Development and Psychopathology, 13 (2001), 1333

Copyright 2001 Cambridge University Press

Printed in the United States of America

Attachment stability and emotional and

behavioral regulation from infancy to
preschool age

JOAN I. VONDRA, DANIEL S. SHAW, LAURE SWEARINGEN,

MEREDITH COHEN, AND ELIZABETH B. OWENS
University of Pittsburgh

Abstract
Relations between attachment and child emotional and behavioral regulation were studied longitudinally in a sample
of 223 children from urban, low-income families. Attachment in the Strange Situation at 12 and 18 months was
scored using the infant classification system and at 24 months was scored using a preschool classification system.
Only modest stability was found in attachment whether within or across classification systems, with the percentage
of insecure attachments consistently increasing over time. Results indicated both concurrent and predictive
associations with indices of child regulation based on observer ratings or maternal report. However, only the 24-
month classification predicted maternal report of externalizing and internalizing behavior problems at age 3.5 years,
with additional variance accounted for by selected measures of child emotional and behavior regulation from the
same assessment. Attachment security (B) and atypical attachment classifications (D, A/C, and AD) appear to
provide the most consistently useful information about child functioning. Results are discussed in terms of continuity
and change from the perspective of developmental psychopathology.

Across the 2nd year of life, children undergo
a number of key developmental transitions,
including the acquisition of symbolic func-
tioning, the emergence of secondary or self-
conscious emotions, new self-regulatory and
coping skills, increasing locomotion and ex-
ploration of an expanded environment, and
the start of the shift from sensorimotor to pre-
operational thinking (Bates, 1979; Campos,
Caplovitz, Lamb, Goldsmith, & Stenberg,
1983; Kopp, 1982, 1992). These expanding
abilities prompt higher expectations and de-
Funding for this investigation was provided by the Na-
tional Institute of Mental Health, the Buhl Foundation,
and by the Office of Child Development, Department of
Psychology in Education, Department of Psychology, and
Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic of the University
of Pittsburgh.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Joan
I. Vondra, University of Pittsburgh, Department of Psy-
chology in Education, 5C01 Forbes Quadrangle, Pitts-
burgh, PA 15260-7478.
mands from caregivers, but also more overt
efforts to regulate child behavior. Concomi-
tantly, by the end of this period emotional and
behavioral regulationthe management of
emotional arousal and conscious control of
behaviorbegins what will be a very gradual
shift from adult control to increasing child
self-control (Cicchetti, Ganiban, & Barnett,
1991; Kopp, 1989). Differences in emotional
and behavioral regulation during this period
offer an early forecast of self-regulation dif-
ferencesincluding problems in emotional
and behavioral regulationapparent in the
preschool and early school years, and appear
to have their roots both in early-emerging
physiological differences (Gunnar, 1990; Ka-
gan, 1994) and in the quality of interactions
between child and important caregivers, per-
haps best captured at present in measures of
infant attachment (Cassidy, 1994; Thompson,
Flood, & Lundquist, 1995).
Distinctions between emotional reactivity

13

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, on 01 Nov 2017 at 08:36:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/2AA5F5153D438BBAEABAFBE305118781
 14
and emotional regulationthe experience of
arousal versus efforts to manage itand be-
tween other aspects of child temperament
(e.g., sociability, activity level) and behav-
ioral regulation or control are often obscure.
Actual strategies of self-management must of-
ten be inferred. To the extent that young chil-
drens expression of emotion and patterns of
behavior are, in part, a function of both their
own and their caregivers control, they reflect
evolving regulatory processes. It goes without
saying, however, that what is observed in
children is also an indicator of physiologically
based differences in emotional arousal, behav-
ioral style, and even cognitive skills and style.
For the purpose of this study, different indices
of emotional expression and behavioral style
will be grouped under the rubric of regula-
tion, recognizing that observed emotion and
behavior are partly products of the childs bi-
ological disposition, his or her emerging strat-
egies of self-monitoring and self-manage-
ment, and caregiver style of support and
control.
Attachment and Emotional and
Behavioral Regulation
Conceptual arguments for links between at-
tachment and various indices of emotional
and behavioral regulation are persuasive:
caregivers provide children with emotional
schemes through modeling and interaction
that become the foundation of their relation-
ship but that also socialize childrens emo-
tional experience and expression (Cassidy,
1994; Thompson, 1994). Securely attached
children (B) are believed to experience a rela-
tionship that is responsive to and supportive
of a wide range of emotional needs and sig-
nals. By having their anger, fear, and distress
ameliorated by their caregiver, negative affect
does not become overwhelming and disregu-
lating but can be regulated increasingly flexi-
bly by the children themselves. Insecurely
attached children, on the other hand, are
believed to experience a relationship that
evolves around more selective responses to
emotional needs and signals, with less toler-
ance in some cases for emotional distress and
neediness (avoidant [A] attachments) and less
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, on 01 Nov 2017 at 08:36:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/2AA5F5153D438BBAEABAFBE305118781
J. I. Vondra et al.
responsiveness in other cases to distress sig-
nals unless they have been amplified or exag-
gerated (resistant or ambivalent [C] attach-
ments). As a result, theoretically, insecurely
attached children become less flexible in reg-
ulating their emotional experiences, with un-
derregulation or overregulation of affect and
behavior emerging over time (Sroufe, 1983).
In the most extreme case, a key emotional
scheme in the relationship may be the disturb-
ing experience of frightened or frightening be-
havior on the part of the caregiver (disorga-
nized [D] attachments, referred to here as
atypical), undermining child efforts to self-
regulate in a coherent and flexible manner.
Correlational data on motherchild interac-
tion and attachment support these links to
emotional and behavioral regulation (see Cas-
sidy & Berlin, 1994; Cassidy & Kobak, 1988;
LyonsRuth, Bronfman, & Parsons, 1997).
On the other hand, physiological, geneti-
cally based differences in emotional reactiv-
ity, inhibition, sociability, and attentional pro-
cesses (DiLalla, Thompson, Plomin, Phillips,
Fagan, Haith, Cyphers, & Fulker, 1990;
Emde, Plomin, Robinson, Corley, DeFries,
Fulker, Reznick, Campos, Kagan, & Zahn
Waxler, 1992; Robinson, Kagan, Reznick, &
Corley, 1992; see also Calkins, 1994; Gold-
smith, Bradshaw, & Rieser-Danner, 1986)
play a role both in the development of emo-
tional and behavioral regulation and in the
evolution of the attachment relationship. Pat-
terns of attachment insecurity (although not
insecurity itself) have been linked to behav-
ioral differences in the newborn period
(Grossmann, Grossmann, Spangler, Suess, &
Unzer, 1985; Waters, Vaughn, & Egeland,
1980) and infant emotionality across the 1st
year (Belsky & Rovine, 1987; Frodi & Thomp-
son, 1985). Differences in child temperament
no doubt elicit different styles of caregiving
but also shape the childs experience of the
same quality and style of care (Goldsmith &
Alansky, 1987). At the same time, patterns of
parental and child affect regulation probably
have genetic as well as experiential linkages
across generations (Plomin, 2000).
From both conceptual standpointsexpe-
riential and biologicalthen, one would an-
ticipate associations between attachment and
 Attachment and regulation
emotional and behavioral regulation, and as-
sociations have certainly been found (Cas-
sidy, 1994; Fagot & Pears, 1996; Gunnar,
Mangelsdorf, Larson, & Herstgaard, 1989;
LyonsRuth, Alpern, & Repacholi, 1993;
Thompson et al., 1995). However, relations
are typically examined only within a single
time frame, usually concurrently or predict-
ively from a single attachment assessment.
This is a limited developmental perspective,
since there is no opportunity to explore
changes in attachment and whether these
changes are, themselves, associated with emo-
tional and behavioral regulation. The present
study considers attachment at three points in
time across the transition from infancy to pre-
school age12, 18, and 24 monthsand its
relation to child regulation in the context of
both stability and change in attachment classi-
fication.
Developmental Change in Attachment
Crittenden (1992) argued that the transition
from infancy to the preschool period involves
concomitant elaboration and differentiation of
internal working models of attachment.
Bowlby (1969) and Ainsworth (Ainsworth,
Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) clearly enu-
merated age-related stages in the development
of childmother attachment; the last phase,
called a goal-corrected partnership, con-
notes a degree of shared responsibility in the
relationship that is beyond the capabilities of
an 18-month-old, whose cognitive, language,
self regulatory, and motoric skills are too lim-
ited for this more sophisticated level of inter-
personal negotiation.
Especially relevant, developmentally based
changes beginning around this time are (a) the
advent of more complex language, which
allows more varied attachment negotiations
and richer, more direct communication about
needs and (b) perspective taking, which en-
ables children to take into account another
persons response and may encourage them to
hide their true feelings or thoughts in the ser-
vice of maintaining tolerable attachment rela-
tionships. One system for coding attachment
in children after 20 months of age is Critten-
dens (1994) Preschool Assessment of Attach-
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, on 01 Nov 2017 at 08:36:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/2AA5F5153D438BBAEABAFBE305118781
15
ment (PAA). Crittenden (1992) described pre-
school attachment needs as revolving around
the need to communicate rather than simply
monitor, to have more control, and to be able
to negotiate and plan with their caregivers.
The PAA relies on the Strange Situation to
elicit attachment behavior, but Crittendens
classification criteria are in keeping with her
proposal that the preschool child is more so-
phisticated than the infant at evolving coping
strategies and that these strategies will both
reflect a more complex interpretation of care-
giver behavior and will include a greater di-
versity of attachment-related responses. Pre-
schoolers have at their disposal a greater
range of behaviorsincluding inhibition of
and feigned affect and behaviorthat can be
used to achieve a particular goal; therefore,
attachment coding must address and focus on
the function of behaviors rather than the pres-
ence or absence of a specific behavior.
The PAA utilizes one Secure (B) category
and two integrated, insecure categories, De-
fended (A) and Coercive (C). It also includes
three atypical classifications, Defended/Coer-
cive (AC), Anxious Depressed (AD), and Dis-
organized (D). Children classified in the se-
cure category are open about their needs and
feelings and negotiate directly with their care-
giver about separation. They also share re-
sponsibility with others for emotional regula-
tion. The coercive strategy represents an
effort to control caregiver behavior through
angry, threatening, or coy (feigned immaturity
or fearfulness) behavior. The defended strat-
egy represents an effort to maintain physical
proximity to the caregiver without emotional
intimacy through inhibition of negative affect
or false positive affect. Whereas some chil-
dren classified as avoidant in infancy would
expectably be coded as defended at 24 months
(i.e., motoric avoidance develops into psycho-
logical avoidance, inhibition of affect), other
infants with avoidant attachments might ex-
hibit more coercive, threatening behaviors as
preschoolers, precisely because their larger
behavioral repertoire and increasing interac-
tive needs result in more diverse coping strat-
egies when their attachment needs are acti-
vated. Similarly, some securely attached
infants may experiment with coy and coercive
 16
behavior as preschoolers and, depending on
the responses of their caregiver, maintain a
more coercive relationship or shift back to
more flexible (i.e., secure) strategies. Critten-
dens (1992) expectation is that, during the
preschool years, membership in the C cate-
gory will increase to about one third, so that
each (integrated) classification is about
equally represented, with notably fewer in-
stances of unintegrated strategies (AC, AD, or
D) observed.
The AC strategy represents an effort to
cope with changing behavior on the part of
the caregiver by using both coercive and de-
fended strategies as the situation demands,
whereas the AD classification involves inhib-
ited affect, with sad or flat affect in the pres-
ence of an unresponsive caregiver and
extreme distress in the absence of that care-
giver. Finally, the rarely observed D classifi-
cation is reserved for children who do not ap-
pear to use their behavior strategically either
to elicit or respond to caregiver behavior or to
soothe themselves. When children are in
higher risk environments where greater inde-
pendence can be, literally, dangerous (e.g.,
high-crime neighborhoods, unsafe housing,
highly stressed parents), Crittenden (1998,
personal communication) anticipates some-
what greater shifts to insecurity in the pre-
school years, particularly to the more extreme
classifications of insecurity, whether inte-
grated (A3, A4, C3, C4) or not (AC, AD, D).
In a sample of almost 100 children from
White, working- and middle-class families,
Fagot and Pears (1996) found more children
insecure at 30 months using the Crittenden
classification system (60%) than at 18 months
using the Ainsworth system (49%, ABC
only), with the only increase over time in the
coercive (C) classification (36% at 30
months). Overall classification stability in that
sample was 66%. A comparable sample of
German children, assessed at 12 and 21
months, showed similar but more extreme
patterns (Rauh, Ziegenhain, Muller, & Wijn-
roks, in press). Sixty-two percent were scored
insecure at 12 months using the Ainsworth/
Main classification systems (ABCD), whereas
83% were scored insecure at 21 months using
the Crittenden system (40% were C). Overall
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, on 01 Nov 2017 at 08:36:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/2AA5F5153D438BBAEABAFBE305118781
J. I. Vondra et al.
stability of security/insecurity was 68%; sta-
bility of classification was presumably lower.
Children at 21 months were also scored using
the Ainsworth/Main criteria, resulting in a de-
crease in the number of insecure children
from 12 (62%) to 21 (48%) months. Based on
attachment stability and change, in conjunc-
tion with observations of maternal interaction
at 3 and 12 months, the authors concluded
that both the Ainsworth/Main and the Critten-
den systems were valid (and more discrimi-
nating than the Ainsworth system [ABC]
alone) at 21 months.
Attachment Stability and Change
Attachment theory and research suggest that
both stability and change in attachment pat-
terns over time can be lawful processes asso-
ciated with relevant parentchild characteris-
tics and behavior (Egeland & Farber, 1984;
Fagot & Pears, 1996; Vondra, Shaw, & Hom-
merding, 1999; Wartner, Grossmann, Fremmer
Bombik, & Suess, 1995). Various studies
have found that stability of attachment classi-
fication, when measured at 12 and 18 months,
is positively related to socioeconomic status
and negatively related to the presence of risk
factors such as marital distress and dissolu-
tion, negative maternal personality attributes,
and child maltreatment (Barnett, Ganiban, &
Cicchetti, 1992; Egeland & Erickson, 1987;
Egeland & Farber, 1984; Thompson, Lamb, &
Estes, 1992; Vondra, Hommerding, & Shaw,
1992). Although much of the research sup-
porting hypotheses about stability (and occa-
sionally change) in attachment security has
been based on samples of low-risk, middle-
class, motherchild dyads, a handful of stud-
ies using low-income or high-risk populations
indicate, as noted, that changes in attachment
securityparticularly increases in disorga-
nized or atypical (D, A/C, Unclassifi-
able) attachmentsare more characteristic
of disadvantaged, high-risk, or maltreating
populations than they are of low-risk, middle-
class populations (Egeland & Sroufe, 1981;
LyonsRuth, Repacholi, McLeod, & Silva,
1991; Spieker & Booth, 1985; Vaughn, Ege-
land, Sroufe, & Waters, 1979). In fact, more
recent longitudinal data indicate only moder-
 Attachment and regulation
ate stability (4655%) in infancy in general
(Belsky, Campbell, Cohn, & Moore, 1996),
suggesting that the attachment measureif
not the attachment relationshipis more sen-
sitive to changing circumstances than attach-
ment theory has heretofore implied. Change
in motherchild attachment classification
clearly poses a challenge to the predictive
power of early versus later assessments of at-
tachment, although it does not preclude a
meaningful role for attachment history in
forecasting childrens subsequent functioning
(Sroufe, Egeland, & Kreutzer, 1990).
It is much rarer to find change in attach-
ment pattern examined in relation to child
emotional and behavioral regulation, due to
small samples or attachment assessments at
only one point in time. Egeland and Farber
(1984) found that a shift from secure (B) to
resistant (C) classification by 18 months was
predicted by ratings of newborn emotional
and behavioral irregularity and observed tem-
peramental difficultness in feeding and play
scenarios at 6 months. The opposite shift,
from resistant to secure classification, was as-
sociated with higher developmental testing
scores at 9 months (which tend to correlate
highly with behavioral regulation during test-
ing). The extent to which earlier attachment
provides predictive power above and beyond
later attachment has essentially been unex-
plored. However, Sroufe, Egeland, and Kreut-
zer (1990) offered preliminary data to support
Bowlbys (1973, 1980) contention that devel-
opmental history must contribute to adapta-
tion above and beyond contemporaneous cir-
cumstances.
The present investigation examines conti-
nuity and change in attachment across the 2nd
year of life in relation to concurrent and sub-
sequent child emotional and behavioral regu-
lation. The population under investigation is
children from urban, low-income families at
varying degrees of familial risk. Based on the
literature reviewed, it was expected that
1. Change in attachment would be more com-
mon in this low-income, higher stress pop-
ulation than in the White, middle-class pop-
ulation sampled in most longitudinal
attachment studies, with an increasing per-
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, on 01 Nov 2017 at 08:36:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/2AA5F5153D438BBAEABAFBE305118781
17
centage of insecure attachments over time.
Change would be greater across scoring
systems than within scoring systems.
2. Attachment classification would show con-
current and predictive links to child emo-
tional and behavioral regulation.
3. Patterns of attachment change from infancy
(12 and 18 months) to 24 months would
help differentiate children in terms of their
emotional and behavioral regulation.
4. Attachment at 12 and 18 months would
provide some predictive power to child reg-
ulatory problems at age 3.5 over and above
attachment at 24 months.
Methods
Sample
Two birth cohorts of children and their moth-
ers from a longitudinal study of vulnerability
and resiliency in childhood (Shaw, Owens,
Vondra, Keenan, & Winslow, 1996; Vondra,
Shaw, & Kevenides, 1995) provided the data
for the current investigation. Two hundred
twenty-three urban, low-income mothers (Co-
hort 1 n = 103; Cohort 2 n = 120) with infants
between the ages of 5 and 11 months were
recruited from Pittsburgh offices of the
Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) Supple-
mental Nutrition Program administered by the
County Health Department. Inclusion in the
WIC Program requires low income (e.g., less
than $22,385 for a family of four and less than
$14,837 for a single mother and child in 1989,
the 1st year of recruitment). Women who
completed brief background questionnaires by
phone or at the WIC office and took part in
an initial lab visit with their infant at 12
months were included in the longitudinal in-
vestigation.
At the time of the first laboratory visit at
12 months infant age, 45% of mothers re-
ported being married or living with a partner,
13% reported being separated or divorced,
and 42% reported being single. Almost three
quarters of the women (74%) reported having
a high school education or less, 88% reported
having a family income of less than $1,500
per month, 39% were of minority race (almost
 18
exclusively African American), and 20% were
teenagers at the time of their first childs
birth. Maternal age at the time of recruitment
ranged from 16 to 39 years, with a mean of
25 years. Of the 223 infants, 54% were male,
45% were firstborn, and 13% were born more
than 2 weeks prematurely. The date of the as-
sessments at 12 and 18 months were corrected
for infant gestational age.
Procedures
Mothers were asked to bring their child to the
university for observations and assessments at
the child ages of 12, 18, and 24 months, and
to schedule a home visit when their child was
either 15 (Cohort 1) or 18 (Cohort 2) months
old. Follow-up contact with mothers was
completed by telephone and by mail when
children were between 3 and 4 years old.
Of the 223 infants observed at 12 months,
165 were rated by their mothers at approxi-
mately 3.5 years of age on a behavior problem
checklist. Indices of emotional and behavioral
regulation collected between 12 and 24
months were used to compare those infants
with and without follow-up data. Of 17 mea-
sures collected during infancy, only two
showed differences, neither of which reached
formal statistical significance. Children with-
out follow-up ratings scored somewhat lower
on activity/excitability during developmental
testing in the home between 15 and 18
months, t (199) = 1.80, p < .10, but were rated
as somewhat more fussy/difficult by their
mothers at the 18-month lab visit, t (150) =
1.95, p < .10.
Lab assessments began with a free-play pe-
riod for the child (when mothers completed
questionnaires nearby with the examiner), fol-
lowed by a series of interactive activities (ex-
aminer absent from the room), a rest/snack
period in another room, and the Strange Situa-
tion. Mothers completed questionnaires with
the examiner after the Strange Situation,
while a babysitter entertained the child. The
order of the Strange Situation and free-play
period was counterbalanced at 12 months
only (all Cohort 1 children had the Strange
Situation last, all Cohort 2 children had the
Strange Situation first; no differences in the
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, on 01 Nov 2017 at 08:36:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/2AA5F5153D438BBAEABAFBE305118781
J. I. Vondra et al.
distribution of attachment classifications were
found across cohorts). Each lab visit took ap-
proximately 2 hours to complete and was vid-
eotaped from a fixed camera on the wall or
through a one-way mirror to facilitate behav-
ioral coding.
Home visits began with a free-play period
and developmental assessment of the child.
Following this, mothers completed an inter-
view and questionnaires while a babysitter en-
tertained the child. Observations of mother
child interaction throughout the visit were
made. Examiners varied from visit to visit, al-
though on occasion the same examiner con-
ducted more than one visit for a given family.
Across all pairs of lab and home visits, 87%
(range 78100%) were conducted by different
examiners.
Measures
Attachment. Attachment security was assessed
using the Strange Situation paradigm (Ains-
worth & Wittig, 1969). At 12 and 18 months,
attachment classification (A, Avoidant; B, Se-
cure; C, Resistant; D, Disorganized) was
coded using the Ainsworth (Ainsworth,
Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) and Main
(Main & Solomon, 1990) criteria. The first
author was trained to 100% reliability with A.
Sroufe (5 cases), 85% reliability with M.
Ward and B. Vaughn (20 cases), and 75%
with D. Cicchetti (16 cases). Six graduate stu-
dent raters, blind to other ratings of the
mother and child, were trained to reliability
by the first author and tested for interrater
agreement using two different sets of attach-
ment assessments, one set from the lab of
J. Belsky and a second set from the lab of
A. Sroufe. Interrater agreement on major clas-
sifications ranged from 80 to 100% with a
mean of 83% for the test (nonstudy) assess-
ments, and averaged 77% (20 cases) with the
first author for a random set of study tapes.
Tapes were scored by the first author or by
at least two of the trained raters. In cases of
disagreement, a third rater was used.
At 24 months, attachment classification
(A, Defended; B, Secure; C, Coercive; A/C
or AD, Atypical) was coded using the PAA
 Attachment and regulation
(Crittenden, 1994). Four graduate student rat-
ers were trained by P. Crittenden to 85% re-
liability using her system. Two of these raters
had rated a subset of the 12 or 18 month
tapes. To help ensure independence of ratings,
24-month attachment was always scored ei-
ther by two independent raters or by a single
rater blind to infant attachment classifications.
Average interrater agreement on major classi-
fications was 62% (27 cases) for a random set
of cases from the study. In cases of disagree-
ment, a third rater was used. Thirty (15%) of
the 24-month attachments were scored by P.
Crittenden.
Child emotional and behavioral regulation.
During each lab visit (12, 18, and 24 months),
children were observed with their mothers
during a series of four teaching tasks. Activi-
ties were selected that were too difficult for
children of that age to complete indepen-
dently, and thus required maternal assistance
(e.g., stack a set of plastic rings on a pole at
12 months, work a lockkey toy at 18
months, complete a puzzle at 24 months). In
each case, mothers were instructed to work on
the task for 3 min and then, at a knock, to put
away the current task and start the next one.
Ratings of child positive and negative affect
and task-oriented (attentive, effortful) behav-
ior were completed by two trained raters at 12
and 24 months (blind to attachment classifica-
tions), using simple three-point scales (0,
none; 1, low; 2, high). Percent exact agree-
ment was 75% for positive affect, 86% for
negative affect, and 84% for task orientation
using a random set of 32 cases from the study.
Because emotional and behavioral regulation
in toddlerhood is still a joint function of child
and caregiver, child affect and persistence can
be viewed as a reflection of how effectively
the dyadic system is regulating the child.
Global ratings of child emotional and be-
havior regulation were made from observa-
tions of the entire 24-month lab visit using the
Early Coping Inventory (ECI; Zeitlin, Wil-
liamson, & Szczepanski, 1988). Designed for
use with young children between the ages of
4 and 36 months, the inventory assesses the
age- and situation-appropriate effectiveness of
a wide range of behaviors considered impor-
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, on 01 Nov 2017 at 08:36:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/2AA5F5153D438BBAEABAFBE305118781
19
tant to early coping efforts. The ECI consists
of 48 items reflecting temperament, sensory
processing, motor control, and socioemotional
factors. Scores on the ECI differentiate young
children with mental or physical disabilities
from nondisabled peers (Williamson, Zeit-
lin, & Szczepanski, 1989; Zeitlin & William-
son, 1990). A single trained rater, blind to at-
tachment classification and other emotional
and behavioral regulation ratings, completed
36 of the 48 five-point behavior ratings on the
basis of behavior throughout the 24-month
visit (excluded items concerned sensory and
motor handicaps not seen in the sample). Rat-
ings were factor analyzed to create internally
consistent global ratings of regulation.A four-
factor solution emerged, accounting for 52%
of the variance in scores. The first factor,
termed assertive, consisted of eight items
and loaded heaviest on items Child expresses
likes and dislikes, Child expresses a range
of feelings, and Child has an energy level
that is forceful and vigorous. The second fac-
tor, termed adaptable, consisted of nine
items and loaded heaviest on items Child
adapts to changes in environment, Child ac-
cepts substitute people or objects when neces-
sary, Child finds a way of handling a new
or difficult situation, and Child demon-
strates ability to self comfort. The third fac-
tor, termed sociable, consisted of seven
items and loaded heaviest on items Child
gives warmth and affection to others, Child
accepts warmth and support from familiar
persons, and Child maintains visual atten-
tion to people and objects. The fourth and
final factor, termed competent exploration,
consisted of seven items and loaded heaviest
on items Child initiates exploration of own
body or objects using a variety of strategies,
Child demonstrates persistence during activi-
ties, and Child completes self-initiated ac-
tivity. On a random subset of 12 cases,
agreement within 5 points on the summed
scales ranged from 83% to 100%, with corre-
lations ranging from .78 to .92.
During the home visit, trained examiners
administered the Bayley Scales of Infant De-
velopment and its accompanying Infant Be-
havior Record (IBR; Bayley, 1969). The IBR
consists of a series of 5- and 9-point rating
 20
scales (13 in all) evaluating social and object
orientation during standardized develop-
mental testing. Scale scores were entered into
a factor analysis to create internally consistent
global ratings of emotional and behavioral
regulation. A three-factor solution emerged,
accounting for 99% of the variance. The first
factor, termed mastery motivated, consisted
of five items and loaded heaviest on items
Persistence in goal-directed effort and
Tendency to persist in attending to any one
object, person, or activity. The second factor,
termed active/reactive, consisted of three
items and loaded heaviest on items Amount
of gross bodily movement and The ease
with which a child is stimulated to react in
general, excitability. The third and final fac-
tor, termed comfortable, consisted of four
items and loaded heaviest on items Tense-
ness of body and Degree of happiness. In-
terrater reliability was assessed using a small
number (N = 8) of pilot subjects at the end of
training, prior to data collection. Agreement
on scores based on these three factors varied
tremendously, with good to excellent reliabil-
ity on the mastery motivation (intraclass cor-
relation: .72) and comfort (intraclass correla-
tion: .92) scores, but no reliability on the
activity/reactivity score (intraclass correla-
tion: .06), due to extremely restricted vari-
ability across pilot children on this factor. Ex-
aminers making IBR ratings during the home
visit were blind to attachment classifications
and the other behavioral ratings described
above.
Maternal ratings. At each lab visit, mothers
completed the Difficultness scale of the Infant
Characteristics Questionnaire (ICQ; Bates,
Freeland, & Lounsbury, 1979). This scale had
the strongest psychometric characteristics in
the validation study of the ICQ, with moder-
ate correlations between both maternal and
paternal report and observer ratings on the
same measure. Slightly different versions are
available for 13- (nine items) and 24-month
(seven items) infants (used at the 12- and 24-
month lab visits, respectively). At the 18-
month visit, items from both versions were
used. Scores from the measure have been
shown to predict behavior problems at pre-
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, on 01 Nov 2017 at 08:36:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/2AA5F5153D438BBAEABAFBE305118781
J. I. Vondra et al.
school age (Bates, Maslin, & Frankel, 1985),
and its selection reflected our interest in the
early expression and regulation of negative af-
fect as an early indicator of developmental
vulnerability.
As part of the 3.5-year follow-up contact,
mothers completed the Child Behavior
Checklist for Ages 2 to 3 (Achenbach, 1992)
by mail. This 100-item questionnaire gener-
ates two broadband factors, externalizing
(problems with underregulating affect and be-
havior) and internalizing behavior problems
(problems with overregulating affect and be-
havior), for both boys and girls. Testretest
reliability is reported to be .87 by the author.
Results
Relations among indices of infant regulation
As a preliminary step, patterns of association
were examined among the 16 indices of emo-
tional and behavioral regulation that were col-
lected in infancy. Within a particular task or
activity, correlations were generally moderate
(but highly significant), ranging from an aver-
age of .21 (ratings during 12-month teaching
tasks) to .55 (maternal ratings of difficultness
at 12, 18, and 24 months). Correlations across
activities (and time) were notably less consis-
tent but present in piecemeal fashion. Factor
analysis of the 16 scores indicated a three-fac-
tor solution, which accounted for 88% of the
variance. Factor 1 consisted of all observa-
tional ratings at 24 months (on the ECI and
during the teaching tasks, rated by indepen-
dent observers). Factor 2 incorporated the
three maternal ratings of difficultness (at 12,
18, and 24 months), and Factor 3 represented
examiner ratings of behavior during develop-
mental testing (at 15 or 18 months). The 12-
month teaching task ratings did not load on
any of these factors and also had the lowest
intercorrelations. Individual scores with the
most frequent correlations across measures
were the mastery motivation (IBR) score
during developmental testing (the only ob-
server rating associatednegativelywith
maternal ratings of difficultness) and the four
coping scores from the ECI. Given that reg-
ulation indices were collected during different
 Attachment and regulation
Table 1. Distribution of attachment patterns across the 2nd year of life
12 Months
(Ainsworth Coding)
Sample size 223
B 52% (117)
A1, A2 18% (40)
A3, A4
C1, C2 16% (35)
C3, C4
D or A/C 13% (28)
Depressed affect/AD 1% (3)
activities at different ages, these general re-
sults are not surprising.
Classification distributions
The distribution of attachment classifications
at each age appears in Table 1. As predicted,
the percentage of secure (B) attachments con-
sistently declined and the percentage of inse-
cure attachments increased both across time
(12, 18, 24 months) and classification system
(Ainsworth to Crittenden). Within the inse-
cure category, the percentage of A attach-
ments consistently increased; the percentage
of children with C or atypical attachments
tended to be low at each age, and no consis-
tent patterns were discernible. The change to
a different classification system at 24 months,
however, was accompanied by an increase in
the percentage of C attachments and a de-
crease in the percentage of atypical attach-
ments.
Attachment stability data appear in Tables
2 and 3. It should be noted that criteria for
stability changed between infancy (12 to 18
months), when exact classification match was
used, and preschool age (12/18 to 24 months),
when at least one classification match was
used (a match between either 12 and 24
months or 18 and 24 months). Thus, the crite-
rion for a match across classification systems
was more liberal than that within the infant
classification system. Perfect matches across
all three ages were quite rare: 20 BBB (10%
of the sample), 7 AAA (4%), 3 CCC (1.5%)
and 1 DD-Atypical (<1%). With this caveat,
the overall rates of stability were identical
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, on 01 Nov 2017 at 08:36:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/2AA5F5153D438BBAEABAFBE305118781
21
18 Months 24 Months
(Ainsworth Coding) (Crittenden Coding)
198 201
47% (93) 26% (52)
24% (47) 20% (41)
13% (26)
9% (18) 33% (67)
4% (8)
15% (29) 2% (3)
5% (11) 2% (4)
from 12 to 18 months (45% stability) and
from 12/18 to 24 months (45% stability).
Seventy-four percent of the sample had the
same classification at two or more points in
time, with 24% showing stability in the infant
system but a change to the preschool system.
Twenty-six percent of the sample changed
classification at each of the three time points.
Stability of classification was more common
among B and D attachments from 12 to 18
months but was more common (for those who
did not change at each assessment) among A
and C attachments across classification sys-
tems from 12/18 to 24 months.
Differences among the stable groups
Selected children (38% of the sample) with
stable A, stable B, or stable C attach-
ments were compared by analysis of variance
(only two children had stable atypical attach-
ments, too few to be included in analyses).
Stable attachment, once again, indicates a
classification match between either 12 or 18
months and 24 months. Cases designated as
stable B with an A or D classification coded
at the second infant assessment were consid-
ered anomolous in their combination of secu-
rity and insecurity and were excluded from
analyses. Mean differences between the three
stable groupssubsequently tested using
Bonferonni post hoc comparisonsappear in
Table 4.
Observers. No differences were found among
the groups on behavior during developmental
testing in the home. Child behavioral regula-
 22 J. I. Vondra et al.

Table 2. Change in attachment patterns across the 2nd year of life

18 Months (Ainsworth Coding)

12 Months
(Ainsworth Coding) n B A C D

B 96 56 (29%) 19 9 12
A 36 16 12 (6%) 3 5
C 33 12 9 4 (2%) 8
D 30 8 6 1 15 (8%)
Total 195 92 46 17 40

24 Monthsa (Crittenden Coding)

12/18 Months
(Ainsworth Coding) n B A C A/C or AD

B 82 42 (22%) 16 24 0
A 34 2 28 (14%) 4 0
C 18 0 2 16 (8%) 0
D 11 3 0 6 2 (1%)
Total 145 47 46 50 2

Note: Stable classification was scored at 24 months if either 12- or 18-month classi-
fication matched the 24-month classification.
a
Excluded from table: 42 toddlers (26% of longitudinal sample) who changed classifi-
cation across all three assessments.

Table 3. Stability in attachment patterns across the

2nd year of life

1218 months 12/18 to 24 months

(Exact Match; (At Least One Matcha;
Classification N = 195) N = 145)

B 29% (58% of Bs) 22% (51% of Bs)

A 6% (33% of As) 14% (82% of As)
C 2% (12% of Cs) 8% (89% of Cs)
Atypical 8% (50% of Ds) 1% (18% of Ds)

Overall stability of
classifications 45% 45%

Note: Stable classification was scored at 24 months if either 12- or 18-

month classification matched the 24-month classification.
a
Excluded from table: 42 toddlers (26% of longitudinal sample) who
changed classification across all three assessments.

tion ratings during motherchild teaching
tasks, however, distinguished the children
with stable C attachments from those with sta-
ble B attachments. ANOVA results indicated
that the stable C group was rated as less task
oriented at both 12, F (2, 68) = 4.40, p < .05,
and 24 months, F (2, 71) = 13.37, p < .001,
but not different in affect. Child behavioral
and emotional regulation during the 24-month
lab visit showed differences on three of the
four (ECI) scores. The C group scored lower
than either of the other groups on adaptive be-

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, on 01 Nov 2017 at 08:36:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/2AA5F5153D438BBAEABAFBE305118781
 Attachment and regulation 23

Table 4. Regulation differences among stable attachment groups

Stable Attachment Group

B A C F

Observer
Teaching tasks: 12 months (n = 71)
Task orientation 6.38a 6.22a 5.07b 4.40*
Positive affect ns
Negative affect ns
Development testing: 15/18 months (n = 70)
Mastery motivation ns
Comfort ns
Activity/reactivity ns
Teaching tasks: 24 months (n = 74)
Task orientation 6.29a 5.74a 4.07b 13.37***
Positive affect ns
Negative affect ns
Overall regulation: 24 months (n = 73)
Adaptable 37.27a 38.07a 26.56b 19.88***
Assertive ns
Sociable 28.33a 25.78 24.31b 3.61*
Competent exploration 30.80a 28.31 25.44b 9.46***
Mother
Perceived difficultness
12 months (n = 75) 30.19 26.70a 35.31b 6.48**
18 months ns
24 months ns
Behavior problems: 3.5 years (n = 68)
Externalizing 43.6a 52.5b 53.0b 7.62**
Internalizing ns

Note: Row means with different superscripts are significantly different.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

havior, F (2, 70) = 19.88, p < .001, and the
B group scored higher than the C group on
sociability, F (2, 67) = 3.61, p < .05, and com-
petent exploration, F (2, 69) = 9.46, p < .001.
No differences were noted for assertiveness.
Mothers. Mothers reported differences in per-
ceived difficultness among the three stable at-
tachment groups only at 12 months, F (2, 72) =
6.48, p < .01. Children in the stable C group
were rated as significantly more difficult than
children in the stable A group. At age 3.5
years children with a stable secure attachment
history scored lower than either the stable A
or stable C groups on mothers report of ex-
ternalizing behavior problems (B group T
score mean: 43.6; A group: 52.5; C group:
53.0), F (2, 65) = 7.62, p < .01. No differ-
ences emerged for internalizing behavior
problems.
Differences associated with trajectories
toward insecurity
Enough children changed from stable security
in infancy to insecurity at 24 months (BBC or
BBA) to contrast children who showed a sta-
ble pattern across classification systems with
those who changed to insecurity with the pre-
school classification system at 24 months. Re-
sults are reported for the B/C contrast and the
B/A contrast separately.
BBB versus BBC versus CCC.
Observers. The three groups scored simi-
larly on the Bayley Scales Mental Develop-
ment Index (MDI) during the home visit. Dur-
ing the motherchild teaching tasks at 12 and
24 months, the BBC-attachment change group
scored between the stable B and stable C
groups. On task orientation at 24 months, all

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, on 01 Nov 2017 at 08:36:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/2AA5F5153D438BBAEABAFBE305118781
 24
three groups were significantly different from
one another, with the stable B group highest
and the stable C group lowest, F (2, 66) =
13.63, p < .001. Also during the 24-month lab
visit, the BBC-change group again scored be-
tween the stable B and stable C groups on
overall behavioral and emotional regulation,
with the stable C group lowest on adaptive
behavior, F (2, 68) = 12.27, p < .001; sociabil-
ity, F (2, 65) = 4.25, p < .05; and competent
exploration, F (2, 68) = 13.27, p < .001sig-
nificantly lower than the BBC-change group
on both adaptive behavior and competent ex-
ploration.
Mothers. Consistent differences emerged in
terms of mothers perceptions of child diffi-
cultness, with the stable C group scoring
highest and the BBC-change group scoring
lowest on perceived difficultness at 12, F (2,
68) = 3.25, p < .05, 18 F (2, 45) = 5.72, p <
.01, and to some extent 24 months, F (2, 67) =
2.93, p < .10. In each case, the stable B group
scored in between and was not significantly
different from either of the extreme groups.
At age 3.5 years, the children in the stable B
group scored significantly lower than those in
the stable C group on mothers report of ex-
ternalizing behavior problems, with the BBC-
change group scoring in between (BBC group
T score mean: 49.4) F (2, 57) = 6.03, p < .01.
No differences emerged for internalizing be-
havior problems.
BBB versus BBA versus AAA.
Observers. As was the case with the stable
group comparison, few child behavior differ-
ences emerged between B attachment groups
and A attachment groups. Observers saw no
significant differences among any of the three
groups in behavior during developmental test-
ing in the home or during the motherchild
teaching tasks at 12 or 24 months. However,
the BBA-attachment change group, x(14) =
110.2, scored significantly higher than the sta-
ble A group, x(30) = 101.0, on the Bayley
MDI, F (2, 70) = 3.91, p < .05, with the stable
B group scoring in between the two extremes,
x(29) = 107.5. During the 12- and 24-month
lab visit, the BBA-change group generally
scored midway between the stable A and sta-
ble B groups, with means for the two extreme
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, on 01 Nov 2017 at 08:36:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/2AA5F5153D438BBAEABAFBE305118781
J. I. Vondra et al.
groups only significantly different on compe-
tent exploration, F (2, 72) = 4.72, p < .05, at
24 months.
Mothers. Mothers reported no differences
among these three groups in terms of per-
ceived difficultness, whether at 12, 18, or 24
months. At age 3.5 years, the children in the
stable B group scored significantly lower than
both those in the stable A group and in the
BBA-change group on mothers report of ex-
ternalizing behavior problems (BBA-group T
score mean: 52.1) F (2, 64) = 8.42, p < .001.
No differences emerged for internalizing be-
havior problems.
Other attachment change groups. Contrast
analyses were run incorporating other, rela-
tively small subsets of children with specific
kinds of attachment change from 12 to 24
months (e.g., A C, D C, C A). Few
consistent patterns of differences emerged in
these contrasts, whether the result of power
problems, measurement error, or simply the
absence of differences. The numbers of chil-
dren who changed from stable insecurity to
security at 24 months were too small for sta-
tistical analysis (AAB: 2; CCB: 0; CAB: 2;
DDB: 4).
Correlates of attachment type
To gain a clearer picture of how attachment
classification from 12 to 24 months relates to
behavioral and emotional regulation, four
continuous scores were created representing
frequency of each attachment classification,
A, B, C, and D/atypical. These scores repre-
sent the number of times, across three assess-
ments (range 03), that a childs attachment
was scored in each classification. Thus, a
child whose attachment was scored a B at 12
and 24 months, and an A at 18 months, would
receive a 1 on the A score, a 2 on the B score,
and a 0 on the C and D scores. These scores
were then correlated with each of the indices
of emotional and behavioral regulation used
as dependent measures. Results appear in Ta-
ble 5.
In general, correlations were primarily
found for the B and D scores. Frequency of B
classification from 12 to 24 months was mod-
 Attachment and regulation 25

Table 5. Relations between attachment and behavioral and emotional regulation

Frequency of Attachment Classification (03)

B A C D

Observer
Teaching tasks: 12 months (n = 177) .26***
Task orientation
Positive affect .16*
Negative affect
Development testing: 15/18 months
(n = 169)
Mastery motivation
Comfort .23**
Activity/reactivity
Mental development index (MDI) .18*
Teaching tasks: 24 months (n = 176)
Task orientation .20** .25**
Positive affect .16*
Negative affect
Overall regulation: 24 months (n = 176)
Adaptable .21** .39***
Assertive .18* .24**
Sociable .25*** .18*
Competent exploration .30*** .19* .24**
Mother
Perceived difficultness
12 months
18 months
24 months (n = 178) .15* .15*
Behavior problems: 3.5 years (n = 147)
Externalizing .29*** .21**
Internalizing

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

estly associated with greater concurrent be-
havioral and emotional regulation and fewer
externalizing behavior problems at age 3.5
years. Frequency of D/atypical classification
was modestly associated with poorer regula-
tion and more externalizing behavior prob-
lems. Frequency of C classification was asso-
ciated almost exclusively with poorer
regulation during the 24-month lab visit, and
frequency of A classification was essentially
unrelated to measures of behavioral and emo-
tional regulation.
Infant (12/18 months) versus preschool
(24 months) prediction
To examine whether infant (1218 month) at-
tachment classification provided any unique
predictive power to behavior problems at age
3.5 years above and beyond 24-month attach-
ment, two regression analyses were con-
ducted. Externalizing and internalizing behav-
ior problems reported by mothers were each
predicted in a hierarchical regression by
scores for 24-month attachment and for com-
bined 12- and 18-month attachment. Results
appear in Table 6. In both cases, the equation
using 24-month scores only was significant
and accounted for between 8 and 11% of the
variance in behavior problems (externalizing
T score: F (3, 161) = 6.86, p < .001, R2 = .11;
internalizing T score: F (3, 161) = 4.33, p <
.01, R2 = .08). Externalizing problems were
significantly predicted by codes for each inse-
cure classification (A, C, atypical); internaliz-
ing problems were predicted only by the atyp-
ical classification. Therefore, an atypical
attachment at 24 months was associated with

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, on 01 Nov 2017 at 08:36:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/2AA5F5153D438BBAEABAFBE305118781
 26 J. I. Vondra et al.

Table 6. Regression analyses: Infant versus preschool prediction of age 3.5 year
behavior problems

Preschool Attachment Preschool and Infant Attachment

Predictor F Test Predictor F Test

Regressions for Externalizing Behavior Problems

24-month A score
24-month C score
24-month Atyp. score
Full equation
F (1, 161) = 8.59**
F (1, 161) = 7.06**
F (1, 161) = 4.93*
F (3, 161) = 6.86***
R2 = .11
24-month A score
24-month C score
24-month Atyp. score
12/18-month A score
12/18-month C score
12/18-month D score
Full equation
F (1, 158) = 8.59**
F (1, 158) = 7.06**
F (1, 158) = 4.93*
F (1, 158) = ns
F (1, 158) = ns
F (1, 158) = ns
F (6, 158) = 3.94**
R2 = .13

Regressions for Internalizing Behavior Problems

24-month A score F (1, 161) = ns 24-month A score F (1, 158) = ns

24-month C score
24-month Atyp. score
Full equation
F (1, 161) = ns
F (1, 161) = 12.86***
F (3, 161) = 4.33**
R2 = .08
24-month C score
24-month Atyp. score
12/18-month A score
12/18-month C score
12/18-month D score
Full equation
F (1, 158) = ns
F (1, 158) = 12.86***
F (1, 158) = ns
F (1, 158) = ns
F (1, 158) = ns
F (6, 158) = 2.55*
R2 = .09

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

greater internalizing and externalizing prob-
lems reported by mother at age 3.5 years,
whereas a defended or coercive relationship
was associated only with higher reported ex-
ternalizing problems.
Adding in 12- and 18-month attachment
classification gave no additional predictive
power for behavior problems at 3.5 years.
None of the insecurity codes in infancy con-
tributed significantly to the regression equa-
tion once 24-month attachment was entered,
resulting in an overall equation of less signifi-
cance. Thus, 24-month (Crittenden) attach-
ment significantly predicted mothers report
of both externalizing and internalizing behav-
ior problems at 3.5 years, and infant (Ains-
worth) attachment historyoften different
did not predict above and beyond that.
Univariate ANOVAs using attachment classi-
fication at each assessment separately indi-
cated that associations with behavior problem
scores were confined exclusively to 24-month
classifications (mean externalizing T scores:
B = 45, A = 53, C = 51, Atypical = 53,
F (3, 161) = 6.86, p < .001; mean internaliz-
ing T scores: B = 48, A = 50, C = 50, Atypical
= 60, F (3, 161) = 4.33, p < .01). Mean differ-
ences in later problems with regulating behav-
ior were related only to attachment as it was
scored at 24 months, not scores at 12 or 18
months, supporting the findings of the regres-
sion equation.
24-month regulation versus
attachment prediction
To examine whether 24-month child emo-
tional and behavioral regulation scores pro-
vided any unique predictive power to behav-
ior problems at age 3.5 years above and
beyond 24-month attachment, two regression
analyses were conducted. Externalizing and
internalizing behavior problems reported by
mothers were each predicted in a hierarchical
regression by scores for 24-month attachment
(dummy coded) and for 24-month regulation
scores. Zero-order correlations indicated that
only two of the four regulation scoressocia-

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, on 01 Nov 2017 at 08:36:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/2AA5F5153D438BBAEABAFBE305118781
 Attachment and regulation 27

Table 7. Regression analyses: Attachment versus regulation prediction of age 3.5 year
behavior problems

Preschool Attachment Preschool and Infant Attachment

Predictor F Test Predictor F Test

Regressions for Externalizing Behavior Problems

24-month A score F (1, 161) = 8.59**
24-month C score F (1, 161) = 7.06**
24-month Atyp. score F (1, 161) = 4.93*
Full equation F (3, 161) = 6.86***
R2 = .11
24-month A score F (1, 146) = 8.07**
24-month C score F (1, 146) = 5.88*
24-month Atyp. score F (1, 146) = 5.13*
ECI sociability F (1, 146) = 9.03**
ECI comp. explore F (1, 146) = ns
Full equation F (5, 146) = 5.90***
R2 = .17

Regressions for Internalizing Behavior Problems

24-month A score F (1, 161) = ns 24-month A score F (1, 146) = ns

24-month C score F (1, 161) = ns 24-month C score F (1, 146) = ns
24-month Atyp. score F (1, 161) = 12.86*** 24-month Atyp. score F (1, 146) = 10.91**
ECI sociability F (1, 146) = ns
ECI comp. explore F (1, 146) = 5.27*
Full equation F (3, 161) = 4.33** Full equation F (5, 146) = 3.45**
R2 = .08 R2 = .11

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

ble, r (162) = .28, p < .001, and competent
exploration, r (164) = .19, p < .05signifi-
cantly correlated with externalizing problems
at age 3.5 years. Only competent exploration
significantly correlated with internalizing
problems, r (164) = .17, p < .05. Therefore,
only these two regulation scores were used in
the regressions. Results appear in Table 7. In
both cases, adding in the two regulation
scores improved prediction of later behavior
problem ratings, with equations now account-
ing for between 11 and 17% of the variance
(externalizing T score: F (5, 146) = 5.90, p <
.001, R2 = .17; internalizing T score: F (5,
146) = 3.45, p < .01, R2 = .11). Unique predic-
tion to externalizing T scores was provided by
24-month A classification, C classification, D
classification, and sociability. Unique predic-
tion to internalizing T scores was provided by
24-month D classification and competent ex-
ploration.
In summary, the predictive power of 24-
month attachment was enhanced by adding
information about the childs ratings on emo-
tional and behavioral regulation over the
course of the same lab visit, but was not im-
proved by information about the childs prior
attachment history. Insecure patterns of at-
tachment, as they were scored using a pre-
school attachment system, predicted maternal
report of child problems in behavioral regula-
tion at age 3.5 years. Independently scored
indices of the childs overall effectiveness
in regulating him or herself during the same
visit provided complementary information,
whereas attachment in infancy did not.
Discussion
Attachment stability and change
Results indicate modest stability in attach-
ment from 12 to 18 months and from 12/18
to 24 months, using a sample of children from
urban, low-income families at varying de-
grees of familial risk for developmental prob-
lems and delays. Rates of 45% within the in-
fant coding system (exact matches from 12 to
18 months) and 45% across coding systems
(at least one match from 12/18 to 24 months)

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, on 01 Nov 2017 at 08:36:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/2AA5F5153D438BBAEABAFBE305118781
 28
are lower than those for smaller, primarily
White, middle-class infant samples (75% on
average; see Belsky et al., 1996), although at
least one larger and more recent investigation
documented rates of between 46 and 55%
(Belsky et al., 1996). They are, however,
more comparable with rates (3064%) found
in higher risk or maltreating infant samples
(Barnett et al., 1992; Egeland & Farber, 1984;
LyonsRuth et al., 1991). Even higher rates
of stability from infancy to preschool
(Howes & Hamilton, 1992, 72%) and school
age (Main & Cassidy, 1988, 84%; Wartner et
al., 1995, 82%) in White, middle-class sam-
ples are also balanced by lower rates in un-
published studies using infancy or preschool
samples at medical risk (Beckwith & Rod-
ning, 1991, 42%; Goldberg, Washington, My-
hal, Janus, Simmons, MacLusky, & Fowler,
1997, 42%), and by a study of White, primar-
ily middle-class children using the Ainsworth
coding system at 18 months and the Critten-
den system at 30 months (Fagot & Pears,
1996, 66%). Stability is, of course, higher
(69% from 12/18 to 24 months) when secu-
rity/insecurity is the focus, rather than classi-
fication. This rate almost exactly replicates
the stability of security/insecurity (68%) in
the Rauh et al. (in press) study examining at-
tachment change from 12 months, using the
Ainsworth/Main system, to 21 months, using
the Crittenden system, in a sample of middle-
class and lower middle-class infants in Ger-
many. Stability of attachment, in other words,
though discernible, is far from universal, par-
ticularly among samples of children at some
developmental risk. Less stability and sup-
portiveness of family life and parental func-
tioning are hallmarks of developmental risk
for children and have clearly been associated
with discontinuity in attachment classification
over time (see Lamb, Thompson, Gardner, &
Charnov, 1985). The change in coding sys-
tems from 12/18 to 24 months encompasses a
change in emphasis and in criteria for making
attachment classifications. It is important,
then, to consider its contribution to the insta-
bility found. At the same time, it is imortant
to recognize that stability was not the norm
for infants in this sample, even within a single
coding scheme.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, on 01 Nov 2017 at 08:36:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/2AA5F5153D438BBAEABAFBE305118781
J. I. Vondra et al.
Although overall stability rates were
roughly comparable (given different stability
criteria) from 12 to 18 months and from 12/
18 to 24 months, patterns were somewhat dif-
ferent. Consistent patterns over time were a
decrease in the number of secure attachments,
as expected, and an increase in the number
of A (Avoidant, Defended) attachments. As
Crittenden (1992) predicted, however, ap-
proximately one third of the 24-month attach-
ments were scored as secure (B = 26%), one
third as defended (A = 33%), and one third as
coercive (C = 37%). An increase in the per-
centage of C attachments from infancy to the
preschool period was predicted by Crittenden
(1992), is reflected in her PAA scoring sys-
tem (1994) and has been found by other in-
vestigators using the PAA (Fagot & Pears,
1996; Rauh et al., in press; Teti, Gelfand,
Messinger, & Isabella, 1995). Crittenden
(1992) argued that the discovery by pre-
school-age children of coy behavior as a
mechanism to handle angry feelings becomes
integrated into the coercive strategy, particu-
larly for children with resistant attachments
during infancy. But because it is explored to
a greater or lesser extent by all preschool chil-
dren, the result is what might be considered
an overrepresentation of coercive preschool
attachment classifications. In any case, the in-
crease in insecure attachment classifications
from 12 to 18 to 24 months is consistent with
other data on attachment among samples at
developmental risk.
Relations to emotional and
behavioral regulation
As predicted, attachment classification was
associated with both concurrent and subse-
quent ratings of child emotional and behav-
ioral regulation. This was most apparent for
24-month attachment classification (Critten-
den system) and for children with stable at-
tachment classifications from 12/18 to 24
months. In general, the strongest and most
frequent associations were related to the se-
cure and atypical classifications, although
each 24-month classification provided unique
information about mothers report of behavior
problemsproblems in regulationat age
 Attachment and regulation
3.5 years. Security across all assessments was
associated with better emotional and behav-
ioral regulation rated concurrently by observ-
ers, and with fewer reported externalizing be-
havior problems at 3.5 years. The converse
was true for atypicality (D at 12/18 months,
AC or AD at 24 months). Type C classifica-
tions, particularly at 24 months, were associ-
ated with poorer regulation but almost exclu-
sively among the (concurrent) 24-month
measures. Interestingly, children with Type A
attachments were generally indistinguishable
from the others, with the exception of behav-
ior problems at age 3.5 years, when 24-month
A classification (as well as C and atypical
classifications) predicted more externalizing
problems reported by mother, regardless of
prior (infant) attachment classification.
Specific patterns of change provided less
information about child emotional and behav-
ioral regulation than did information about
most frequently observed attachment classifi-
cation, or even just 24-month attachment
classification. Repetitive attachment themes
and most recent attachment classification of-
fered the most insights about a childs effec-
tiveness in regulating behavior and affect, in-
cluding problems in their regulation. This
makes both methodological and develop-
mental sense. On the one hand, patterns of be-
havior observed repeatedly across time are
probably measured with less error or capture
more generalizable styles of functioning than
those that are specific to a single point of as-
sessment. On the other hand, development is
change, so measures of comparable psycho-
metric strength capturing behavior patterns
later in development are likely to be more up
to date about development and its ecology
than those capturing patterns earlier in devel-
opment.
Generally speaking, children who changed
from a secure infant classification to an inse-
cure 24-month classification scored between
the stable secure and stable insecure groups
but did not score significantly different from
either. This pattern supports the notion that
attachment history does, in fact, provide
meaningful information about child function-
ing (Sroufe et al., 1990). But the relative lack
of significant differences for the change group
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, on 01 Nov 2017 at 08:36:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/2AA5F5153D438BBAEABAFBE305118781
29
also highlights the modest, or classification-
specific, effect sizes of the group differences.
By age 3.5 years, infant (12/18 month) attach-
ment classification no longer provided addi-
tional predictive information, at least to ma-
ternally reported behavior problems. Any
insecure 24-month classification predicted ex-
ternalizing problems, and the atypical classifi-
cation significantly predicted internalizing
problems, but prior attachment history (12/18
months) added no predictive power and, in
fact, was not associated with maternal report
of behavior problems. In contrast, indepen-
dent observer ratings of overall child
emotional and behavior regulation (lower so-
ciability, less competent exploration) during
the 24-month lab visit provided unique pre-
dictive power, both to externalizing and inter-
nalizing scores. Thus, knowing a childs at-
tachment at 24 monthsusing a preschool
attachment classificatory systemand know-
ing a childs emotional and behavior regula-
tion during the same assessment, indepen-
dently and cumulatively predicted behavior
problems 1 to 2 years later. Knowing a childs
infant attachment history did not.
Results contribute to the growing body of
literature on relations between attachment and
emotional and behavioral regulation. Al-
though relations have been found for children
from all backgrounds, especially when regula-
tion is assessed during interactions with care-
givers and peers (Ainsworth et al., 1978;
Howes, Hamilton, & Matheson, 1994; Sroufe,
1983; see Belsky & Isabella, 1988), predic-
tion from infant attachment to behavior prob-
lemsproblems in regulatory function-
ingin the preschool years has been less
robust (Bates & Bayles, 1988; Fagot & Kava-
nagh, 1990) and seems to be restricted some-
what to samples already at familial or devel-
opmental risk and to the disorganized infant
attachment classification (LyonsRuth, East-
erbrooks, & Cibelli, 1997; Shaw, Winslow,
Owens, Vondra, Cohn, & Bell, 1998). More
robust are associations between preschool and
early school age measures of attachment (the
controlling classification in the Cassidy,
Marvin, & the MacArthur Working Group on
Attachment, 1991, preschool scoring system
and in the Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985,
 30
age 6 years scoring system) and concurrent
externalizing behavior problems (Greenberg,
Speltz, DeKleyn, & Endriga, 1991; Solomon,
George, & DeJong, 1995). Thus, associations
tend to be strongest when assessed concur-
rently or among samples at risk, using atypi-
cal attachment classifications.
But prediction from early preschool age to
later behavior problems has now been demon-
strated in two very different samples of chil-
dren using the PAA (Crittenden, 1994). In the
present investigation, prediction from 24
months to externalizing problems reported by
mothers at age 3.5 years was found for each
attachment classification, and prediction to in-
ternalizing problems was found for atypical
classifications, in a sample of urban, low-in-
come children. Using a sample of 90 mostly
White, middle-class children at 30 months,
Fagot and Pears (1996) found concurrent rela-
tions to maternal ratings of aggressive behav-
ior and prediction to teacher ratings of both
internalizing and externalizing behavior prob-
lems (T scores at or above 60) at age 7 years
for the coercive classification.
Two common themes emerge from these
findings. First, attachment classification is re-
lated to affective and behavioral regulation in
social contexts, with concurrent relations
most easily attained. Second, prediction from
attachment to ratings of behavior problems re-
lies strongly on disorganized classifications in
infancy and controlling, coercive, or atypical
classifications in the preschool period. A
growing body of evidence relates these classi-
fications to familial risk: the disorganized (or
A/C) classification in infancy (Carlson, Cic-
chetti, Barnett, & Braunwald, 1989; Cic-
chetti & Barnett, 1991; LyonsRuth et al.,
1991; OConnor, Sigman, & Brill, 1987;
Spieker & Booth, 1988; Teti et al., 1995) and
the coercive and atypical (Crittenden, 1988;
RadkeYarrow, Cummings, Kuczynski, &
Chapman, 1985; Teti et al., 1995) classifica-
tions during the preschool years. Whether
these attachment classifications are a mediator
between family risk and child behavior prob-
lems, or whether they are simply a marker for
family risk associated with child behavior
problems, remains to be examined (Green-
berg, Speltz, & DeKlyen, 1993).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, on 01 Nov 2017 at 08:36:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/2AA5F5153D438BBAEABAFBE305118781
J. I. Vondra et al.
There are theoretical and empirical connec-
tions between attachment disorganization in
infancy and the controlling classification in
the preschool and school years (Main & Cas-
sidy, 1988; Wartner et al., 1995), but there are
also arguments for maintaining distinctions
among preschool-age children showing differ-
ent patterns of controlling interactions with
their caregiver (Crittenden, 1992). It may be
that the infant disorganized and preschool
controlling classifications help identify chil-
dren who are, in general, at greater familial
(and developmental) risk, but that a more
fine-tuned understanding of interactional dy-
namics and their relation to specific patterns
of developmental psychopathology will re-
quire the kinds of distinctions Crittenden
(1992, 1994) makes in her preschool classifi-
cations. In this investigation, infant attach-
ment history, including the disorganized clas-
sification, did not provide information about
early reported behavior problems above and
beyond 24-month (insecure) classification,
nor did it discriminate, as 24-month atypical
attachment did, between children with higher
versus lower internalizing scores.
The fact that contemporaneous indices of
child coping strategiesmore specifically,
child social orientation (sociability) and com-
petence in explorationdid provide unique
prediction to maternal report of behavior
problems indicates, as one might expect, that
attachment does not, in and of itself, capture
all the variance in child behavior and interac-
tions relevant to problems in regulation at a
later date. Indices of emotional and behavioral
regulation that are less specific to the attach-
ment relationship may reflect temperamental
differences (e.g., sociability, inhibition, activ-
ity level) in concert with other interactional
and familial effects (e.g., parental scaffolding
of task behavior, punitiveness, behavioral
monitoring) that additively or interactively
foster more problem behavior in the preschool
or school period.
In summary, the data from this investiga-
tion suggest that attachment classification and
attachment history provide useful information
about child emotional and behavioral regula-
tion. Generally, however, infant attachment
appears most useful in understanding contem-
 Attachment and regulation
poraneous patterns of regulation, with knowl-
edge about what are viewed as problems in
regulation best forecast by attachment that is
assessed later in time or by a different classifi-
cation system. This makes inherent develop-
mental sense, since change in family circum-
stances and change in child capabilities
should be associated with alterations both in
the attachment model, attachment behavior,
and strategies for regulating emotion and
behavior. The fact that some continuity is dis-
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1992). Manual for the Child Behavior
Checklist/23 and 1992 Profile. Burlington, VT: De-
partment of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall,
S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Wittig, B. A. (1969). Attachment
and the exploratory behavior of one-year-olds in a
strange situation. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants
of infant behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 111136). London:
Methuen.
Bates, E. (1979). The emergence of symbols: Cognition
and communication in infancy. New York: Academic
Press.
Bates, J. E., & Bayles, K. (1988). Attachment and the
development of behavior problems. In J. Belsky & T.
Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment
(pp. 253299). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bates, J. E., Freeland, C. A., & Lounsbury, M. L. (1979).
Measurement of infant difficultness. Child Develop-
ment, 50, 794803.
Bates, J. E., Maslin, C. A., & Frankel, K. A. (1985). At-
tachment security, motherchild interaction, and tem-
perament as predictors of behavior-problem ratings at
age three years. Monographs of the Society for Re-
search in Child Development, 50(12), 167193.
Bayley, N. (1969). Manual for the Bayley Scales of Infant
Development. New York: Psychological Corporation.
Beckwith, L., & Rodning, C. (1991, April). Stability in
attachment from 13 to 36 months. Paper presented at
the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in
Child Development, Seattle, WA.
Belsky, J., Campbell, S. B., Cohn, J. F., & Moore, G.
(1996). Instability of infantparent attachment secu-
rity. Developmental Psychology, 32, 921924.
Belsky, J., & Isabella, R. (1988). Maternal, infant, and
socialcontextual determinants of attachment secu-
rity. In J. Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical im-
plications of attachment (pp. 4194). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Belsky, J., & Rovine, M. (1987). Temperament and at-
tachment security in the Strange Situation: An empiri-
cal rapprochement. Child Development, 58, 787795.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attach-
ment. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Separation. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss.
New York: Basic Books.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, on 01 Nov 2017 at 08:36:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/2AA5F5153D438BBAEABAFBE305118781
31
cernable supports theoretical work on the na-
ture of the attachment internal working
model, on the importance of genetic endow-
ment or temperament, and on developmental
psychopathology. The degree of discontinuity
that was present testifies to the importance of
understanding how changing circumstances
and capabilities are translated into individual
and relationship functioning, both at a con-
ceptual and methodological level.
Calkins, S. D. (1994). Origins and outcomes of individual
differences in emotion regulation. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 59(23),
5372.
Campos, J. J., Caplovitz, K. B., Lamb, M. E., Goldsmith,
H. H., & Stenberg, C. (1983). Socioemotional devel-
opment. In M. M. Haith & J. J. Campos (Eds.), Hand-
book of child psychology: Vol. 3. Infancy and devel-
opmental psychobiology (pp. 783915). New York:
Wiley.
Carlson, V., Cicchetti, D., Barnett, D., & Braunwald, K.
(1989). Disorganized/ disoriented attachment relation-
ships in maltreated infants. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 25, 525531.
Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of at-
tachment relationships. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 59(23), 228249.
Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. J. (1994). The insecure/ambiva-
lent pattern of attachment: Theory and research. Child
Development, 65, 971991.
Cassidy, J., & Kobak, R. R. (1988). Avoidance and its
relation to other defensive processes. In J. Belsky &
T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attach-
ment (pp. 300323). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cassidy, J., Marvin, R. S., & the MacArthur Working
Group on Attachment (1991). Attachment organiza-
tion in preschool children: Coding guidelines. Un-
published manuscript, University of Virginia, Char-
lottesville.
Cicchetti, D., & Barnett, D. (1991). Attachment organiza-
tion in maltreated preschoolers. Development and
Psychopathology, 3, 387411.
Cicchetti, D., Ganiban, J., & Barnett, D. (1991). Contri-
butions from the study of high-risk populations to un-
derstanding the development of emotion regulation.
In J. Garber & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), The development
of emotion regulation and dysregulation. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Crittenden, P. M. (1988). Relationships at risk. In J. Bel-
sky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of
attachment (pp. 136174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Crittenden, P. M. (1992). Quality of attachment in the
preschool years. Development and Psychopathology,
4, 209241.
Crittenden, P. M. (1994). The Preschool Assessment of
Attachment coding manual. Miami, FL: Family Rela-
tions Institute.
DiLalla, L. F., Thompson, L. A., Plomin, R., Phillips, K.,
 32
Fagan, J. F., Haith, M. M., Cyphers, L. H., & Fulker,
D. W. (1990). Infant predictors of preschool and adult
IQ: A study of infant twins and their parents. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 26, 759769.
Egeland, B., & Erickson, M. F. (1987). Psychologically
unavailable caregiving. In M. R. Brassard, R. Ger-
main, & S. N. Hart (Eds.), Psychological maltreat-
ment of children and youth (pp. 110120). New
York: Pergamon Press.
Egeland, B., & Farber, E. (1984). Infantmother attach-
ment: Factors related to its development and change
over time. Child Development, 55, 753771.
Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (1981). Attachment and
early maltreatment. Child Development, 52, 4452.
Emde, R. N., Plomin, R., Robinson, J., Corley, R., De-
Fries, J., Fulker, D. W., Reznick, J. S., Campos, J.,
Kagan, J., & ZahnWaxler, C. (1992). Temperament,
emotion, and cognition at fourteen months: The Mac-
Arthur Longitudinal Twin Study. Child Development,
63, 14371455.
Fagot, B. I., & Kavanagh, K. (1990). The prediction of
antisocial behavior from avoidant attachment classifi-
cations. Child Development, 61, 864873.
Fagot, B. I., & Pears, K. C. (1996). Changes in attachment
during the third year: Consequences and predictions.
Development and Psychopathology, 8, 325344.
Frodi, A., & Thompson, R. (1985). Infants affective re-
sponses in the Strange Situation: Effects of prematu-
rity and of quality of attachment. Child Development,
56, 12801290.
Goldberg, S., Washington, J., Myhal, N., Janus, M., Sim-
mons, R. J., MacLusky, I., & Fowler, R. S. Stability
and change in attachment from infancy to preschool.
Unpublished manuscript, Hospital for Sick Children
and University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Goldsmith, H. H., & Alansky, J. (1987). Maternal and
infant temperamental predictors of attachment: A
meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clin-
ical Psychology, 55, 805816.
Goldsmith, H. H., Bradshaw, D. L., & RieserDanner,
L. A. (1986). Temperamental dimensions as potential
developmental influences on attachment. In J. V. Ler-
ner & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), New Directions for Child
Development: Vol. 31. Temperament and psychoso-
cial interactions in infancy and childhood (pp. 534).
San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Greenberg, M. T., Speltz, M. L., & DeKlyen, M. (1993).
The role of attachment in the early development of
disruptive behavior problems. Development and Psy-
chopathology, 5, 191213.
Greenberg, M. T., Speltz, M. L., DeKlyen, M., & En-
driga, M. C. (1991). Attachment security in pre-
schoolers with and without externalizing problems: A
replication. Development and Psychopathology, 3,
413430.
Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., Spangler, G., Suess,
G., & Unzer, L. (1985). Maternal sensitivity and new-
borns orientation responses as related to quality of
attachment in Northern Germany. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 50(12),
233256.
Gunnar, M. (1990). The psychobiology of infant tempera-
ment. In J. Columbo & J. Fagan (Eds.), Individual
differences in infancy. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gunnar, M., Mangelsdorf, S., Larson, M., & Herstgaard,
L. (1989). Attachment, temperament, and adrenocor-
tical activity in infancy: A study of psychoendocrine
regulation. Developmental Psychology, 25, 355363.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, on 01 Nov 2017 at 08:36:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/2AA5F5153D438BBAEABAFBE305118781
J. I. Vondra et al.
Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1992). Childrens rela-
tionships with childcare teachers: Stability and con-
cordance with parental attachments. Child Develop-
ment, 63, 867878.
Howes, C., Hamilton, C. E., & Matheson, C. C. (1994).
Childrens relationships with peers: Differential asso-
ciations with aspects of the teacher-child relationship.
Child Development, 65, 253263.
Kagan, J. (1994). On the nature of emotion. Monographs
of the Society for Research in Child Development,
59(23), 724.
Kopp, C. B. (1982). Antecedents of self-regulation: A de-
velopmental perspective. Developmental Psychology,
18, 199214.
Kopp, C. B. (1989). Regulation of distress and negative
emotions: A developmental view. Developmental
Psychology, 25, 343354.
Kopp, C. B. (1992). Emotional distress and control in
young children. In N. Eisenberg & R. A. Fabes (Eds.),
New directions in child development: Vol. 55. Emo-
tion and its regulation in early development. San
Francisco: JosseyBass.
Lamb, M., Thompson, R., Gardner, W., & Charnov, E.
(1985). Infantmother attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
baum.
LyonsRuth, K., Alpern, L., & Repacholi, B. (1993).
Disorganized infant attachment classification and ma-
ternal psychosocial problems as predictors of hostile
aggressive behavior in the preschool classroom. Child
Development, 64, 572585.
LyonsRuth, K., Bronfman, E., & Parsons, E. (1999).
Maternal frightened, frightening, or atypical behavior
and disorganized infant attachment patterns. Mono-
graphs of the Society for Research in Child Develop-
ment, 64, 6796.
LyonsRuth, K., Easterbrooks, M. A., & Cibelli, C. D.
(1997). Infant attachment strategies, infant mental lag,
and maternal depressive symptoms: Predictors of in-
ternalizing and externalizing problems at age 7. De-
velopmental Psychology, 33, 681692.
LyonsRuth, K., Repacholi, B., McLeod, S., & Silva, E.
(1991). Disorganized attachment behavior in infancy:
Short-term stability, maternal and infant correlates,
and risk-related subtypes. Development and Psycho-
pathology, 3, 377396.
Main, M., & Cassidy, J. (1988). Categories of response
to reunion with the parent at age six: Predicted from
attachment classifications and stable over a one-
month period. Developmental Psychology, 24, 415
426.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in
infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the
level of representation. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 50(12), 66104.
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identify-
ing infants as disorganizeddisoriented during the
Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M. Greenberg, D.
Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in
the preschool years: Theory, research, and interven-
tion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
OConnor, M. J., Sigman, M., & Brill, N. (1987). Disor-
ganization of attachment in relation to maternal alco-
hol consumption. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 55, 831836.
Plomin, R. (2000). Behavioural genetics in the 21st cen-
tury. International Journal of Behavioral Develop-
ment, 24, 3034.
RadkeYarrow, M., Cummings, E. M., Kuczynski, L., &
 Attachment and regulation
Chapman, M. (1985). Patterns of attachment in two-
and three-year-olds in normal families and families
with parental depression. Child Development, 56,
884893.
Rauh, H., Ziegenhain, U., Muller, B., & Wijnroks, L. (in
press). Stability and change in infantmother attach-
ment in the second year of life: Relations to parenting
quality and varying degrees of daycare experience. In
P. Crittenden (Ed.), The organization of attachment
relationships: Maturation, culture, and context. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, J. L., Kagan, J., Reznick, J. S., & Corley, R.
(1992). The heritability of inhibited and uninhibited
behavior: A twin study. Developmental Psychology,
28, 10301037.
Shaw, D. S., Owens, E. B., Vondra, J. I., Keenan, K., &
Winslow, E. B. (1996). Early risk factors and path-
ways in the development of early disruptive behavior
problems. Development and Psychopathology, 8,
679699.
Shaw, D. S., Winslow, E., Owens, E. B., Vondra, J. I.,
Cohn, J., & Bell, R. (1998). The development of early
externalizing problems among children from low-in-
come families: A transformational perspective. Jour-
nal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 95107.
Solomon, J., George, C., & DeJong, A. (1995). Children
classified as controlling at age six: Evidence of disor-
ganized representational strategies and aggression at
home and at school. Development and Psychopathol-
ogy, 7, 447463.
Spieker, S. J., & Booth, C. L. (1988). Maternal anteced-
ents of attachment quality. In J. Belsky & T. Nezwor-
ski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment (pp.
95135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sroufe, L. A. (1983). Infantcaregiver attachment and
patterns of adaptation in preschool: The roots of mal-
adaptation and competence. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.),
Minnesota Symposium in Child Psychology (Vol. 16,
pp. 4181). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., & Kreutzer, T. (1990). The fate
of early experience following developmental change:
Longitudinal approaches to individual adaptation in
childhood. Child Development, 61, 13631373.
Teti, D. M., Gelfand, D. M., Messinger, D. S., & Isabella,
R. (1995). Maternal depression and the quality of
early attachment: An examination of infants, pre-
schoolers, and their mothers. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 31, 364376.
Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, on 01 Nov 2017 at 08:36:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/2AA5F5153D438BBAEABAFBE305118781
33
search of definition. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 59(23), 2552.
Thompson, R. A., Flood, M. F., & Lundquist, L. (1995).
Emotional regulation: Its relations to attachment and
developmental psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & S.
L. Toth (Eds.), Rochester Symposium on Develop-
mental Psychopathology: Vol. 6. Emotion, cognition,
and representation (pp. 261299). Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press.
Thompson, R. A., Lamb, M., & Estes, D. (1982). Stabil-
ity of infantmother attachment and its relationship
to changing life circumstances in an unselected mid-
dle-class sample. Child Development, 53, 144148.
Vaughn, B., Egeland, B., Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E.
(1979). Individual differences in infantmother at-
tachment at twelve and eighteen months: Stability and
change in families under stress. Child Development,
50, 971975.
Vondra, J. I., Hommerding, K. D., & Shaw, D. S. (1992,
May). Infant attachment stability in a low-income
sample. Paper presented at the International Confer-
ence on Infant Studies, Miami Beach, FL.
Vondra, J. I., Hommerding, K. D., & Shaw, D. S. (1999).
Stability and change in infant attachment in a low-
income sample. Monographs of the Society for Re-
search in Child Development, 64, 119144.
Vondra, J. I., Shaw, D. S., & Kevenides, M. C. (1995).
Predicting infant attachment classification from multi-
ple, contemporaneous measures of maternal care. In-
fant Behavior and Development, 18, 415425.
Wartner, U. W., Grossmann, K., FremmerBombik,
E., & Suess, G. (1995). Attachment patterns at age
6 in South Germany: Predictability from infancy and
implications for preschool behavior. Child Develop-
ment, 66, 6979.
Waters, E., Vaughn, B., & Egeland, B. (1980). Individual
differences in infantmother relationships at age one:
Antecedents in neonatal behavior in an urban, eco-
nomically disadvantaged sample. Child Development,
51, 208216.
Williamson, G. G., Zeitlin, S., & Szczepanski, M. (1989).
Coping behavior: Implications for disbled infants and
toddlers. Infant Mental Health Journal, 10, 313.
Zeitlin, S., & Williamson, G. G. (1990). Coping charac-
teristics of disabled and nondisabled young children.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60, 404411.
Zeitlin, S., Williamson, G. G., & Szczepanski, M. (1988).
Early Coping Inventory. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic
Testing Service.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, on 01 Nov 2017 at 08:36:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/2AA5F5153D438BBAEABAFBE305118781