##ears to lose track of the intervie) ?uestion4 "inally, violations of manner occur in hi'hly entan'led, confusin', runon se?uencesE failures to use #ast markers in ?uotin' conversations )ith the #arentsE ra#id oscillations of vie)#oint )ithin or bet)een sentencesE unfinished sentencesE insertion of e<tremely 'eneral terms into sentence frames 7;sort of thin';, ;and this and that;9, and use of nonsense )ords or trailers as sentence endin's 7;dadadadadada;94 0ailures in plausibility and slippages in metacognitive monitoring' the relation between thought processes regarding loss of attachment figures through death and infant disorganisation Philoso#hers have traditionally differentiated bet)een t)o theories of truth: * a coherence theory of truth )hich relies u#on consistent internal coreference 7as see &ussell $%*69, and a correspondence theory to the real state of affairs in the e<ternal )orld 7see Bradley $%//E see also -itt'enstein $%:$94 "or s#eakers to receive hi'h ratin's for ;coherence of transcri#t;, they must be consistent or ;coherent; in terms of internal coreference4 !o)ever, in order to determine the overall plausibility of the sub=ect;s remarks F in other )ords, the likelihood of their corres#ondence to the state of affairs in the e<ternal )orld 7Main and Dold)yn $%6%9 F the =ud'e must be able to ste# outside of the internal boundaries of the intervie)4 2he recent develo#ment of a scale assessin' #lausibility )as thou'ht necessary because some s#eakers made statements )hich did not violate any internal coherence #rinci#le, but )hich seemed to violate our more usual or 'eneral understandin' of causality and of #hysical la)s4 >ther)ise coo#erative s#eakers )ho make illfounded statements are no) assi'ned lo) scores for #lausibility or, in our terms, for coherence of mind 7Main and Dold)yn $%6%94 2he best illustration of the use of this ne) scale is its #o)er to #redict infant #lacement in the ;C; Stran'e Situation cate'ory4 2he #arent of a disor'anisedAdisoriented infant is not infre?uently a moderately coherent s#eaker in terms of collaboration and coreference, )ho nonetheless makes hi'hly im#lausible statements re'ardin' the causes or conse?uences of #4 $*/ traumatic attachment related events such as loss4 5n these statements, the adult may indicate beliefs in ;ma'ical; causality surroundin' a death or other trauma, or subtly indicate a belief that a deceased attachment fi'ure is simultaneously dead and alive4 Such failures in the plausibility of #ortions of the transcri#t 7or, sli##a'es in the ;metaco'nitive monitorin' of reasonin';, as see Main and !esse in #ress and $%6%9 lead to assi'nment of the adult to the +nresolved adult attachment cate'ory, and to es#ecially lo) scores for overall coherence of mind 7see Ains)orth and Eichber', this volume, for e<amination of the relation bet)een adult +nresolved attachment status and infant Cisor'anised attachment status, and for es#ecially #oi'nant illustrations of such sli##a'es in other)ise )ellfunctionin' adults94 ME2AC>D(525JE B(>-LECDE, ME2AC>D(525JE M>(52>&5(D, A(C 5(C5J5C+AL C5""E&E(CES 5( A22AC!ME(2 >&DA(5SA25>( C+&5(D C!5LC!>>C Earlier, )e considered the )ays in )hich difficulties )ith the dualcodin' of sin'le entities and )ith the a##earancereality distinction could make a youn' child more vulnerable than an older one to develo#in' ;multi#le models; out of unfavourable attachmentrelated e<#eriences4 !ere )e consider a second, related, #ro#osal: because of the differin' nature of their e<#eriences, children )ho are securely vs4 insecurely attached to #rimary attachment fi'ures )ill differ )ith res#ect to both metaco'nitive kno)led'e and metaco'nitive monitorin'4 5n her ori'inal Baltimore study of infantmother interaction, Ains)orth found that %$,monthold infants )ho )ould later be =ud'ed secure in the Stran'e Situation )ere distin'uished for use of the mother as a ;secure base for e<#loration; in the home environment 7Ains)orth et al4 $%8694 Similarly, Main 7$%8., $%6.9 su''ested that secure children are more likely to be able to devote more attention to e<#loration 7or, more 'enerally, to ;e#istemic activity; see Case $%6/9 than insecure children, since less attentional monitorin' need to be devoted to the #arent4 2his hy#othesis received early su##ort )hen children =ud'ed secure vs4 insecure in relation to the mother at $, months of a'e )ere observed in e<#loratory #lay % months later 7Main $%8., $%6.94 Both the len'th of solitary #lay bouts, and the intensity 7concentration or undistractability9 of the child;s attention to her #lay durin' these bouts )ere #ositively related to security of attachment to the mother4 A recent Derman study com#arin' security of attachment to mother in infancy )ith #reschool behaviour at a'e / K in Dermany yielded similar outcomes, )ith secure children tendin' to s#end more time in solitary #lay 7#4 $1$9 and sho)in' far more concentrated F i4e4 undistracted or absorbed F #lay than insecure children 7Suess et al4 $%6%94 #4 $*: 2he child )ho does not have to monitor the #hysical and #sycholo'ical accessibility of #rimary attachment fi'ures may indeed have a 'reater attentional 7or )orkin' memory9 ca#acity than other children 7Main $%8.94 2here are, ho)ever, other reasons to e<#ect metaco'nitive functionin' to favour secure over insecure children4 2he secure child may also have more e#istemic ;s#ace; in )hich to revie) her actions, situations, or thinkin' #rocesses because her thinkin' #rocesses are not com#artmentalised4 2hus, insecurity of attachment may lead to the develo#ment of defensive thinkin' #rocesses F #rocesses )hich are likely from the first to distort, disor'anise, or limit access to memories, feelin's, intentions, and reco'nition of o#tions 7Main et al4 $%6/E Main and !esse in #ress94 Metaco'nitive monitorin' )ill almost certainly be more difficult )hen models are difficult to access, or )hen information is distorted or disor'anised, and )e should therefore e<#ect more sli##a'es4 5ndeed, since defensive andAor selfdeceivin' #rocesses are com#artmentalisin' #rocesses )hich act to se#arate feelin', attention, #erce#tion, and memory, they )ill inherently #lace limits on metaco'nitive monitorin'4 Securit0 of infant2mother 3 attachment related to self2directed speech in toddlerhood Perha#s the first e<amination of the relation bet)een security of attachment and an as#ect of behaviour ultimately related to metaco'nitive monitorin' consisted in an e<amination of s#ontaneous ;selfdirected; s#eech 'uidin' e<#loratory #lay in the ,$monthold toddlers #artici#atin' in the doctoral study described above 7Main $%8., $%6.94 As #redicted, selfdirected s#eech a##eared much more often in secure than in insecure toddles 7Main $%6.9, and )as often used to 'uide the toddler to the correct means to achievin' some end 7see Jy'otsky $%::94 "or e<am#le, )hile still seekin' an ob=ect on the couch, one secure child said ;-hereG Co)n there;, then successfully chan'ed her search strate'y to one of lookin' under the couch rather than on to# of it4 Another said ;(o 'o, try a'ain; as she failed to fit a s?uare sha#e throu'h a round holeE another said ;Put it here; in similar circumstancesE and a third advised herself ;Con;t #eekL;, a##arently tryin' to #ersuade herself not to 'et ahead of herself in turnin' #a'es of her book too ?uickly4 Spontaneous )metacognitive) remarks made /0 420ear2old children during a Separation !n5iet0 interview 5n con=unction )ith her doctoral thesis conducted at Berkley, Ba#lan 7$%689 #resented :yearolds )ith #ictured #arentchild se#arations, en?uirin' )hat the #ictured child )ould feel and do about the se#aration4 >ne of the central findin's of this study )as the difference in the a##arent #4 $*8 sense of a child;s behavioural o#tions in such situations4 Children )ho had been secure )ith mother in infancy )ere likely to offer constructive solutions to the #ictured child;s situation, )hile F even if they had 'iven elaborate detail to their descri#tion of the se#arated child as feelin' lonely or sad F insecure children tended to say that they didn;t kno) )hat the child could do4 Althou'h no formal e<amination of metaco'nitive functionin' )as undertaken in Ba#lan;s study, secure children more often s#ontaneously ackno)led'ed e<#eriencin' more than one feelin' at a time, and sho)ed an a)areness of ho) feelin's mi'ht chan'e de#endin' on the situation, e4'4 ;he mi'ht be sad if he is left alone, but ha##y if friends are there;4 Secure children also sometimes ackno)led'ed re#resentational diversity, e4'4 ;5 )as ha##y the first day of school, but this 'irl mi'ht be sad4 All kids are different;4 "inally, asked if the #ictured child mi'ht feel that he ;didn;t care;, another secure child res#onded H-ell, )ell, um, if he says he doesn;t care than means he does care;, differentiatin' bet)een ;)hat is meant and )hat is said; 7Ba#lan #ersonal communicationsE cf4 &obinson et al4 $%6.94 -ailure to comprehend the privac0 of thought in insecure2am/ivalent children at age 4 5n a recently com#leted #ilot study, )e intervie)ed a 'rou# of :yearolds re'ardin' their understandin' of both the nature and #rivacy of thou'ht4 2he intervie) be'an )ith the ?uestion, ;-hat is thou'htG;4 2he intervie)er then asked )here thou'hts are locatedE )hether the child had a thou'ht she often thou'ht, and, if so, )hat )as the nature of that thou'htE )hether anyone kne) )hat she )as thinkin' )hen they could not see or hear herE )hether she kne) )hat anyone else )as thinkin' in the same circumstances, and )hat thou'hts look like4 5ntervie) res#onses )ere com#ared )ith the child;s attachment classification )ith mother at : years of a'e, usin' the Main and Cassidy classification system 7$%6694 >ur s#ecific hy#othesis )as that insecureambivalent children )ould have difficulty in understandin' the #rivacy of thou'ht4 2his hy#othesis )as derived from already established connections bet)een the insecureambivalent infant attachment classification and the #arent;s Preoccu#ation )ith her family of ori'inE sli#s of the ton'ue su''estive of confusion bet)een self and the #arent durin' the Adult Attachment 5ntervie) in Preoccu#ied #arentsE and tendencies in these same adults to la#se into the #arent;s voice in recountin' #ast events 7Main and Dold)yn in #ress94 2o date )e have analysed results for $/ #ilot sub=ects: % secure )ith mother at : years, . insecureavoidantE and . insecureambivalent4 All of the children )ho )ere secure or avoidant )ith mother 'ave reasonable ans)ers to ?uestions re'ardin' the nature and #rivacy of thou'ht4 Most children 'ave ade?uate res#onses to the first ?uestion 7)hat #4 $*6 is a thou'ht9, and all located thou'hts in their brains, mind, or heads4 5n ans)er to )hether they had a thou'ht they often found themselves thinkin', most children 'ave cursory ans)ers or said no4 Avoidant children )ere restricted in their ans)ers and a##arently in their interest, )hile the secure children )ere more often thou'htful, fluid, and en'a'ed4 "or e<am#le, asked for a thou'ht she often found herself thinkin', one secure child said ;7>ften9 5 think, )hat;s the ans)erG;4 Asked to )hat, she re#lied, ;MuestionsL;4 Another secure child said that it )asn;t #ossible for #eo#le to kno) the thou'hts of other #eo#le, but that it remained a #ossibility for Dod4 5n kee#in' )ith our hy#othesis, )e found that all three of the insecureambivalent children 7and no others9 stated that others kne) )hat they )ere thinkin' )hen they could not see them 7;my mom N she;s #sychic N she kno)s 5;m thinkin' she )ouldn;t be so mean;9, and that they themselves had the same #o)ers 7;5;m #sychic too;94 2able 64$ #rovides an illustration of the res#onses of three :year olds, all secure )ith father in infancy, but currently =ud'ed avoidant, secure, or ambivalent )ith mother4 .hildren)s auto/iographical memor0 at age 67 as related to earl0 and concurrent securit0 of attachment to the mother &ecently, )e have been e<aminin' the s#oken autobio'ra#hies of $1 to $$yearold children in com#arison to both firstyear and concurrent childmother attachment classifications 7attachment or'anisation at $1 is estimated from a brief laboratory reunion #rocedure, usin' the si<thyear classification system develo#ed by Main and Cassidy 7$%66994 Children are first asked to s#eak an autobio'ra#hy for $1 minutes, )ith as little #rom#tin' or interru#tion as #ossible4 After)ards, children are asked for s#oken descri#tions of their three earliest memoriesE for visualisations of those memoriesE and )hether they ;see; themselves )ithin the visualisation 7an overvie) of our #rocedure is #rovided in 2able 64,94 >f the first $, cases informally analysed, % are stable in terms of a##earin' either secure 7B9 or insecure 7nonB9 )ith mother at both a'e #eriods4 >ur first analyses consist in a rou'h estimate of the overall coherence of the full transcri#tE the child;s overall a##arent access to com#leteness of memoriesE #resence or absence of early 7clearly #reschool9 memories of #ersonal e<#erience )ith accom#anyin' feelin'sE and #resence of a##arent metaco'nitive monitorin' of thinkin' or memory4 "or these first % sub=ects, coherence of transcri#t, access to memories, #resence and ?uality of #re school memories and metaco'nitive monitorin' a##ear stron'ly related to security of attachment to the mother4 At this #oint, only the stably secure and insecure children are bein' com#ared4 Considerin' coherence across the transcri#t as a )hole, only . transcri#ts )ere markedly to hi'hly coherent 7all secure children9, )hile . )ere hi'hly incoherent 7all insecure children94 -ith res#ect to the first ?uestion, 61 #er cent 7* out of /9 of the secure children but only ,/ #er cent 7$ of the *9 insecure children )ere able to offer a s#oken autobio'ra#hy, all but one : of the remainin' children havin' no a##arent s#ontaneous access to earlier memories4 >ne insecure child described recent events only, after statin' ;5 don;t remember much from third 'rade and second 'rade;4 Another attem#ted to be'in her autobio'ra#hy 7at a'e :9, but fell silent after seven lar'ely incom#leted sentences, her remainin' efforts bein' unsuccessful and marked by lon' #auses4 2he third )as unable to remember even events of the last month, res#ondin' ;5 can;t remember; to every ?uery4 2he #rom#ted memories she later briefly accessed a##eared confused: for e<am#le, one event )as first described as centrally concerned )ith her siblin's, but )hen asked to visualise the same event, she said they )ere not there4 #4 $*%, #4 $/1 1able 2.) Attachment to mother and metaco'nition at :: e<cer#ts from intervie)s re'ardin' the nature and #rivacy of thou'ht4 a "nsecure2avoidant with mother at 4 (!8) 3hat is a thought4 5 don;t kno)4 $an you tell me what a thought is4 Somethin' you think4 3here are thoughts4 5n your head4 &o you have a thought you often think4 (o4 (-epeat!. 0es, one4 3hat is that4 +h, cartoons4 3hat one4 7(ames cartoon character94 &o you often think about (cartoon character!4 0eah4 "s there anything else that you often think about4 (o4 -ell, sometimes4 Sometimes 5 think about eatin'4 &o other people know what you are thinking when they can(t see you4 (o4 5o4 1hey don(t know what you(re thinking if they can(t see you4 +hhuh4 6h-huh what4 2hey mi'ht, if they couldn;t see me, if 5 )as lost, they mi'ht kno) that 5 )as thinkin' that 5 )anted to 'o home4 &o you know what other people are thinking when you can(t see them4 (o (-epeat!. (o4 &o you know what thoughts look like4 5 can;t really describe them4 #re they like movies4 0eah4 Movies, cartoons, 174 0eah4 Cartoons4 "nsecure2unclassified9am/ivalent with mother at 4 (*9.8) 3hat is a thought4 2hat;s easy4 Somethin' you )ant, somethin' you ho#e you 'et, somethin' like that4 3here are thoughts4 5n the mind4 &o you have a thought that you often think4 Mm hm4 2he thou'ht is 4 4 4 that 5 don;t ever )ant to be alone4 1hat you don(t want to be alone4 Ever, ever, everL >r that 5 had somethin' )atchin' over me, and 5;m )atchin' over them4 Someone watching over you4 Somethin'4 &o other people know what you(re thinking when they can(t see you4 Mmhm4 0es4 2hey kno) )hat 5;m thinkin'4 3ho4 Somebody4 5 #romised 5 )on;t tell4 0ou;re 'onna tell my mom4 8ow do they know4 Easy4 5 think of them and then they think of me4 &o you know what someone else is thinking when you can(t see them4 0es4 3ho4 5 can;t tell4 &o you know what thoughts look like4 0EA!4 2hey;re bi' and round 7'estures94 Secure with Mother at 4 (:;) 3hat is a thought4 0ou think like, uh, you think like somethin';s 'onna ha##en and you don;t B(>-4 0ou think but you don;t kno)4 3here are thoughts4 2hou'hts are in your head4 &o you have a thought that you often think4 5 haven;t thou'ht so much4 (-epeat!. 0eah, um, sometimes 5 think )hat;s ha##enin' )ith my cousins4 Sometimes 5 think 5;ll ask my mom if 5 can 'o over to my friend;s house maybe4 But 5 don;t B(>- if it;s 'onna ha##en4 &o other people know what you(re thinking when they can(t see you4 (o4 (-epeat!. (o4 &o you know what other people are thinking when you can(t see them4 (o4 Maybe they aren;t even thinkin'4 1hat(s a possibility9 (:aughs!. 2!A2;S a thou'ht 7'estures, hand e<tended from elbo), #alm u#94 2hat;s )hat 5 2!>+D!24 2hat they mi'ht not be thinkin'4 &o you know what thoughts look like4 5 don;t kno)4 :ike movies4 Maybe4 3hat else do thoughts look like4 Like teeny little thin's 7'estures to sho) ho) tiny, closin' thumb and forefin'er9, and there;s all these teeny little thin's and like those are all the thin's in the )hole, )ide )orld4 All those tiny thin's you can think of4 1able 2.+ Berkeley Autobio'ra#hical 5ntervie) for $1$,yearolds a
All three boys )ere secure )ith father in infancy4 $4 5nt4 asks Ch4 to ;tell the story of your life, )hatever you think is most im#ortant to tell, startin' from as early as you can and 'oin' ri'ht u# to the #resent time4 5;ll kee# ?uiet and =ust listen, and 5;d like you to talk for ten minutes; 7sho)s clock94 7Prom#ts t)ice if needed for begin as early as you can, once for remember, start at the beginning and go on forward, . times for keep going to ten minutes if you can.! ,4 ;(o) 5;m 'oin' to ask you somethin' that may take you a minute tell me the first three thin's you can remember4; After Ch4 describes all three, 5nt4 asks Ch4 ;to close your eyes and try to see the thin's you told me about =ust try to look at that time you told me about, and tell me )hat you see;4 After all memories have been described as seen, 5nt4 names each memory and asks )hether Ch4 sa) herself )hen she looked, or )here she )as4 .4 ;(o) 5;d like you to tell me 7a9 the most im#ortant thin' that you ever did 4 4 4 7b9 the most im#ortant thin' that ever happened to you4 7c9 -hat )as your favorite thin' that you ever didG 7d9 4 4 4 that ever ha##ened to youG 7e9 -hat did you dislike most that you ever didG 7f9 4 4 4 that ever ha##ened to youG; *4 7a9 ;Can you tell me )hat Christmas is usually like )hat )ould be ty#ical over the years for you and your familyG 7b9 And no) can you tell me )hat ha##ened last ChristmasG 7c9 Can you remember ho) you felt last ChristmasG; /4 ;5;m 'oin' to ask you to 'ive me / )ords to describe yourself4; 7Prom#ts hel# Ch4 stay on track49 ;(o), could you tell me )hy you chose each of those )ords to describe yourselfG; 75f memories not s#ontaneously 'iven as Ch4 ends her attem#t, 5nt4 seeks su##ortin' memories a'ain before endin' intervie)49 5ote: 2his intervie) follo)s an unstructured )armu# #eriod4 2he 5nt4 is friendly, thou'htful, ?uiet, and res#onsive4 5nt4 makes fe) statements aside from the structured #rom#ts, thankin' Ch4 for her #artici#ation, or ans)erin' her direct ?uestions4 5n res#onse to our re?uest for ;your three earliest memories;, all / of the secure children #roduced at least one #reschool memory 7$11 #er cent9, but only , of the * insecure children did so 7/1 #er cent94 >nly in the case of the secure children did these memories involve #ersonal feelin's and e<#erience4 >ne secure child, for e<am#le, remembered hel#in' a ne) ste#mother #re#are dinner for the first time, a memory she reco'nised as #4 $/$ bein' ;not very im#ortant; but )hich to her )as ;real s#ecial;4 Another recalled bein' afraid to enter the Ooo;s ;#et snake; house )ith the rest of her nurseryschool class, ; ;cause 5 )as scared 4 4 4 and 5 )ent, 5 )ent and started cryin' and stuff;4 Later she 'ot back in line )ith the rest of the class, and ;nobody seemed to notice;4 S#ontaneous metaco'nitive monitorin' of thinkin' and memory )as observed in . out of the / secure children, but in none of the insecure children4 "or e<am#le, one secure child introduced his autobio'ra#hy by statin' that he didn;t remember most of )hat had ha##ened to him, but added that his #arents had told him a number of thin's4 Asked if he remembered his kinder'arten room he said, ;-ell, sort of, but that;s because 5;ve seen the kinder'arten room a'ain;4 !e became hi'hly en'a'ed on bein' asked )hether he ;sa); himself as he closed his eyes and ;)atched; scenes from his first memory: 0eah4 -ait )ait4 Sort of n not really, not e<actly my looks, but 5 am there4 Asked if he could visualise himself in a second memory 7hel#in' his ne) ste#mother #re#are dinner9, he re#lied: 5 don;t really see like see the #icture of myself, but 5;m ima'inin' myself enterin' the kitchen 5;m feelin' myself o#enin' the door, but 5;m not 5;m not lookin' at myself4 5;m =ust being myself4 Another secure child ?uestioned the reliability of her memory at times 7;5 don;t kno) if that;s ri'ht, but that;s the )ay 5 think of it;94 She stated further that she mi'ht have been inaccurate ; ;cause 5 don;t kno) if 5;m sure or not, ;cause 5 have to think of somethin';, im#lyin' early com#rehension of the fact that memory can be constructive rather than reconstructive 7Bartlett $%.,9, es#ecially )hen an individual is bein' #ressed4 .#N.$*S"#NS !N( S*''ES"#NS -#R -*R<ER S*("ES 2his brief essay has had several aims4 A first has been to introduce clinicians )orkin' )ith youn' children to a relatively ne) literature )hich may assist in e<#lainin' the youn' child;s vulnerability to constructin' conflictin' and incom#atible models of unfavourable relationshi#s and events4 A second aim has been to revie) ne) studies linkin' a #arent;s narrative accounts of her o)n attachment history to the infant;s behavioural res#onse to her in a mildly stressful situation, i4e4 to the infant;s attachment classification4 As 5 have indicated, the central feature of the narrative history #roduced by the #arent of a secure infant is its a##arent truthfulness, identified in terms of 7$9 its internal coherence and 7,9 its #lausibility4 5n investi'ations still in #ro'ress, the lifenarrative accounts offered by the #4 $/, #arents of avoidant, ambivalent, and disor'anised infants are emer'ed as featurin' several distinct ty#es of incoherence andAor im#lausibility4 2hese findin's tie to'ether the retros#ective clinical intervie) 7ty#ically considered the #rovince of #sychiatry and clinical #sycholo'y9, an emer'in' literature in discourse and co'nitive #sycholo'y, and the direct observation of behaviour4 Because s#ecific behaviour observations are #redicted to be tied to s#ecific intervie) analyses, any #articular hy#othesis F e4'4 that a #articular incoherence of adult narrative )ill be #redictive of a #articular form of infant or adult behaviour F can be invalidated4 &etros#ective accounts had #reviously been considered im#ermeable to scientific investi'ation, bein' in essence unfalsifiable4 "inally, our #ilot studies )ith youn' children im#ly considerable concordance bet)een security of attachment and 7$9 autobio'ra#hical memory, 7,9 reco'nition of the #rivacy of thou'ht, and 7.9 the metaco'nitive monitorin' of thinkin', memory, and action4 2he links a##earin' bet)een security of attachment and metaco'nitive functionin' in our #ilot studies are more )ideran'in' than )e had e<#ected, and may ultimately increase our understandin' of individual differences in the or'anisation and structure of autobio'ra#hical memory4 S+DDES25>(S ">& "+2+&E S2+C5ES 2he )ork revie)ed above su''ests several future research directions4 Some of the most com#ellin' can be summarised as follo)s4 ). Studies linking individual differences in various aspects of the appearance-reality distinction with children(s development in terms of attachment. &ecent studies of children;s understandin' of a##earancereality distinctions indicate considerable variation in individual functionin', )ith some children fully 'ras#in' a 'iven conce#t at ., )hile others have not yet 'ras#ed it by : 7Astin'tonet al4 $%6694 2his ran'e is in fact a strikin' as#ect of such studies4 5n li'ht;s 7$%8%9 study of ei'ht conce#tual #ers#ectivetakin' tasks in *yearolds, for e<am#le, scores )ithin the of ,,4 8 sam#le of /: children ran'ed from % to .8 7ma<imum P *19 )ith a mean At this early sta'e in the develo#ment of research in children;s metaco'nitive abilities, relatively little attention has been #aid to individual differences in functionin', e4'4 to stability of functionin' for individuals assi'ned a 'iven task, or even to ;synchrony; 7homo'eneity of functionin'9 across tasks of several ty#es 7but see "lavell et al4 $%6: and Do#nik and Astin'ton $%66 for some encoura'in' evidence94 5n order to usefully connect children;s attachment or'anisation to children;s understandin' or a##earancereality distinctions, )e )ould need to make some #ro'ress in assessin' stability as )ell as ran'e in individual differences4 #4 $/. Presumin' that sufficiently sensitive tests for individual differences in metaco'nitive functionin' had already been constructed, )e )ould certainly )ant to conduct concurrent assessments of attachment status and as#ects of metaco'nitive kno)led'e of metaco'nitive monitorin', as in our #ilot studies4 2hese are not, ho)ever, the most satisfyin' studies to conduct, because they do not #ermit us to determine )hether security has #ositively influenced metaco'nitive functionin', or metaco'nitive functionin' has #ositively influenced security4 5f on the average the youn' child;s state of relative metaco'nitive deficit does make her more vulnerable to unfavourable attachment related events, a child )ho is more advanced in metaco'nitive functionin' at a 'iven a'e )ill be less vulnerable to these events, and hence more likely to remain or even to become secure4 2o the e<tent that metaco'nitive functionin' develo#s inde#endently of early relationshi#s, then, )e may e<#ect that relative advancement may enable one child to )eather circumstances )hich )ould make a second child insecure4 >ne a##roach to this com#le< issue )ould be throu'h lon'itudinal studies )hich test re#eatedly for the child;s security )ith res#ect to #rimary attachment fi'ures 7assessed at the behavioural level9, the child;s overall re#resentational models of attachment 7assessed throu'h re#resentational #roducts such as dra)in's9, and the child;s metaco'nitive abilities and characteristics4 !ere )e could test not only for any concurrent associations bet)een attachment and metaco'nitive functionin', but also estimate the e<tent to )hich, e4'4, insecuretosecure chan'e in attachment or'anisation bet)een $ and $1 7note 89 is related to earlier advancement )ith res#ect to metaco'nitive functionin'4 +. Studies linking adult memory, reasoning, and epistemic workspace to adult attachment organisation. As )ould be e<#ected 'iven the hy#othesised connection bet)een security of attachment and a relatively )ideran'in' ca#acity for attentional monitorin' 7Main $%8.9, Mary Ains)orth has su''ested that security in adulthood may be associated )ith the ability to simultaneously attend to several tasks 7#ersonal communication, (ovember $%6%94 6 5n addition, a recent informal revie) of Adult Attachment 5ntervie) transcri#ts su''ests to me that the #arents of secure infants have ado#ted a more thorou'hly constructivist vie) of their o)n kno)led'ebase than have less secure adults 7see Chandler $%66 for a discussion of the a##earancereality distinction in its most com#lete or adult form94 2hese informal observations further underscore the #ossibility that, at least in some situations, there may be a some)hat 'reater #rocessin' ca#acity in )orkin' memory 7or in shortterm stora'e s#ace, see Case $%6/9 in more secure individuals and that these same individuals may o#erate )ith some)hat more so#histicated theories of kno)led'e4 2hese #ro#ositions could be directly tested, and the 'eneral relations amon' attachment, #4 $/* )orkin' memory ca#acity, and abstract reasonin' % could be estimated4 "inally F usin', for e<am#le, Bartlett;s schemas or &umelhart;s story 'rammars F it )ould seem interestin', if obvious, to conduct assessments of memory and reasonin' in both standard and attachmentrelated forms4 Q $%%$ Mary Main ACB(>-LECDEME(2S (ancy Ba#lan directed the #ilot studies described here4 Mclinda 2ravis conducted most of the child intervie)s, and Esther Chou assessed child#arent reunions4 5 am 'rateful to 5n'e Bretherton and &obbie Case for introducin' me to #arts of the literature revie)ed here, to -anda Bronson and Mary Ains)orth for criticism of earlier editions of this manuscri#t, and to Erik !esse for several contributions to its content4 (>2ES $ Conceivably, obtainin' contradictory information re'ardin' an event 7observedAheard9 at very early a'es could lead to mutual cancellin' of the items of information, so that only if ;)hat )as heard 7A9; and ;)hat )as observed 7B9; )ere a'ain connected could either event be accessed 7A can be activated only if B is activated, and vice versa94 2his kind of deadlock or ;malfunctionin' loo#;7JohnsonLaird $%6.9 may of course lead to mental #atholo'ies and may be of s#ecial interest to clinicians4 JohnsonLaird su''ests that consciousness may be needed to unlock such mental difficulties, but ho) could consciousness resurrect a deadlock such as this if stored in a very early memoryG Stern 7$%6/9 su''ests that the #atient;s clinically discovered narrative metaphor may #rovide the key to troubled early memories )hich cannot be directly accessed4 (ote that meta#hor could have a structurally correct relation to the ori'inal e<#eriences, and in this sense serve as an accessin' ;mental model;4 "ormal lo'ic )ould be of little hel# in unlockin' this kind of #atholo'ical loo#4 , 5n fre?uently )ritin' as thou'h attachment or'anisation )ere stable, 5 #resume that the reader is familiar )ith the #rinci#le that it is e<#ected to be relatively stable only )here an individual, dyad, or family does not under'o ma=or chan'es in life circumstances 7see Bretherton $%6/ for a revie)94 . 2he Adult Attachment Classification system is more com#le< than the infant system, and #roduces more subcate'ories4 !ere 5 necessarily overlook a number of com#le<ities4 2he #arents of A infants occasionally have, e4'4, 'ood memories for childhood and are not idealisin' but rather dero'atin' and dismissin' of #arents, a strate'y )hich may function e?ually )ell to kee# attachmentrelated memories and intentions at a distance4 * A third, lesstraditional theory F the pragmatic theory of truth usually associated )ith the )ork of C4S4 Pierce and -illam James F is not discussed here4 / 5n the studies revie)ed in this section, the reader )ill note that attachment security has been assessed in relation to the mother rather than the father4 2his is because fathers in both the Bay Area and South Derman sam#les ty#ically )orked fulltime throu'hout the infant;s first year )hile mothers s#ent at most only ,* hours #er )eek a)ay from the infant4 2he infant therefore #resumably interacted more )ith the mother than the father, and is #resumed likely to have taken the mother as its #rimary attachment fi'ure4 #4 $// 2)o studies to date have endeavoured to com#are the influence of infantmother vs4 infantfather attachment u#on various as#ects of functionin' at / to : years of a'eE both have sho)n 'reater #redictability from early infantmother than from early infantfather attachment 7Main et al4 $%6/E Suess, Drossman, and Sroufe, submitted ms49 2hese outcomes )ould not necessarily be e<#ected in sam#les in )hich father served as the #rimary care'iver4 As it stands, they may be modified as the child develo#s to)ards #uberty, and may ultimately differ by se< of child4 : >ne secure child started an autobio'ra#hy, but after raisin' the to#ic of missin' her friends from early childhood she remained )ith current to#ics and )as not #rom#ted to be'in a'ain4 8 5n Li'ht;s 7$%8%9 study, children;s scores )ere related to the )ay the mother described herself as #erceivin' and treatin' her child, )ith mothers of hi'h scorers a##earin' as much concerned )ith a child;s feelin's and intentions as his actual behaviour4 6 5n a recent selfre#ort ?uestionnaire administered to $8* colle'e students 7Main, !esse, and -aters, un#ublished data9, selfre#orted difficulty )ith dividin' attention amon' several simultaneous tasks )as found associated )ith lack of memory for childhood, )ith descri#tions of the sub=ect;s mother as unfor'ivin', and )ith uncertainty that the sub=ect could turn to one or both #arents in times of trouble4 % JohnsonLaird 7$%6.: $,$9 re#orts a substantial relation bet)een a sim#le measure of the #rocessin' ca#acity of )orkin' memory devised )ith Jane >akhill and accuracy in syllo'istic reasonin'4 5t )ould be relatively easy for researchers in adult attachment to em#loy these or similar assessments in con=unction )ith their o)n on'oin' studies4 RE-EREN.ES Ains)orth, M4C4S4, Blehar, M4, -aters, E4, and -all, S4 7$%869 ;atterns of #ttachment, !illsdale, (4J: Erlbaum4 Ains)orth, M4C4S4 and Eichber', C4D4 7this volume9 ;Effects on infantmother attachment of mother;s unresolved loss of an attachment fi'ure, or other traumatic e<#erience; 4 Anderson, J4&4 7$%6.9 1he #rchitecture of $ognition, Cambrid'e, Mass4: !arvard +niversity Press4 Astin'ton, J4-4 and Do#nik, A4 7$%669 ;Bno)in' you;ve chan'ed your mind: children;s understandin' of re#resentational chan'e;, in Astin'ton, J4-4, !arris, P4L4, and >lson, C4&4 7eds9 &eveloping 1heories of Mind, (e) 0ork: Cambrid'e +niversity Press4 Astin'ton, J4-4, !arris, P4L4, and >lson, C4&4 7eds9 7$%669 &eveloping 1heories of Mind, (e) 0ork: Cambrid'e +niversity Press4 Bartlett, "4C4 7$%.,9 -emembering' # Study in <xperimental and Social ;sychology, Cambrid'e: Cambrid'e +niversity Press4 Binet, A4 7$%1%9 :es "d=es Modernes Sur :es <nfants, Paris: Ernest "lammarion4 Bo)lby, J4 7$%:%9 #ttachment and :oss, vol4 $: #ttachment 7also $%6,, ,nd edn9, (e) 0ork: Basic Books4 RR 7$%8.9 #ttachment and :oss, vol4 ,: Separation' #nxiety and #nger, (e) 0ork: Basic Books4 RR 7$%619 #ttachment and :oss, vol4 .: :oss' Sadness and &epression, (e) 0ork: Basic Books4 #4 $/: RR 7$%669 ;>n kno)in' )hat you are not su##osed to kno) and feelin' )hat you are not su##osed to feel;, in J4 Bo)lby 7ed49 # Secure ase, (e) 0ork: Basic Books4 Bradley, "4!4 7$%//A$6%.9 #ppearance and -eality' # Metaphysical <ssay, ><ford: ><ford +niversity Press4 Braine, M4C4S4 and Shanks, B4L4 7$%:/9 ;2he develo#ment of conservation of si@e;, >ournal of 7erbal :earning and 7erbal ehavior *: ,,8*,4 Bretherton, 54 7$%6*9 ;&e#resentin' the social )orld in symbolic #lay: reality and fantasy;, in 54 Bretherton 7ed49 Symbolic ;lay' 1he &evelopment of Social 6nderstanding 7##4 .*$9, (e) 0ork: Academic Press4 RR 7$%6/9 ;Attachment 2heory: retros#ect and #ros#ect;, in 54 Bretherton and E4 -aters 7eds9 Dro)in' Points in Attachment 2heory and &esearch, Monographs of the Society for -esearch in $hild &evelopment /1 7$,9, Serial (o4 ,1%4 Bretherton, 54 &id'e)ay, C4, and Cassidy, J4 7in #ress9 ;2he role of internal )orkin' models in the attachment relationshi#: can it be assessed in .yearoldsG;, in M4 Dreenber', C4 Cicchetti, and E4M4 Cummin's 7eds9 #ttachment during the ;reschool ?ears, Chica'o: +niversity of Chica'o Press4 Bro)n, A4L4, Bransford, J4C4, "errara, &4A4, and Cam#ione, J4C4 7$%6.9 ;Learnin', rememberin' and understandin';, in J4!4 "lavell and E4M4 Markman 7eds9, P4!4 Mussen 7Series ed49 8andbook of $hild ;sychology, vol4 .: $ognitive &evelopment 7##4 88$::9, (e) 0ork: -iley4 Cain, A4C4 and "ast, 54 7$%8,9 ;Children;s disturbed reactions to #arent suicide;, in A4C4 Cain 7ed49 Survivors of Suicide, S#rin'field, 5ll4: C4C4 2homas4 Case, &4 7$%6/9 "ntellectual &evelopment' # Systematic -einterpretation, (e) 0ork: Academic Press4 Chandler, M4 7$%669 ;Coubt and develo#in' theories of mind;, in Astin'ton, J4-4, !arris, P4L4, and >lson, C4&4 7eds9 &eveloping 1heories of Mind, (e) 0ork: Cambrid'e +niversity Press4 Clark, E4J4 7$%689 ;2he #rinci#le of contrast: a constraint on lan'ua'e ac?uisition;, in B4 Mac-hinney 7ed49 Mechanisms of :anguage #c/uisition' ;roceedings of the +@th #nnual $arnegie Symposium on $ognition, )A2B 7##4 $..9, !illsdale, (4J4: Erlbaum4 Craik, B4 7$%*.9 1he 5ature of <xplanation, Cambrid'e: Cambrid'e +niversity Press4 Cro)ell, J4 and "eldman, S4 7$%669 ;2he effects of mothers; internal models of relations and children;s develo#mental and behavioral status on motherchild interactions;, $hild &evelopment /%: $,8.6/4 Cennett, C4C4 7$%869 rainstorms' ;hilosophical <ssays on Mind and ;sychology, Cambrid'e, Mass4: M52ABradford Books4 "ischer, B4-4 7$%619 ;A theory of co'nitive develo#ment: the control and construction of hierarchies of skills;, ;sychological -eview 68: *88/.$4 "lavell, J4!4 7$%8%9 ;Metaco'nition and co'nitive monitorin': a ne) area of co'nitive develo#mental in?uiry;, #merican ;sychologist .*: %1:$$4 "lavell, J4!4, "lavell, E4&4, and Dreen, "4L4 7$%6.9 ;Cevelo#ment of the a##earancereality distinction;, $ognitive ;sychology $/: %/$,14 "lavell, J4!4, Dreen, "4L4, and "lavell, E4&4 7$%6:9 ;Cevelo#ment of kno)led'e about the a##earancereality distinction;, Monographs of the Society for -esearch in $hild &evelopment /$ 7$9, Serial (o4 ,$,4 "odor, J4 7$%869 ;Pro#ositional attitudes;, 1he Monist :$4 RR 7$%689 ;sychosemantics' 1he ;roblem of Meaning in the ;hilosophy of Mind, Cambrid'e, Mass4: Bradford BooksAM52 Press4 "or'uson, L4 and Do#nik, A4 7$%669 ;2he onto'eny of common sense;, in Astin'ton, #4 $/8 J4-4, !arris, P4L4, and >lson, C4&4 7eds9 &eveloping 1heories of Mind, (e) 0ork: Cambrid'e Press4 Deor'e, C4, Ba#lan, (4, and Main, M4 7$%6/9 ;An Adult Attachment 5ntervie): 5ntervie) Protocol;, +n#ublished manuscri#t, +niversity of California, Berkeley, Ce#artment of Psycholo'y4 Do#nik, A4 and Astin'ton, J4-4 7$%669 ;Children;s understandin' of re#resentational chan'e and its relation to the understandin' of false beliefs and the a##earancereality distinction;, $hild &evelopment /%: ,:.84 Do#nik, A4 and Draf, P4 7$%669 ;Bno)in' ho) you kno): youn' children;s ability to identify and remember the sources of their beliefs;, $hild &evelopment /%: $.::8$4 Drice, !4P4 7$%8/9 ;Lo'ic and conversation;, in P4 Cole and J4L4 Moran 7eds9 Syntax and Semantics """' Speech #cts 7##4 *$/69, (e) 0ork: Academic Press4 Drossmann, B4, "remmerBombik, E4, &udol#h, J4, and Drossmann, B4E4 7$%669 ;Maternal attachment re#resentations as related to #atterns of childmother attachment #atterns and maternal sensitivity and acce#tance of her infant;, in &4A4 !inde and J4 Stevenson!inde 7eds9 -elations within 0amilies, ><ford: ><ford +niversity Press4 !arris, P4L, Connelly, B4, Du@, D4&4, and Pitt-atson, &4 7$%6:9 ;Children;s understandin' of the distinction bet)een real and a##arent emotion;, $hild &evelopment /8: 6%/%1%4 !arter, S4 and Buddin, B4J4 7$%689 ;Children;s understandin' of the simultaneity of t)o emotions: a fivesta'e develo#mental ac?uisition se?uence;, &evelopmental ;sychology ,.: .66%%4 5nhelder, B4, Sinclair, !4, and Bovet, M4 7$%8*9 :earning and the &evelopment of $ognition, Cambrid'e, Mass4: !arvard Press4 JohnsonLaird, P4(4 7$%669 Mental Models' 1owards a $ognitive Science of :anguage, "nference and $onsciousness, Cambrid'e, Mass4: !arvard +niversity Press4 JohnsonLaird, P4(4, Le'ren@i, P4, and Le'ren@i, M4S4 7$%8,9 ;&easonin' and a sense of reality;, ritish >ournal of ;sychology :.: .%/*114 Bahneman, C4 and 2versky, A4 7$%6,9 ;2he #sycholo'y of #references;, Scientific #merican ,*:: $:18*4 Ba#lan, (4 7$%689 ;5ndividual differences in :yearold;s thou'hts about se#aration: #redicted from attachment to mother at a'e $;, +n#ublished doctoral dissertation, +niversity of California, Berkeley, Ce#artment of Psycholo'y4 Ba#lan, (4 and Main, M4 7$%6%9 ;A system for the analysis of family dra)in's;, +n#ublished manuscri#t, Ce#artment of Psycholo'y, +niversity of California, Berkeley4 BarmiloffSmith, A4 7$%8%9 ;Micro and macrodevelo#mental chan'es in lan'ua'e ac?uisition and other re#resentational systems;, $ognitive Science .: %$$$64 Bosslyn, S4 7$%6.9 Ghosts in the Mind(s Machine' $reating and 6sing "mages in the rain, (e) 0ork: -4-4 (orton4 Leslie, A4M4 7$%689 ;Pretense and re#resentation: the ori'ins of a Stheory of mindS;, ;sychological -eview %*: *$,,:4 Li'ht, P4 7$%8%9 &evelopment of a $hild(s Sensitivity to ;eople, London: Cambrid'e +niversity Press4 Main, M4 7$%8.9 ;E<#loration, #lay and co'nitive functionin' as related to childmother attachment;, +n#ublished doctoral dissertation, Johns !o#kins +niversity4 RR 7$%6.9 ;E<#loration, #lay and co'nitive functionin' as related to infantmother attachment;, "nfant ehavior and &evelopment :: $:88*4 Main, M4 and Cassidy, J4 7$%669 ;Cate'ories of res#onse to reunion )ith the #arent #4 $/% at a'e :: Predictable from infant attachment classifications and stable over a $month #eriod;, &evelopmental ;sychology ,*7.9: *$/,:4 Main, M4 and Dold)yn, &4 7$%6*9 ;Predictin' re=ection of her infants from mother;s re#resentation of her o)n e<#erience: im#lications for the abusedabusin' inter'enerational cycle;, "nternational >ournal of $hild #buse and 5eglect 6: ,1.$84 RR 7in #ress94 ;5ntervie)based adult attachment classifications: related to infantmother and infantfather attachment;, &evelopmental ;sychology. RR 7$%6%9 ;Adult Attachment &atin' and Classification System;, +n#ublished scorin' manual, Ce#artment of Psycholo'y, +niversity of California, Berkeley4 Main, M4, Ba#lan, (4, and Cassidy, J4 7$%6/9 ;Security in infancy, childhood and adulthood: a move to the level of re#resentation;, in 54 Bretherton and E4 -aters 7eds9 Dro)in' Points of Attachment 2heory and &esearch, Monographs of the Society for -esearch in $hild &evelopment /1 7$,9, Serial (o4 ,1%4 Main, M4 and !esse, E4 7submitted manuscri#t, $%6%9 ;5ntervie)based assessments of a #arent;s unresolved trauma are related to infant SCS attachment status: linkin' #arental states of mind to infant behavior observed in a stressful situation; 4 RR 7in #ress9 ;Parents; unresolved traumatic e<#eriences are related to infant disor'ani@ed attachment status: is fri'htened andAor fri'htenin' #arental behavior the linkin' mechanismG;, in M4 Dreenber', C4 Cicchetti, and M4 Cummin's 7eds9 #ttachment in the ;reschool ?ears' 1heory, -esearch and "ntervention, Chica'o: +niversity of Chica'o Press4 Main, M4 and Solomon, J4 7in #ress9 ;Procedures for identifyin' infants as disor'ani@edAdisoriented durin' the Ains)orth Stran'e Situation;, in M4 Dreenber', C4 Cicchetti, and M4 Cummin's 7eds9 #ttachment in the ;reschool ?ears' 1heory, -esearch and "ntervention, Chica'o: +niversity of Chica'o Press4 Main, M4 and -eston, C4 7$%6,9 ;Avoidance of the attachment fi'ure in infancy: descri#tions and inter#retations;, in C4M4 Parkes and J4 Stevenson!inde 7eds9 1he ;lace of #ttachment in 8uman ehavior 7##4 .$/%9, (e) 0ork: Basic Books4 Mandler, J4M4 7$%6.9 ;&e#resentation;, in J4!4 "lavell and E4M4 Markman 7eds9, P4!4 Mussen 7Series ed49 8andbook of $hild ;sychology, vol4 .: $ognitive &evelopment 7##4 *,1%*9, (e) 0ork: -iley4 Markman, E4M4 7$%6*9 ;2he ac?uisition and hierarchical or'ani@ation of cate'ories by children;, in C4 So#hian 7ed49 Crigins of $ognitive Skills 7##4 .8$*1:9, !illsdale, (4J4: Erlbaum4 Marshall, J4C4 and Morton, J4 7$%869 ;>n the mechanics of EMMA;, in A4 Sinclair, &4J4 Javella, and -4J4M4 Levelt 7eds9 1he $hild(s $onception of :anguage, Berlin: S#rin'erJerla'4 Mura, S4S4 7$%6.9 ;Licensin' violations: le'itimate violations of Drice;s conversational #rinci#le;, in &424 Crai' and Baren 2racy 7eds9 $onversational $oherence' 0orm, Structure and Strategy, Beverly !ills: Sa'e Publications4 Paivo, A4 7$%8$9 "magery and 7erbal ;rocesses, (e) 0ork: !olt, &inehart and -inston4 Perner, J4, Leekman, S4, and -immer, !4 7$%689 ;2hreeyearolds; difficulty )ith false beliefs: the case for a conce#tual deficit;, ritish >ournal of &evelopment ;sychology /: $,/.84 Peterfreund, E4 7$%8$9 ;5nformation, systems and #sychoanalysis;, ;sychological "ssues, Jol4 J55, Mono'r, ,/,:, (e) 0ork: 5nternational +niversities Press4 Pylyshyn, O4-4 7$%6*9 $omputation and $ognition' 1owards a 0oundation for $ognitive Science, Cambrid'e, Mass4: M52 Press4 &obinson, E4J4, Doelman, !4, and >lson, C4&4 7$%6.9 ;Children;s understandin' of the relation bet)een e<#ressions 7)hat )as said9 and intentions 7)hat )as meant9;,ritish >ournal of &evelopmental ;sychology $: 8/6:4 &o@in, P4, Millman, L4, and (emeroff, C4 7$%6:9 ;>#eration of the la)s of sym#athetic ma'ic in dis'ust and other domains;, >ournal of ;ersonality and Social ;sychology /1: 81.$,4 &ussell, B4 7$%*69 8uman Dnowledge' "ts Scope and :imits, (e) 0ork: Simon 3 Schuster4 Stern, C4(4 7$%6/9 1he "nterpersonal 3orld of the "nfant' # 7iew from ;sychoanalysis and &evelopmental ;sychology, (e) 0ork: Basic Books4 Suess, D4, Drossmann, B4E4, and Sroufe, L4A4 7submitted manuscri#t, $%6%9 ;Effects of infant attachment to mother and father on ?uality of ada#tation in #reschool: from dyadic to individual or'ani@ation of self; 4 Jy'otsky, L4S4 7$%::9 ;Play and its role in the mental develo#ment of the child;, 7oposy ;sykhologi $,: :,8:4 -ard, M4, Carlson, B4, Altman, S4C4, Dreenber', &4!4, and Bessler, C4B4 7$%6%9 ;Predictin' infant mother attachment from adolescents; )orkin' models of relationshi#s;, +n#ublished manuscri#t, 2he (e) 0ork !os#ital, (e) 0ork4 -ason, P4C4 and JohnsonLaird, P4(4 7$%8,9 1he ;sychology of -easoning' Structure in $ontent, Cambrid'e, Mass4: !arvard +niversity Press4 -atson, M4-4 7$%6*9 ;Cevelo#ment of social role understandin';, &evelopmental -eview *: $%, ,$.4 -immer, !4, Druber, S4, and Perner, J4 7$%6*9 ;0oun' children;s conce#tion of lyin': Le<ical realismmoral sub=ectivism;, >ournal of <xperimental $hild ;sychology .8: $.14 -immer, !4 and Perner, J4 7$%6.9 ;Beliefs about beliefs: re#resentation and constrainin' function of )ron' beliefs in youn' children;s understandin' of dece#tion;, $ognition $.: $1.$,64 -itt'enstein, L4 7$%:$9 1ractatus :ogico-;hilosophicus, trans4 C4"4 Pears and B4"4 McDuiness, London: &outled'e 3 Be'an Paul4 >ri'inal )ork #ublished $%,$4 0anomoto, J4, >kono'i, B4, 5)asaki, 24, and 0oshimura, S4 7$%:%9 ;Mournin' in Ja#an;, #merican >ournal of ;sychiatry $,/: $::1/4
Somatoform and Other Psychosomatic Disorders: A Dialogue Between Contemporary Psychodynamic Psychotherapy and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Perspectives