Negative Affect and Disorganized Att Paper

Running head: NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT

Negative Affect Among Attachment Classifications and Disorganized Attachment SubtypesJessica Cooke

Kent State University

NEGATIVE AFFECT AND DISORGANIZED ATTACHMENT

Abstract

Children with disorganized attachments are at greater risk for developing

psychopathology in childhood and adolescence, as well as experiencing childhood maltreatment,

than children with secure, avoidant, and ambivalent attachments. Previous research has shown

negative affect varies among 4-way classification of attachment, but it is unknown whether

negative affect differs among disorganized attachment subtypes. The current study hypothesized

that 1) preschoolers’ negative affect would differ among disorganized attachment subtypes and

that 2) preschoolers with controlling-punitive attachments would display more negative affect

than preschoolers with controlling-caregiving attachments. To investigate the current study, N=

187 children completed a Modified Strange Situation procedure at 36 months to assess

attachment patterns. At 54 months, children’s negative affect was assessed by three observed

interaction tasks with the mother, an adult other than the mother, and a peer. It was found that

preschoolers’ negative affect did not differ among disorganized attachment subtypes. However,

post-hoc analysis revealed negative affect differed among 4-way classification of attachment,

such that preschoolers with disorganized attachments displayed more negative affect with

mothers and peers than preschoolers with secure and avoidant attachments. These findings

support previous research suggesting the preschool-age period may be a primary time to

intervene in disorganized attachment relationships in order to enhance affective communication

and prevent maladaptive controlling behaviors from consolidating.

2


Negative Affect Among Attachment Classifications and Disorganized Attachment Subtypes

Researchers have shown increasing interest in disorganized attachment due to its

implications on the development of psychopathology in childhood and adolescence (Dubois-

Comtois, Moss, Cyr, & Pascuzzo, 2013). Children with disorganized attachments are at higher

risk for developing aggressive and antisocial behaviors, internalizing problems such as

depressive and anxiety symptoms, and a wide range of personality disorders (Lecompte & Moss,

2014; Mash & Wolfe, 2014). Children with disorganized attachments are also at a higher risk for

experiencing childhood maltreatment (Mash & Wolfe, 2014). Despite this rising interest, there is

still far less research on disorganized attachment in comparison to organized patterns of

attachment. Additionally, disorganized attachment can be further divided into four subtypes:

controlling-punitive, controlling-caregiving, controlling-mixed, and behaviorally disorganized.

Only a number of studies have investigated the differentiating factors between these subtypes

(Dubois-Comtois et al., 2013; Lecompte & Moss, 2014; Moss, Cyr, & Dubois-Comtois, 2004;

O’Connor, Bureau, McCartney, & Lyons-Ruth, 2011; Teti, 1999), and none have looked at the

role of negative affect among these subtypes.

Attachment theory posits that infants form close emotional bonds with their caregivers as

a means of seeking proximity when facing stressful or threatening situations (Bowlby, 1969;

Ainsworth & Witting, 1969). The attachment figure serves as a secure base in which the child is

free to explore his or her environment. If the child becomes distressed, the attachment figure

serves as a safe haven for the child, providing comfort and support (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth &

Witting, 1969). Through dyadic experiences with the attachment figure, the child learns patterns

of interpreting the environment that can be applied to future relationships (Mash & Wolfe, 2014).

Mary Ainsworth and Barbara Witting (1969) classified attachment according to patterns

3


found in Ainsworth’s Strange Situation Procedure- a procedure where the child undergoes

separation-reunion sessions with the attachment figure. In the Strange Situation Procedure, three

organized styles of attachment emerged: secure (B) attachment, avoidant (A) attachment, and

ambivalent (C) attachment. Securely attached infants engage in exploration and seek proximity

to the attachment figure when distressed. The dyadic relationship is supportive and considered to

be a protective factor against developing psychopathology. Infants with an avoidant style of

attachment mask visible signs of distress when separated from their attachment figure.

Ambivalent infants demonstrate distress before separation and are difficult to comfort when the

attachment figure returns (Ainsworth & Witting, 1969). Mary Main, a student of Ainsworth,

recognized the need for a fourth style of attachment: disorganized (D) attachment, for children

who did not display organized patterns (Main & Soloman, 1990).

Disorganized attachment is characterized by contradictory and incoherent behavior in the

presence of the attachment figure (Main & Soloman, 1990). Disorganized children are faced with

a paradoxical situation: the attachment figure is supposed to serve as a secure base for the child,

yet also serves as the child’s source of fear or distress. When this occurs, a breakdown of the

child’s attachment strategy is expected to occur because they are left to deal with “fright without

solution.” Several behaviors of disorganized infants reflect this breakdown, including: a)

simultaneous displays of contradicting behaviors, b) freezing or stilling, indicating fear or

apprehension toward the attachment figure, c) confusion and disorganization in proximity of the

parent, d) unusual posture or movements, and e) undirected or misdirected expressions (Hesse &

Main, 2000; Main, 1999). Main and Soloman’s (1990) disorganized attachment classification

has been misinterpreted as a variegated category, lacking any understandable meaning or

differentiation, and is thought to complete a four-part classification system of attachment

4


(Dunchinsky, 2015). This four-part classification system is not an exhaustive method of

distinguishing attachment styles.

Previous research has revealed four subtypes of disorganized attachment in preschoolers:

controlling-punitive, controlling-caregiving, controlling-mixed, and behaviorally disorganized

(Dubois-Comtois et al., 2013; Lecompte & Moss, 2014; Moss et al., 2004; O’Connor et al.,

2011; Teti, 1999). Between the ages of 2 and 6, approximately two-thirds of children who were

classified as disorganized show a pattern of role reversal with the attachment figure. In the role

reversal, or “parentification,” the child acts as the caretaker for the attachment figure (Bowlby,

1977, 1980, 1988; Green & Goldwyn, 2002; Lyons-Ruth, Easterbrooks, & Cibelli, 1997; Main &

Cassidy, 1988; Moss et al., 2004). As the caretaker, the child attempts to control and organize the

behavior of the attachment figure. Disorganized/controlling subtypes include controlling-

punitive, controlling-caregiving, and controlling-mixed. Controlling-punitive children exhibit

hostile, directive behavior and may threaten harm or utilize commands in an effort to control

their caregiver. Controlling-caregiving children are overly concerned with their caregiver, and

focus on guiding, cheering-up, or orienting the caregiver (Lecompte & Moss, 2014; Moss, St.-

Laurent, & Tarabulsy, 2011). Controlling-mixed children show characteristics of controlling-

punitive or controlling-caregiving subtypes towards their parents, or show controlling behaviors

not characteristic of the aforementioned subtypes (O’Connor et al., 2011). While two-thirds of

disorganized children show controlling behaviors, the remaining one-third are referred to as

behaviorally disorganized because their patterns of disorganized behaviors continue on after

infancy (Moss et al., 2011). Controlling patterns of attachment become more consolidated and

methods of children’s control become more authoritarian as children reach the end of the

preschool period, suggesting the preschool period is an important time for intervention (Moss,

5


Cyr, Bureau, & Tarabulsy, 2005).

The quality of the attachment interaction during the preschool period is thought to guide

how children organize emotional experiences and how they develop emotional abilities, such as

emotion regulation and competence (Carlson & Sroufe, 1995; Lind, Bernard, Ross, & Dozier,

2014; NICHD, 2004). John Bowlby (1969) proposed negative affect to be the most powerful tool

an infant has for communication due to its saliency and distinctiveness to the caregiver,

regardless of context. In the dyadic attachment relationship, the child’s expression of emotion

draws reactions from the environment. This affective communication may provide an essential

context for how children come to understand and organize emotion (Cassidy, 1994).

Two models that may account for how understanding and organization of emotion are

formed within attachment relationships are Gianino and Tronick’s (1992) Mutual Regulation

Model and Gergely & Watson’s (1996, 1999) Social Biofeedback Model of Affect-Mirroring.

Both theories agree there are innate attributes of emotion regulation in infants. The Mutual

Regulation Model argues that dyadic affective communication serves the goal of intrapersonal

emotion regulation between the infant and caregiver (Gianino & Tronick, 1992). The Social

Biofeedback Model argues that the variable range of the infant affective response is contingent

on parental reactivity, in order to discover the degree of control the infant holds over the

caregiver’s evoked responses. In this model, the infant becomes sensitized to what internal and

external cues elicit and constitute emotions (Gergely & Watson, 1996, 1999). Both models

emphasize the role of affective display by infants in the development of emotion regulation and

understanding. Negative affect is a powerful tool of affective communication because signals the

need for comfort from the caregiver (Bowlby, 1969). When the child is unable to rely on the

caregiver to provide comfort or, in the case of disorganized infants, is unable to predict the

6


comfort of the caregiver, this may lead to the formation of poor emotion regulation, emotion

understanding, and affective communication (Bowlby, 1969; Carlson & Sroufe, 1995; Morris,

Silk, Steinberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007).

Empirical research has evidenced that displays of affect differ between secure, avoidant,

ambivalent, and disorganized attachment patterns. Secure children have been found to express

negative affect when separated from the attachment figure and the negative affect dissipates

when the caregiver returns (Goldberg, MacKay-Sororka, & Rochester, 1994). Ambivalent

children show escalated and exaggerated displays of negative affect (Goldberg et al., 1994;

Lecompte & Moss, 2014). Avoidant children suppress visible signs of negative affect, remaining

affectively neutral (Goldberg et al., 1994; Lecompte & Moss, 2014). Disorganized children are

contradicting or incoherent in their displays of negative affect (Beebe & Steele, 2013; Lecompte,

2014). Beebe & Steele (2013) also report that disorganized infants displayed more vocal distress,

combined vocal and facial distress, and more discrepant affect, than secure infants. These

displays of negative affect are consistent with the disorganized patterns of behavior in

disorganized children.

While differentiation in the display of negative affect exists among the four

classifications of attachment, it is unknown if there is differentiation among the four subtypes of

disorganized attachment. Minimal research has examined the role of externalizing and

internalizing problems as a differentiating factor between the subtypes, revealing mixed results.

Externalizing problems are recognized as behaviors encompassing acting-out behaviors such as

aggression and delinquent behaviors, while internalizing problems include anxiety, depressive,

somatic, and withdrawn symptoms and behaviors. Externalizing problems are typically

characterized by outright displays of behavior, while internalizing problems are less visible, and

7


more difficult to detect (Mikolajewski, Allan, Hart, Lonigan, & Taylor, 2013). In controlling-

punitive subtypes, mothers consistently reported higher levels of internalizing and externalizing

problems (Bureau, Easterbrooks, & Lyons-Ruth, 2009b; Dubois-Comtois et al., 2013; O’Connor

et al., 2011; Teti, 1999). Teachers only reported more externalizing problems, but not

internalizing problems, in controlling-punitive attachments (Moss et al., 2004; O’Connor et al.,

2011). In controlling-caregiving subtypes, children reported high levels of internalizing

problems, but did not report externalizing problems, although observational measures revealed

externalizing problems of controlling-caregiving children still rested above externalizing

problems of organized attachment patterns (Bureau et al., 2009b; Dubois-Comtois et al., 2013;

O’Connor et al., 2011; Teti, 1999). Dubois-Comtois et al., (2013) suggests internal problems are

a result of children feeling they can’t openly express distress and anger, and turn their feelings

inward. O’Connor et al., (2011) reported that controlling-mixed subtypes had higher levels of

internal and external problems than secure attachments. For behaviorally disorganized subtypes,

two studies reported higher levels of internal and external problems in home and daycare

(Bureau et al., 2009b; O’Connor et al., 2011). One study found slightly higher levels of external

problems in school settings (Moss et al., 2004). Another study found slightly higher levels of

external problems and aggression, but no difference in internal problems between securely

attached and behaviorally disorganized subtypes (Dubois-Comtois et al., 2013).

For the current study, I hypothesize that 1) the amount of negative affect displayed by

preschoolers will differ among disorganized attachment subtypes and that 2) preschoolers with

controlling-punitive attachments will display more negative affect than preschoolers with

controlling-caregiving attachments. This study focused on preschool-aged children because this

is the time role reversal begins to occur and consolidate, and it is also an important time for the

8


development of emotional competence and regulation, making it a primary time for intervention

methods (Carlson & Sroufe, 1995; Lind et al., 2014; Moss et al., 2005; NICHD, 2004;

Thompson, 2008).

Method

Participants

This study used data from Phase I and II of the National Institute of Child Health and

Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care. The original sample consisted of

1364 children and their families. Families were recruited from 10 sites across the United States

when the child studied was one month old. Families were excluded if the mother was younger

than 18 years of age, did not speak English, or had a history of substance abuse. Families were

also excluded if they intended to move, or if the child had a disability or had been hospitalized

for more than one week after birth. At the time of recruitment, 80.4% of the sample was

Caucasian, 12.9% African American, and 6.7% another ethnicity. 84% of the children lived in an

intact household and 15% in a single parent household. Children’s attachment was assessed at 36

months and children’s negative affect was assessed at 54 months. A total of 187 participants

were classified with disorganized attachment subtypes (see Table 1 for distributions). 110

participants were girls and 77 were boys. 74.87% of the sample was Caucasian, 19.79% was

African American, and 5.34% were of another ethnicity. 1140 participants were studied for the

post-hoc analysis of negative affect among 4-way classification of attachment. 558 participants

were girls and 582 were boys. 82.54% of the sample was Caucasian, 11.32% was African

American, and 6.14% was of another ethnicity.

Procedure

At 36 months, children and their mothers completed a modified Strange Situation to

9


assess attachment patterns. When the children were 54 months, their negative affect was assessed

in a structured toy activity with their mothers during a lab visit and with another adult during a

home visit. Children’s negative affect was also assessed during a structured friendship

interaction at 54 months.

Measures

Child attachment. At 36 months, the mother and child completed a modified Strange Situation

procedure. The mother and child were left in a playroom for 3 minutes. Then a researcher would

knock on the door and the mother would leave the room. After another 3 minutes, the mother

would return. 3 minutes later, another knock on the door would occur and the mother would

leave for 5 minutes. The mother then returned for a final reunion of 5 minutes. Coders reviewed

videotapes of the separation-reunions and classified children according to 4-way attachment

category ratings (secure, avoidant, ambivalent, and disorganized). Coders also classified

children’s attachment subcategories according to the MacArthur Working Group on Attachment

coding system. According to this system, children were categorized as secure, ambivalent,

avoidant, controlling-caregiving, controlling-punitive, controlling-mixed, or behaviorally

disorganized. Intercoder agreement on categorical classifications was 75.7% (kappa= .58)

(O’Connor et al., 2011).

Negative affect. At 54 months, children and their mothers completed a 15 min. structured toy

activity during a lab visit. First they completed an Etch-A-Sketch maze, followed by a task

where variously shaped blocks were used to build same-sized towers, and finally they used

animal puppets during a free-play period. Their interactions were coded by trained observers.

Children’s negativity was rated on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being very low and 7 being very high.

10


Children also completed a 15 min. structured toy activity at home with another adult,

other than their mother. Adults included fathers, grandparents, other relatives, mothers’ partners,

or other adults. First they built a structure using Marbleworks. This involved using chutes and

ramps for marbles to run through. Then they played with a set of African animals and props.

Children’s negativity was observed and coded according to the same 7-point scale.

Finally, children completed three structured play sessions with a peer. In the first session,

the child and peer played a Mickey Mouse pop-up game. During the second session, they played

with a Viewmaster. For the third session, they were given a Fisher-Price doctor kit and a doll to

play with. Observers scored the child’s contribution to negative interaction. Scores ranged from

1 to 3, with higher scores indicating higher expression of negativity in the interaction. There was

modest internal reliability for this measure, as Cronbach’s alpha was .66.

Results

This study investigated whether negative affect differed among disorganized attachment

subtypes in preschool-aged children (see Table 2 for means, standard deviations, and ranges of

variables). I first determined the frequency distribution of participants among the four

disorganized attachment subtypes (see Table 1). Of the original 1364 participants, 187 were

classified as disorganized. Further classification according to the MacArthur Working Group on

Attachment coding system revealed 26 participants were classified as controlling-punitive, 43

participants were classified as controlling-caregiving, 33 participants were classified as

controlling-mixed, and 85 participants were classified as behaviorally disorganized.

My first hypothesis, that the amount of negative affect displayed by preschoolers at 54

months would differ among disorganized attachment subtypes, and my second hypothesis, that

preschoolers with controlling-punitive attachments would display more negative affect than

11


preschoolers with controlling-caregiving attachments, were examined by a one-way analysis of

variance (see Table 3) and an independent samples t-test (see Table 4). The one-way ANOVA

revealed no significant differences in negative affect between disorganized attachment subtypes

for the measure of child negativity with the mother, F(3, 162)= 1.063, p= .367, for the measure

of child negativity with another adult, F(3, 113)= .509, p= .677, and for the measure of child

negativity with the mother, F(3, 106)= .169, p= .911. The independent samples t-test also failed

to reveal significant differences in negative affect between disorganized attachment subtypes for

the measure of child negativity with the mother, t(62)= -1.23, p= .233, for the measure of child

negativity with another adult, t(46)= -5.14, p= .610, and for the measure of child negativity with

a peer, t(39)= -.438, p= .664. Cohen’s D revealed small effect sizes for all measures of negative

affect. Therefore, both hypotheses failed to be supported.

Following my analyses, I conducted a post-hoc one-way ANOVA and least significant

difference multiple comparisons to determine whether negative affect varied between 4-way

classification of attachment in preschoolers (see Table 5 for means, standard deviations, ranges).

The one-way ANOVA revealed significant differences for the measure of children’s negative

affect with the mother, F(3, 997)= 4.630, p= .003, and for the measure of children’s negative

affect with a peer, F(3, 718)= 2.841, p= .037, but did not find significant differences for

children’s negative affect with another adult, F(3, 750)= 1.654, p= .176. Mean differences (see

Table 6) revealed for the measure of children’s negative affect with the mother, children with

secure attachments displayed less negative affect than children with ambivalent attachments,

MD= -.195, and children with disorganized attachments, MD= -.408. Children with avoidant

attachments displayed less negative affect than children with disorganized attachments, MD=

-.508. For the measure of children’s negative affect with the peer, children with secure

12


attachments displayed less negative affect than children with disorganized attachments, MD=

-.108. Children with avoidant attachments displayed less negative affect than children with

ambivalent attachments, MD= -.222, and children with disorganized attachments, MD= -.269. In

conclusion, preschoolers with disorganized attachments displayed more negative affect than

preschoolers with secure or avoidant attachments.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine whether displays of negative affect in

preschoolers varied among disorganized attachment subtypes. My first hypothesis, that displays

of negative affect would differ among disorganized attachment, was not supported. Therefore,

my second hypothesis, that children with controlling-punitive attachments would display more

negative affect than children with controlling-caregiving attachments, was also not supported.

Although approximately two-thirds of disorganized children experience role reversal within the

attachment dyad and shift to exhibit more controlling behaviors, it may be that they do not shift

in their expressions of emotion or strategies of emotion regulation (Moss et al., 2011). Internal

working models of affective communication formed in the attachment relationship may be fairly

stable and consolidated by the time role reversal occurs (Carlson & Sroufe, 1995; NICHD, 2004;

Thompson, 2008).

While both findings were contrary to what was predicted, post-hoc analysis to determine

whether negative affect varied among 4-way classifications of attachment in preschoolers

revealed significant differences among classifications. For the measure of child negativity with

the mother, children with secure attachments displayed less negative affect than children with

ambivalent and disorganized attachments, but not children with avoidant attachments. Children

with avoidant attachments displayed less negative affect than children with disorganized

13


attachments. For the measure of child negativity with a peer, children with secure attachment

displayed less negative affect than children with disorganized attachment. Children with avoidant

attachment displayed less negative affect than children with ambivalent or disorganized

attachment, but not children with secure attachment. For both measures, children with

disorganized attachment displayed more negative affect than children with secure or avoidant

attachment, but did not differ from children with ambivalent attachment.

These findings are consistent with previous research supporting that displays of negative

affect differ among attachment patterns (Beebe & Steele, 2013; Goldberg et al., 1994; LeCompte

& Moss, 2014). Displays of emotion draw reactions from the environment and help to shape

children’s experiences. Because children with disorganized attachments display more negative

affect, they are at higher risk for child abuse and negative dyadic interactions with caregivers.

The early preschool age is an important period to intervene in the disorganized attachment

relationship, as children are forming and consolidating internal working models of emotion.

Earlier treatment may prevent maladaptive strategies of coping from developing and promote

more beneficial and supportive attachment relationships.

Several issues may have affected the results of this study. First, while the sample size for

all children with disorganized attachments was adequate, the sample size of each subtype was

small, which may have hindered the ability to detect significant effects. The sample size also

decreased for measures of children’s negative affect with another adult and with a peer. Another

factor was that the measures of the children’s negative affect were all observational methods of

the children involved in a toy-interaction with another individual, due to limits within the

NICHD SECCYD data set. Measures of children’s negative affect should be assessed in different

contexts to increase external validity. The NICHD also failed to report reliability measures for

14


children’s negative affect with the mother and an adult other than the mother. The measure of

children’s negative affect with another adult also allowed for the adult to be anyone other than

the mother (such as a father, grandparent, partner, or friend of the mother), which may have

altered results. The NICHD SECCYD study also excluded mothers who did not speak English,

which may have subsequently excluded high-risk families, reducing the number of disorganized

attachment dyads. Finally, the MacArthur Working Group on Attachment coding system utilizes

categorical classifications and sub-classifications of attachment, while a continuous measure

might better indicate the extent of behaviors among subtypes of disorganized attachment.

Differences among negative affect may not have been observed because observed punitive,

caregiving, and disorganized behaviors differ within the disorganized attachment classification

along a continuum, with each individual child experiencing varied levels of behaviors.

Although this study did not find significant differences among preschoolers with

disorganized attachment subtypes, it is important to further investigate the role of emotion

among subtypes. This study only observed displays of negative affect, but it may be beneficial to

observe displays of positive affect. Controlling-caregiving children may display more positive

affect than other subtypes due to attempts to guide, cheer-up, or orient their caregiver. It is also

important to examine why role reversal is observed in two-thirds of children with disorganized

attachment. Researchers might explore whether this shift occurs as a strategy of behavioral

regulation or coping mechanism. Attention should focus on determining if expressions of

emotion and strategies of emotion regulation change across a greater span of time, from before

role reversal, to after, and into middle childhood and adolescence. There is still little research on

disorganized attachment subtypes. Disorganized attachment has been linked to maladaptive

implications on childhood and adolescence, including child abuse and numerous internalizing

15


and externalizing problems (Mash & Wolfe, 2014). It is important to expand our knowledge of

these subtypes to better understand the disorganized attachment relationship, in order to develop

effective strategies to improve attachment relationships and support adaptive development of

children with disorganized attachments.

16


References

Ainsworth, M. D., & Wittig, B. A. (1969). Attachment and exploratory behavior of one-year-

olds in a strange situation. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of Infant Behavior Vol. 4,

pp. 111-136). London: Methuen.

Bowlby, J. (1969-1980). Attachment and loss. (Vol. 1-3) New-York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York. Basic Books.

Bureau, J.- F., Easterbrooks, M. A., & Lyons-Ruth, K. (2009a). Maternal depressive symptoms

in infancy: unique contribution to children’s depressive symptoms in childhood

and adolescence? Development and Psychopathology, 21, 519–537.

Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1995). The contribution of attachment theory to developmental

psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental Processes and

Psychopathology: Volume 1. Theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches

(pp. 581-617). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. In N. Fox

(Ed.), The developmement of emotion regulation. Monographs of the Society for

Research in Child Development, 59 (2-3, Serial No. 240), 228-249.

Dubois-Comtois, K., Moss, E., Cyr, C., & Pascuzzo, K. (2013). Behavior problems in middle

childhood: The predictive role of maternal distress, child attachment, and mother–child

interactions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 1311-1324.

Duschinsky, R. (2015). The emergence of the disorganized/disoriented (D) attachment

classification, 1979–1982. History Of Psychology, 18(1), 32-46.

Gergely, G. & Watson, J. (1996). The social biofeedback model of parental affect-mirroring.

International Journal of Psvcho-Analvsis, 77, 1181–1212.

17


Gergely, G. & Watson, J. S. (1999). Early social-emotional development: Contingency

perception and the social biofeedback model. In P. Rochat (Ed.), Early social cognition

(pp. 101–136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gianino, A. & Tronick, E. Z. (1992). The Mutual Regulation Model: The infant’s self and

interactive regulation and coping and defensive capacities. In T. M. Field, P. M. McCabe

& N. Schneiderman (Eds.), Stress and coping across development. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Goldberg, S., MacKay-Soroka, S., & Rochester, M. (1994). Affect, attachment, and maternal

responsiveness. Infant Behavior & Development, 17(3), 335-339.

Green, J., & Goldwyn, R. (2002). Annotation: Attachment disorganization and psychopathology:

new findings in attachment research and their potential implications for developmental

psychopathology in childhood. Journal Of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43(7), 835-

846.

Hesse, E., & Main, M. (2000). Disorganized infant, child, and adult attachment: collapse in

behavioral and attentional strategies. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic

Association, 48, 1097–1127.

Lecompte, V., & Moss, E. (2014). Disorganized and controlling patterns of attachment, role

reversal, and caregiving helplessness: Links to adolescents’ externalizing problems.

American Journal Of Orthopsychiatry, 84(5), 581-589.

Lind, T., Bernard, K., Ross, E., & Dozier, M. (2014). Intervention effects on negative affect of

CPS-referred children: Results of a randomized clinical trial. Child Abuse & Neglect,

38(9), 1459-1467.

18


Lyons-Ruth, K., Easterbrooks, M.A., & Cibelli, C. D. (1997). Infant attachment strategies, infant

mental lag, and maternal depressive symptoms: Predictors of internalizing and

externalizing problems at age 7. Developmental Psychology, 33, 681–692.

Main, M. (1999). Epiloque. Attachment theory: Eighteen points with suggestions for future

studies. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver, Handbook of attachment. Theory, research, and

clinical applications (pp. 845–887). New York: Guilford.

Main, M., & Cassidy, J. (1988). Categories of response to reunion with the parent at age six:

Predicted from infant attachment classifications and stable over a one-month period.

Developmental Psychology, 24, 415–426.

Main, M., & Soloman, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented

during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mash, E., & Wolfe, D. (2014). Abnormal Child Psychology, 6th Edition. United States:

Cengage Learning.

Mikolajewski, A., Allan, N., Hart, S., Lonigan, C., & Taylor, J. (20130). Negative affect shares

genetic and environmental influences with symptoms of childhood internalizing

and externalizing disorders. Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 411-423.

Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S. S., & Robinson, L. R. (2007). The role of the

family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16(2),

361-388.

Moss, E., Bureau, J.-F., St.-Laurent, D., & Tarabulsy, G. M. (2011). Understanding disorganized

attachment at preschool and school age: Examining divergent pathways of disorganized

and controlling children. In J. Solomon & C. George (Eds.), Disorganized attachment and

caregiving (pp. 52–79). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

19


Moss, E., Cyr, C., Bureau, J.-F., Tarabulsy, G. M., & Dubois-Comtois, K. (2005). Stability of

attachment during the preschool period. Developmental Psychology, 41, 773–783.

Moss, E., Cyr, C., & Dubois-Comtois, K. (2004). Attachment at early school age and

developmental risk: examining family contexts and behavior problems of controlling-

caregiving, controlling- punitive, and behaviorally disorganized children. Developmental

Psychology, 40, 519–532.

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2004). Affect dysregulation in the mother- child

relationship in the toddler years: antecedents and consequences. Development and

Psychopathology, 16, 43–68.

O’Connor, E., Bureau, J. F., McCartney, K., & Lyons-Ruth, K. (2011). Risks and outcomes

associated with disorganized/controlling patterns of attachment at age three years in the

national institute of child health & human development study of early child care and

youth development. Infant Mental Health Journal, 32, 450–472.

Teti, D. M. (1999). Conceptualizations of disorganization in the preschool years: An integration.

New York: Guilford Press.

Thompson, R. A. (2008). Early attachment and later development: Familiar questions, new

answers. New York: Guilford Press.

20


Table 1.

Frequency Distribution of Disorganized Attachment SubtypesDisorganized Attachment Subtype (36 mo.) Frequency

Controlling-Punitive 26

Controlling-Caregiving 43

Controlling-Mixed 33

Behaviorally Disorganized 85

Total 187

Note. The total number of disorganized participants came from an original sample of 1364 participants.

21


Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for Disorganized Attachment SubtypesNegative Affect (54 mo.)

Disorganized Attachment Subtype (36 mo.)

N Mean (SD) Minimum Maximum

Child Negativity with

Mom

Controlling-Punitive

25 2.40 (1.53) 1.00 7.00

Controlling-Caregiving

39 1.97 (1.22) 1.00 5.00

Controlling-Mixed

29 2.07 (1.25) 1.00 5.00

Behaviorally Disorganized

73 1.88 (1.24) 1.00 6.00


Other Adult


20 1.40 (.82) 1.00 4.00


28 1.29 (.71) 1.00 4.00

Controlling-Mixed

23 1.35 (.77) 1.00 4.00


46 1.52 (.96) 1.00 5.00


Peer


14 1.57 (.62) 1.00 2.67


27 1.49 (.49) 1.00 2.67

Controlling-Mixed

24 1.60 (.58) 1.00 2.67


45 1.51 (.62) 1.00 3.00

22


Table 3.

One-Way ANOVA for Disorganized Attachment SubtypesNegative Affect Measure (54 mo.)

SS df MS F Sig.

Child Negativity with Mom

5.249

266.727

3

162

1.750

1.646

1.063 0.367

Child Negativity with Other Adult

1.098

81.210

3

113

0.366

0.719

0.509 0.677

Child Negativity with Peer

0.183

36.084

3

106

0.061

0.340

0.179 0.911

23


Table 4.

Disorganized Attachment Subtypes t-TestNegative Affect Measure

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)

MD Std. Error Diff.

95% CI of the DifferenceLower Upper


1.000 0.321 -1.231 62 .223 -.426 .346 -1.117 .266


0.696 0.408 -.514 46 .610 -.114 .222 -.562 .333


2.449 0.126 -.438 39 .664 -.078 .177 -.436 .281

Table 5.

24


Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for 4-Way Classification of AttachmentNegative Affect Measure (54 mo.)

Attachment Classification (36 mo.)

N Mean (SD) Minimum Maximum


Secure 616 1.70 (1.02) 1.00 7.00

Avoidant 48 1.60 (.92) 1.00 5.00

Ambivalent 171 1.89 (1.19) 1.00 7.00

Disorganized 166 2.01 (1.29) 1.00 7.00


Secure 477 1.27 (.66) 1.00 6.00

Avoidant 33 1.24 (.56) 1.00 3.00

Ambivalent 127 1.37 (.82) 1.00 7.00

Disorganized 117 1.41 (.84) 1.00 5.00


Secure 465 1.43 (.49) 1.00 3.00

Avoidant 29 1.26 (.33) 1.00 2.00

Ambivalent 118 1.49 (.52) 1.00 3.00

Disorganized 110 1.53 (.58) 1.00 3.00

25


Table 6.

Mean Differences of 4-Way Attachment Classification and Negative AffectNegative Affect Measure (54 mo.)

Attachment Classification (36 mo.)

Mean Differences


Secure Avoidant

Ambivalent

Disorganized

.096

-.195*

-.312*

Avoidant Secure

Ambivalent

Disorganized

-.096

-.291

-.408*

Ambivalent Secure

Avoidant

Disorganized

.195*

.291

-.117

Disorganized Secure

Avoidant

Ambivalent

.312*

.408*

.117


Secure Avoidant

Ambivalent

Disorganized

.028

-.100

-.140

Avoidant Secure

Ambivalent

Disorganized

-.028

-.128

-.168

Ambivalent Secure

Avoidant

.100

.128

26


Disorganized -.040

Disorganized Secure

Avoidant

Ambivalent

.140

.168

.040


Secure Avoidant

Ambivalent

Disorganized

.161

-.061

-.108*

Avoidant Secure

Ambivalent

Disorganized

.061

.222*

-.269*

Ambivalent Secure

Avoidant

Disorganized

.061

.222*

-.047

Disorganized Secure

Avoidant

Ambivalent

.108*

.269*

.047

27

Documents

Negative Affect and Disorganized Att Paper