Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Infant Behavior & Development 31 (2008) 294–301

Brief report

Separation anxiety in first-time mothers: Infant behavioral reactivityand maternal parenting self-efficacy as contributors

Hui-Chin Hsu ∗, Jihyun SungDepartment of Child and Family Development, The University of Georgia, McPhaul Center, Athens, GA 30602-2632, USA

Received 2 January 2007; received in revised form 25 June 2007; accepted 12 October 2007

Abstract

This short-term longitudinal study examined the contribution of infant behavioral reactivity and maternal parenting self-efficacyto first-time mothers’ (total n = 32) separation anxiety. Infants’ behavioral reactivity indexed by gaze and facial affect were observedin the conditions of routine play and maternal still face at 3 months. Mothers reported their self-perceived parenting efficacy at 3months and separation anxiety at 6 months. Results revealed that infants’ frequent gazing at their mother, greater negative affect,and less positive affect observed during the still face, but not during the routine play, contributed to heightened maternal separationanxiety. In addition to a direct link between low maternal parenting self-efficacy and high maternal separation anxiety, maternalparenting self-efficacy buffered against the impact of infant negative reactivity on maternal separation anxiety. The role of infantreactivity and maternal self-efficacy in parenting was discussed.© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Maternal separation anxiety; Maternal parenting self-efficacy; Infant behavioral reactivity

1. Introduction

Separation anxiety is the feelings such as worry, guilt, and sadness uniquely associated with mothers’ temporaryseparations from child (Hock, McBride, & Gnezda, 1989). Recent studies have demonstrated that mothers’ separationanxiety is determined by the major sources of stress or support experienced in their lives. In addition to distal factorssuch as martial quality and social support, proximal factors within the caregiving system such as maternal and childcharacteristics also contribute to individual differences in maternal separation anxiety (Hsu, 2004). The present studyexamined two possible contributing factors within the caregiving system—the infant’s behavioral reactivity and themother’s parenting self-efficacy.

1.1. Infant behavioral reactivity

Relying on maternal self-report, previous research indicates that mothers of reactive, difficult, or sick infants oftenexperience heightened separation anxiety (Mayseless & Scher, 2000; Porter & Hsu, 2003; Scher & Blumberg, 1999;Scher & Mayseless, 2000). Behavioral data focusing on infants’ inborn temperamental characteristics also indicate thatnewborns’ negative reactivity and self-regulation are related to mothers’ concerns about separation (Hsu, 2004; McBride

∗ Corresponding author.E-mail address: hchin@fcs.uga.edu (H.-C. Hsu).

0163-6383/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2007.10.009

H.-C. Hsu, J. Sung / Infant Behavior & Development 31 (2008) 294–301 295

& Belsky, 1988). Research linking infant behavioral reactivity and maternal separation anxiety beyond the newbornperiod is scant. The contribution of infant behavioral reactivity to maternal separation anxiety can be understood fromthe attachment framework. The protection mechanism of parental caregiving system is likely to be activated by infantdistress signals (cf. Bell & Richard, 2000; Cassidy, 1999, 2000). Infant reactivity to stressors tends to evoke parentalresponse to safeguard the safety and security of their infant. Anxious feelings arise when parents are unable to providecare and comfort to their infant. Thus, the first goal of this study was to investigate whether and how infants’ behavioralreactivity in response to a challenging situation would be associated with separation anxiety experienced by first-timemothers in early infancy.

Maternal still face is a robust experimental procedure designed to assess young infants’ reactivity and regu-lation (e.g., Tronick, Als, Adamson, Wise, & Brazelton, 1978). During this experimental procedure, the routineinteraction between infant and mother is interrupted by a sudden termination of the mother’s interactive behav-ior. Such temporary unresponsiveness (i.e., still face) in mothers is stressful to young infants. They respond withdecreased positive affect and gazing at mother as well as increased negative affect (e.g., Tronick et al., 1978;Weinberg, Tronick, Cohn, & Olson, 1999). Mothers also reported feeling uncomfortable during the still-face con-dition, particularly, when their infants showed quicker and longer negative reactivity (Mayes, Carter, Egger, & Pajer,1991).

In the present study, infants’ behavioral reactivity indexed by gaze and affect was observed in two different con-ditions: during a routine mother–infant play and during a challenging situation where the mother was unavailableemotionally (i.e., still face). A contextual effect of infant behavioral reactivity was expected: infants’ greater behav-ioral reactivity to the challenge of maternal emotional unavailability observed during the maternal still face, but notduring the routine play, would be related to their mothers’ greater anxious feeling about separation. Specifically, it wasexpected that frequent gazing at mother, greater negative affect, and less positive affect in infants would be associatedwith mothers’ greater separation anxiety.

1.2. Maternal parenting self-efficacy

Heightened separation anxiety is linked to dependency, self-criticism, and low self-esteem in mothers (Hock &Lutz, 1998; McBride & Belsky, 1988). It appears that suboptimal functioning of the self-system is tied to mothers’distress about separation from child. Conversely, prior research also demonstrates that self-efficacy beliefs in parenting,which reflects mothers’ perceived confidence in a parental role, is positively linked to their active coping (Wells-Parker,Miller, & Topping, 1990) and adjustment (Williams et al., 1987). Parenting self-efficacy also buffers mothers fromthe negative impact of infant temperamental negativity on their behavioral sensitivity (Leerkes & Crockenberg, 2002).Nonetheless, less is known about whether mothers’ self-efficacy beliefs in parenting would be directly and/or indirectlyassociated with their separation anxiety. Therefore, the second goal of the present study was to further understand therole of parenting self-efficacy in mothers’ separation anxiety.

According to Bandura’s (1992) theory, self-beliefs of efficacy can affect not only how individuals think and act, butalso how they feel. When facing threatening situations, individuals with high efficacy beliefs and perceived controlare not emotionally perturbed. In contrast, those who believe they are incapable of managing potential threateningsituations are likely to experience heightened anxiety arousal. First-time mothers acquire and develop new knowledgeand skills in caregiving. Their perceived parenting efficacy reflects self-estimations of competence in performing theculturally construed role of parent and in meeting the needs of their infant. Unavailability to infant during separation isexpected to be viewed by mothers as a threatening event. Based on the self-efficacy theory, mothers who believe theyare capable of fulfilling their caregiving responsibilities would be less likely to feel uneasy and apprehensive aboutseparation from infant. Thus, it was hypothesized that mothers’ high parenting self-efficacy is directly associated withtheir low separation anxiety.

Furthermore, experimental studies have shown that maternal self-efficacy moderates the effect of infant difficultyon maternal physiological and behavioral sensitivity (Donovan, 1981; Donovan & Leavitt, 1985; Donovan, Leavitt, &Walsh, 1990). In addition to the direct contribution, maternal parenting self-efficacy may also moderate the relationshipbetween infant reactivity and maternal separation anxiety. When facing the threat of separating from infant, mothers’parenting efficacy beliefs may serve as a buffer to cushion against the impact of infant negative reactivity on theirseparation anxiety. Therefore, the third goal of the present study was to test the hypothesis that maternal parentingefficacy indirectly buffers against the effect of infant reactivity on maternal separation anxiety.

296 H.-C. Hsu, J. Sung / Infant Behavior & Development 31 (2008) 294–301

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Thirty-two first-time mothers and their infants (19 females) participated in the current short-term longitudinalstudy. Recruited from prenatal education classes, the mothers were white, middle-class women in their late twenties(M = 27.09 years, S.D. = 4.65) and had some college education (M = 15.34 years, S.D. = 2.01). The majority of mothers(87.5%) were married. More than half (65.6%) of the mothers were full-time employed when they were first recruitedin this study. The infants in this study were all delivered at full-term without major complications.

2.2. Procedure and measures

The data collection took place when the infants were at 3 and 6 months of age (±1 week). At 3 months, infants andtheir mothers took part in the maternal still-face experiment. Mothers’ reports on parenting self-efficacy were gatheredat 3 months and their reports on separation anxiety were obtained at 6 months.

2.3. Still-face procedure

The maternal still-face procedure was conducted in a laboratory room. During this procedure, the infant was placedin a car seat sitting across from his/her mother at an eye level. In the first 3 min of social interaction, the mother engagedin routine play with her infant as they normally would. Upon receiving a signal from the experimenter, the motherceased all interactive behaviors (i.e., no talking, smiling, touching, etc.) and remained in this still-face posture for3 min. The still-face condition was curtailed when the infant exhibited continuous crying for 30 s. After the maternalstill face, the mother and her infant resumed their routine play for another 3 min. Two infants were too fussy to finishthe first condition of routine play. Two mothers failed to follow the instructions for the maternal still-face condition.Thus, the final sample size varied according to the condition.

2.4. Infant gaze

The direction of infant gaze was coded as either looking at mother’s face or looking away from mother’s face forat least 1 s. Given frequent changes in infant gaze, the frequency measure of infant gazing at mother was derived asrate per minute for the conditions of routine play and maternal still face separately. Twenty percent of infants wererandomly selected and coded by a second coder for reliability checks. The average percentage of agreement was 95%and the average kappa was .68.

2.5. Infant affect

The coding of infant positive and negative facial expression was based on the Facial Action Coding System (Ekman& Friesen, 1978). The expression of positive affect was defined as the contraction of zygomatic major muscle, whichretracts the lip corners back and upward. Infant negative affect was defined as a cry face with knitted eyebrows andsquinted eyes. A neutral face was identified when the infant’s facial muscles were relaxed. The measures of infantpositive and negative affect were derived as the proportion of the total duration for each of the two conditions. Twentypercent of infants were randomly selected for checking coding reliability. The average percentage of agreement was98% and the average kappa was .72.

2.6. Maternal parenting self-efficacy

Mothers’ parenting self-efficacy was assessed at 3 months using the Self-Efficacy in the Nurturing Role Ques-tionnaire, which was adapted by Pedersen, Bryan, Huffman, and Del Carmen (1989) from the Parental Sense ofCompetence Scale developed by Gibaud-Wallston and Wandersman (1978). This scale contains 16 items rated on 7-point scales pertaining to mothers’ perceptions of their general competence in caring for an infant. Higher scores reflectgreater feelings of maternal competence in parenting. Adequate test–retest reliability has been demonstrated previously

H.-C. Hsu, J. Sung / Infant Behavior & Development 31 (2008) 294–301 297

(Pedersen et al., 1989; Porter & Hsu, 2003). In this study, internal reliability indexed by Cronbach’s alpha coefficientswas .80.

2.7. Maternal separation anxiety

The 21-item Maternal General Separation Anxiety Scale (Hock et al., 1989) was administered at 6 months. Itassesses the level of maternal worry, sadness, and guilt when separated from infant, tapping the emotional aspect ofparenting experience as wall as maternal beliefs about the importance of exclusive care by mother. Adequate test–retestreliability has been demonstrated in previous research (e.g., Hock et al., 1989). The internal consistency indexed byalpha coefficient was .92 for this study.

3. Results

3.1. Infant behavioral reactivity and maternal separation anxiety

Correlational analysis showed that there was no significant correlation between infants’ behavioral reactivityobserved during the routine play and mothers’ separation anxiety (see Table 1). By contrast, infants’ frequent gazing atmother, less positive affect, and greater negative affect observed during the maternal still face were linked to mothers’heightened separation anxiety (see Table 1).

3.2. Maternal parenting self-efficacy and separation anxiety

3.2.1. Direct contributionCorrelational analysis revealed that mothers’ high parenting self-efficacy assessed at 3 months was associated with

their low separation anxiety at 6 months, r(31) = −.43, p < .05.

3.2.2. Indirect contributionHierarchical regression analysis was applied to further explore the role of maternal parenting self-efficacy in buffering

the effect of infant still-face reactivity on maternal separation anxiety. Because of the small sample size, a compositescore of infant negative reactivity was created. The standardized scores of the three behavioral measures of reactivityto the maternal still face were summed up based on the direction of their correlations to maternal separation anxiety(i.e., infant gaze + negative affect − positive affect).

Maternal separation anxiety served as the dependent variable in the regression analysis. Maternal parenting self-efficacy was entered into the regression model first, followed by infant negative reactivity. The indirect buffering effectwas tested by the interaction between maternal parenting self-efficacy and infant negative reactivity, which was enteredthe last. In Step 1, the contribution of maternal parenting self-efficacy was significant (see Table 2). In Step 2, theaddition of infant negative reactivity was also significant (see Table 2), which demonstrated that the contribution ofinfant negative reactivity to maternal separation anxiety was over and above that of maternal parenting self-efficacy.Together, infant distress reactivity and maternal parenting self-efficacy significantly predicted maternal separationanxiety, F(2,24) = 10.71, R2 = .42, p < .05. The addition of the interaction term in the third step was also significant

Table 1Cross-time relations of infant behavioral reactivity to maternal separation anxiety

Behavioral measure Condition

Routine play Maternal still face

Gaze at mother .05 .39*

Positive affect .11 −.45*

Negative affect .08 .43*

* p < .05.

298 H.-C. Hsu, J. Sung / Infant Behavior & Development 31 (2008) 294–301

Table 2Hierarchical regression: maternal parenting self-efficacy moderates the effect of infant reactivity to still face on maternal separation anxiety

Step Variables β �R2 R2

1. Maternal parenting self-efficacy −.21 .17* .55**

2. Infant negative reactivity −3.03* .25**

3. Maternal parenting self-efficacy × infant negative reactivity 3.58* .13**

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

Fig. 1. Maternal parenting self-efficacy moderates the association between infant negative reactivity and maternal separation anxiety.

(see Table 2), suggesting that maternal parenting self-efficacy served as a buffer cushioning against the effect of infantnegative reactivity on maternal separation anxiety.

To illustrate the nature of this interaction effect, a median-split of maternal parenting self-efficacy and infant negativereactivity was conducted separately. The mean score of maternal separation anxiety was graphed as a function of highor low infant negative reactivity with respect to high or low maternal parenting self-efficacy (see Fig. 1). The resultindicated that mothers’ parenting self-efficacy buffered against the impact of infant negative reactivity on maternalseparation anxiety when the level of reactivity was low, t(13) = 2.32, p < .05. In contrast, when infants’ negative reactivitywas high, the buffering effect of parenting self-efficacy was not significant, t(13) = .56, ns.

4. Discussion

The present study examined the contribution of infant behavioral reactivity to the challenge of maternal still faceand maternal parenting self-efficacy to maternal separation anxiety. It was found that when challenged by their still-faced mothers, infants’ frequency gazing at mother was related to greater maternal separation anxiety. Young infantsoften use gaze aversion to regulate their emotional arousal (Stifter & Moyer, 1991; Toda & Fogel, 1993). Failure tolook away from their mothers during the still face may indicate infants’ inability to self-regulating distress. Mothersof underregulated infants may be more anxious and concerned about separation from child and leaving the care tosomeone else. On the other hand, orienting toward mother also act as a source of comfort for infants when they aremildly distressed during the still face (Mayes & Carter, 1990). Such mother-oriented regulatory strategy may makemothers feel guilty about their unavailability during separation. Regardless of the underlying mechanism for infants toengage in frequent looking at their mother during the still face, mothers of infants engaging in frequent social lookingtend to experience heightened anxiety because they feel guilty and worry about unable to provide care and comfort totheir infants during separation.

H.-C. Hsu, J. Sung / Infant Behavior & Development 31 (2008) 294–301 299

We also found that infants’ response of greater negative affect and less positive affect contributed to heightenedmaternal separation anxiety. This valence-specific pattern in the association of infant positive and negative affect withmaternal separation anxiety is consistent with the theorization of parenting emotions. Dix’s (1991) process modelof parenting emotions suggests that parents’ emotions are activated by their concerns about child. Infants’ affectiveresponses to the challenge of maternal emotional unavailability (i.e., still face) may validate or invalidate maternalconcerns. When infant affective response pattern is incompatible with mothers’ concerns about infant negative reactivityto stress (e.g., greater positive affect and less negative affect), mothers may view their infants as robust in coping withthe stress of maternal unavailability, and, thus, experience low separation anxiety. By contrast, infants’ heightenednegative reactivity to stress (e.g., less positive affect and greater negative affect) may validate mothers’ concerns andview them as vulnerable and in need of parental regulation and protection, which, in turn, arouse their anxiety andruminations about separation from child.

Furthermore, the affective response pattern of greater negative affect and less positive affect in infants’ reactivityto maternal still face may also reflect their temperamental difficulty (e.g., Moore, Cohn, & Campbell, 2001), whichhas been found to be linked to maternal separation anxiety (e.g., Fein, Gariboldi, & Boni, 1993; Humphry & Hock,1989; Hsu, 2004; McBride & Belsky, 1988). Infants with difficult temperament are not only emotionally negative butalso unpredictable and hard to soothe. Experimental studies have demonstrated that a mother’s history of failure inregulating her infants’ crying gives rise to the state of helplessness (e.g., Donovan, 1981; Donovan & Leavitt, 1985).Learned helplessness and the perceived loss of control are associated with increased anxiety, which further leads toattention narrowing, activity inhibition, and behavioral intensification (see Chorpita & Barlow, 1998). Resultantly,mothers of difficult infants are anxious about separation and show a behavioral pattern of oversensitivity to infantdistressed signals and undersensitivity to infant positive affective signals (Hsu, 2004).

Finally, it was found that infants’ reactivity to the challenge of maternal unresponsiveness (i.e., still face), but notmaternal routine play, contributed to first-time mothers’ emotional distress arising from separation from infant. Thesefindings correspond to the evidence that challenging situations elicit more consistent individual differences in infantsthan routine play situations (Miller, McDonough, Rosenblum, & Sameroff, 2002). The differential links of infant affectin different contexts to maternal separation anxiety may also highlight the role of cognition in parenting. The salienceof infant affect to mothers differs across interactive contexts. Recent evidence shows that maternal impressions ofinfant emotionality are contextually based (Hane, Fox, Polak-Toste, Ghera, & Gunner, 2006). This finding explicatesthe need for taking the context into consideration when examining the role of infant social signals in maternal parentingemotions.

4.1. Maternal parenting self-efficacy

4.1.1. Direct contributionIn this study, we found that mothers who perceived themselves as less efficacious in parenting at 3 months experienced

greater separation anxiety subsequently at 6 months. This direct linkage between maternal parenting self-efficacy andseparation anxiety lends support to Bandura’s self-efficacy theory (1992, 1997), which asserts that efficacy beliefsregulate individuals’ emotional experience and that beliefs in self-efficacy are an important personal resource inpositive adaptation. When first-time mothers’ appraisal indicates that they are inefficacious in meeting the demandsof parenting, they may view separation from child as a threat to the fulfillment of their caregiving responsibilities.On the other hand, the self-serving cognitive interpretation of parenting efficacy appears to be a positive adaptationwhich contributes to lessen mothers’ separation anxiety. However, it needs to be noted that experimental studies havedemonstrated that unrealistic efficacy beliefs are associated with maladaptive parenting (Donovan et al., 1990), andonly a moderate level of parenting self-efficacy is associated with positive parenting (Donovan, Leavitt, & Taylor,2005). Due to the small sample size, we were unable to test this non-linear relationship between parenting self-efficacyand separation anxiety. Future studies with larger sample sizes are needed to discern the optimal level of self-perceivedparenting efficacy that brings about a relief in first-time mothers’ separation anxiety.

4.1.2. Indirect contributionThis study also found that parenting efficacy beliefs served as a protective factor cushioning against the impact of

infant negative reactivity on maternal separation anxiety. This finding confirms the theoretical proposition that self-efficacy, a sense of perceived control, can buffer against perceived threats and anxious feelings in adults (see Chorpita &

300 H.-C. Hsu, J. Sung / Infant Behavior & Development 31 (2008) 294–301

Barlow, 1998). Close examination further revealed that the buffering effect dissipated when infant negative reactivitywas high. This result is consistent with Leerkes and Crockenberg’s (2002) study, in which they demonstrated thatwhen infant temperamental negativity was high, maternal parenting self-efficacy did not alter behavioral sensitivity.Together, these findings may have implications for designing interventions for parents. The cognitive interventionmay be more beneficial to mothers of less reactive infants. By contrast, behavioral interventions emphasize enhancingmothers’ sensitivity to infant signals (e.g., van den Boom, 1994) may be a more direct strategy to benefit mothers ofhighly reactive infants (cf. Velderman, Bakermans-Kranenburg, Juffer, & van Ijzendoorn, 2006).

In sum, our findings suggest that both infant behavioral reactivity and maternal parenting self-efficacy play asignificant role in maternal separation anxiety. Findings from this study implicate complex interplays of parentingcognition, parenting emotion, infant behavior, and interactive context with a low-risk population. Since separationanxiety experienced mothers may reflect a personality attribute that is elicited in response to the parenting situationof a mother’s separation from her child (Hock et al., 1989), the relative contribution of maternal (e.g., neuroticism),infant (e.g., self-regulation), and contextual characteristics (e.g., social support) as well as their interactions will needto be examined in future studies.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the mothers and infants who participated in this study and to acknowledge the helpprovided by many undergraduate assistants in data collection as well behavioral coding. We would also like to thankEva Nwokah for her comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

References

Bandura, A. (1992). Exercise of personal agency through the self-efficacy mechanism. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control ofaction (pp. 3–38). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.Bell, D. C., & Richard, A. J. (2000). Caregiving: The forgotten element in attachment. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 69–83.Cassidy, J. (1999). The nature of the child’s ties. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical

applications (pp. 3–20). NY: Guilford.Cassidy, J. (2000). The complexity of the caregiving system: A perspective from attachment theory. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 86–91.Chorpita, B. F., & Barlow, D. H. (1998). The development of anxiety: The role of control in the early environment. Psychological Bulletin, 124,

3–21.Dix, T. (1991). The affective organization of parenting: Adaptive and maladaptive processes. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 3–25.Donovan, W. L. (1981). Maternal learned helplessness and physiologic response to infant crying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40,

919–926.Donovan, W. L., & Leavitt, L. A. (1985). Simulating conditions of learned helplessness: The effects of interventions and attributions. Child

Development, 56, 594–603.Donovan, W., Leavitt, L., & Taylor, N. (2005). Maternal self-efficacy and experimentally manipulated infant difficulty effects on maternal sensory

sensitivity: A signal diction analysis. Developmental Psychology, 41, 784–798.Donovan, W. L., Leavitt, L. A., & Walsh, R. O. (1990). Maternal self-efficacy: Illusory control and its effect on susceptibility to learned helplessness.

Child Development, 61, 1638–1647.Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). Facial action coding system. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Fein, G., Gariboldi, A., & Boni, R. (1993). Antecedents of maternal separation anxiety. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 481–495.Gibaud-Wallston, A., & Wandersman, L. P. (1978, September). Development and utility of the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale. In Paper

presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association.Hane, A. A., Fox, N. A., Polak-Toste, C., Ghera, M. M., & Gunner, B. M. (2006). Contextual basis of maternal perceptions of infant temperament.

Developmental Psychology, 42, 1077–1088.Hock, E., & Lutz, W. J. (1998). Psychological meanings of separation anxiety in mothers and fathers. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 41–55.Hock, E., McBride, S., & Gnezda, M. T. (1989). Maternal separation anxiety: Mother–infant separation from the maternal perspective. Child

Development, 60, 793–802.Hsu, H. (2004). Antecedents and consequences of separation anxiety in first-time mothers: Infant, mother, and social–contextual characteristics.

Infant Behavior and Development, 27, 113–133.Humphry, R. A., & Hock, E. (1989). Infants with colic: A study of maternal stress and anxiety. Infant Mental Health Journal, 10, 263–272.Leerkes, E. M., & Crockenberg, S. C. (2002). The development of matenral self-efficacy and its impact on maternal behavior. Infancy, 3, 227–247.Mayes, L. C., & Carter, A. S. (1990). Emerging social regulatory capacities as seen in the still-face situation. Child Development, 61, 754–763.Mayes, L. C., Carter, A. S., Egger, H. L., & Pajer, K. A. (1991). Reflections on stillness: Mothers’ reactions to the still-face situation. Journal of

American Academy of Child and Adolescence Psychiatry, 30, 22–28.

H.-C. Hsu, J. Sung / Infant Behavior & Development 31 (2008) 294–301 301

Mayseless, O., & Scher, A. (2000). Mother’s attachment concerns regarding spouses and infant’s temperament as modulators of maternal separationanxiety. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 41, 917–925.

McBride, S., & Belsky, J. (1988). Characteristics, determinants, and consequences of maternal separation anxiety. Developmental Psychology, 24,407–414.

Miller, A. L., McDonough, S. C., Rosenblum, K. L., & Sameroff, A. J. (2002). Emotion regulation in context: Situational effects on infant andcaregiver behavior. Infancy, 3, 403–433.

Moore, G. A., Cohn, J. F., & Campbell, S. B. (2001). Infant affective responses to mother’s still face at 6 months differentially predicted internalizingand externalizing behavior at 18 months. Developmental Psychology, 37, 706–714.

Pedersen, F. A., Bryan, Y. E., Huffman, L., & Del Carmen, R. (1989, April). Construction of self and offspring in the pregnancy and early infancyperiods. In Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development.

Porter, C. L., & Hsu, H. (2003). First-time mothers’ perceptions of efficacy during the transition to motherhood: Links to infant temperament.Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 54–64.

Scher, A., & Blumberg, O. (1999). Night waking among 1-year olds: A study of maternal separation anxiety. Child: Care, Health & Development,25, 323–334.

Scher, A., & Mayseless, O. (2000). Mothers of anxious/ambivalent infants: Maternal characteristics and child-care context. Child Development, 71,1629–1639.

Stifter, C. A., & Moyer, D. (1991). The regulation of positive affect: Gaze aversion activity during mother–infant interaction. Infant Behavior andDevelopment, 14, 111–123.

Toda, S., & Fogel, A. (1993). Infant response to the still-face situation at 3 and 6 months. Developmental Psychology, 29, 532–538.Tronick, E. Z., Als, H., Adamson, L., Wise, S., & Brazelton, B. (1978). The infants’ response to entrapment between conflictory messages in

mother–infant interaction. American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 1, 1–13.van den Boom, D. C. (1994). The influence of temperament and mothering on attachment and exploration: An experimental manipulation of sensitive

responsiveness among lower-class mothers with irritable infants. Child Development, 65, 1457–1477.Velderman, M. K., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Juffer, F., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2006). Effects of attachment-based interventions on maternal

sensitivity and infant attachment: Differential susceptibility of highly reactive infants. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 266–274.Weinberg, M. K., Tronick, E. Z., Cohn, J. F., & Olson, K. L. (1999). Gender differences in emotional expressivity and self-regulation during early

infancy. Developmental Psychology, 35, 175–188.Wells-Parker, E., Miller, D. I., & Topping, J. S. (1990). Development of control-of-outcome scales and self-efficacy scales for women in four life

roles. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 564–575.Williams, T. M., Joy, L. A., Travis, L., Gotowiec, A., Blum-Steele, M., Aiken, L. S., et al. (1987). Transition to motherhood: A longitudinal study.

Infant Mental Health Journal, 8, 251–265.