164:
classification, though she urged that the addition be regarded as "open-ended, in the sense that subcategories may be distinguished", as she worried that the D classification might be too encompassing and might treat too many different forms of behaviour as if they were the same thing. Indeed, the D classification puts together infants who use a somewhat disrupted secure (B) strategy with those who seem hopeless and show little attachment behaviour; it also puts together infants who run to hide when they see their caregiver in the same classification as those who show an avoidant (A) strategy on the first reunion and then an ambivalent-resistant (C) strategy on the second reunion. Perhaps responding to such concerns, George and
Solomon have divided among indices of Disorganized/disoriented attachment (D) in the Strange Situation, treating some of the behaviours as a "strategy of desperation" and others as evidence that the attachment system has been flooded (e.g. by fear, or anger). Crittenden also argues that some behaviour classified as Disorganized/disoriented can be regarded as more 'emergency' versions of the avoidant and/or ambivalent/resistant strategies, and function to maintain the protective availability of the caregiver to some degree. Sroufe et al. have agreed that 'even disorganised attachment behaviour (simultaneous approach-avoidance; freezing, etc.) enables a degree of proximity in the face of a frightening or unfathomable parent'. However, 'the presumption that many indices of “disorganisation” are aspects of organised patterns does not preclude acceptance of the notion of disorganisation, especially in cases where the complexity and dangerousness of the threat are beyond children's capacity for response'.
184:
Japan (see Miyake et al., 1985), where infants are rarely separated from their mothers in ordinary circumstances. Also, because older children have a cognitive capacity to maintain relationships when the older person is not present, separation may not provide the same stress for them. Modified procedures based on the
Strange Situation have been developed for older preschool children (see Belsky et al., 1994; Greenberg et al., 1990) but it is much more dubious whether the same approach can be used in middle childhood. Also, despite its manifest strengths, the procedure is based on just 20 minutes of behavior. It can be scarcely expected to tap all the relevant qualities of a child's attachment relationships. Q-sort procedures based on much longer naturalistic observations in the home, and interviews with the mothers have developed in order to extend the data base (see Vaughn & Waters, 1990). A further constraint is that the coding procedure results in discrete categories rather than continuously distributed dimensions. Not only is this likely to provide boundary problems, but also it is not at all obvious that discrete categories best represent the concepts that are inherent in attachment security. It seems much more likely that infants vary in their degree of security and there is need for a measurement systems that can quantify individual variation.
160:. In the Strange Situation, the attachment system is expected to be activated by the departure and return of the caregiver. If the behaviour of the infant does not appear to the observer to be coordinated in a smooth way across episodes to achieve either proximity or some relative proximity with the caregiver, then it is considered "disorganised" as it indicates a disruption or flooding of the attachment system (e.g. by fear). Infant behaviours in the Strange Situation Protocol coded as disorganised/disoriented include overt displays of fear; contradictory behaviours or affects occurring simultaneously or sequentially; stereotypic, asymmetric, misdirected or jerky movements; or freezing and apparent dissociation. However, despite initial symptoms of disorganized/disoriented behaviors, Lyons-Ruth widely "recognized that 52% of disorganized infants continue to approach the caregiver, seek comfort, and cease their distress without clear ambivalent or avoidant behavior."
131:
an infant whose caregiver is consistently unresponsive to their needs. Firstly, avoidant behaviour allows the infant to maintain a conditional proximity with the caregiver: close enough to maintain protection, but distant enough to avoid rebuff. Secondly, the cognitive processes organising avoidant behaviour could help direct attention away from the unfulfilled desire for closeness with the caregiver – avoiding a situation in which the child is overwhelmed with emotion ('disorganised distress'), and therefore unable to maintain control of themselves and achieve even conditional proximity.
140:
have expressed concern that "ambivalent attachment remains the most poorly understood of
Ainsworth's attachment types". In particular, the relationship between ambivalent/resistant (C) and disorganisation (D) is still to be clarified. However, researchers agree that the Anxious-Ambivalent/Resistant strategy is a response to unpredictably responsive caregiving, and that the displays of anger or helplessness towards the caregiver on reunion can be regarded as a conditional strategy for maintaining the availability of the caregiver by preemptively taking control of the interaction.
113:
problem in the future. Therefore, secure attachment can be seen as the most adaptive attachment style for learning and making use of resources in a non-threatening environment. According to attachment researchers, a child becomes securely attached when the caregiver is available and able to meet the needs of the child in a responsive and appropriate manner. Others have pointed out that there are also other determinants of the child's attachment, and that the behavior of the parent may in turn be influenced by the child's behavior.
230:
conjunction with discrete attachment classifications in many published reports The original
Richter’s et al. (1998) scale is strongly related to secure versus insecure classifications, correctly predicting about 90% of cases. Readers further interested in the categorical versus continuous nature of attachment classifications (and the debate surrounding this issue) should consult the paper by Fraley and Spieker and the rejoinders in the same issue by many prominent attachment researchers including
122:
1980s. They did not exhibit distress on separation, and either ignored the caregiver on their return (A1 subtype) or showed some tendency to approach together with some tendency to ignore or turn away from the caregiver (A2 subtype). Ainsworth and Bell theorised that the apparently unruffled behaviour of the avoidant infants is in fact as a mask for distress, a hypothesis later evidenced through studies of the heart rate of avoidant infants.
149:
and so on. It was our clear impression that such tension movements signified stress, both because they tended to occur chiefly in the separation episodes and because they tended to precede crying. Indeed, our hypothesis is that they occur when a child is attempting to control crying, for they tend to vanish if and when crying breaks through." Such observations also appeared in the doctoral theses of
Ainsworth's students.
168:
subsequently had children with disorganized attachments. Subsequently studies, whilst emphasising the potential importance of unresolved loss, have qualified these findings. For example, Solomon and George found that unresolved loss in the mother tended to be associated with disorganised attachment in their infant primarily when they had also experienced an unresolved trauma in their life prior to the loss.
153:, for example, noted that one abused infant in her doctoral sample was classed as secure (B) by her undergraduate coders because her strange situation behavior was "without either avoidance or ambivalence, she did show stress-related stereotypic headcocking throughout the strange situation. This pervasive behavior, however, was the only clue to the extent of her stress."
547:
Solomon, J., & George, C. (2006). Intergenerational transmission of dysregulated maternal caregiving: Mothers describe their upbringing and child rearing. In O. Mayseless (Ed). Parenting representations: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 265-295) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University
130:
theorised that avoidant behaviour in the
Strange Situation Procedure should be regarded as "a conditional strategy, which paradoxically permits whatever proximity is possible under conditions of maternal rejection" by de-emphasising attachment needs. Main proposed that avoidance has two functions for
121:
A child with the anxious-avoidant insecure attachment pattern will avoid or ignore the caregiver, showing little emotion when the caregiver departs or returns. The child will not explore very much regardless of who is there. Infants classified as anxious-avoidant (A) represented a puzzle in the early
163:
There is "rapidly growing interest in disorganized attachment" from clinicians and policy-makers as well as researchers. Yet the
Disorganized/disoriented attachment (D) classification has been criticised by some for being too encompassing. In 1990, Ainsworth put in print her blessing for the new "D"
148:
Ainsworth herself was the first to find difficulties in fitting all infant behavior into the three classifications used in her
Baltimore study. Ainsworth and colleagues sometimes observed "tense movements such as hunching the shoulders, putting the hands behind the neck and tensely cocking the head,
139:
Children classified as
Anxious-Ambivalent/Resistant (C) showed distress even before separation, and were clingy and difficult to comfort on the caregiver's return. They showed either signs of resentment in response to the absence (C1 subtype), or signs of helpless passivity (C2 subtype). Hans et al.
108:
A child who is securely attached to its parent will explore and play freely while the caregiver is present, using them as a "secure base" from which to explore. The child will engage with the stranger when the caregiver is present, and may be visibly upset when the caregiver departs but happy to see
229:
Regarding the issue of whether the breadth of infant attachment functioning can be captured by a categorical classification scheme, continuous measures of attachment security have been developed which have demonstrated adequate psychometric properties. These have been used either individually or in
212:
In a study conducted in Sapporo, Behrens, et al., 2007. found attachment distributions consistent with global norms using the six-year Main & Cassidy scoring system for attachment classification. In addition to these findings supporting the global distributions of attachment classifications in
200:
With respect to the ecological validity of the Strange Situation, a meta-analysis of 2,000 infant-parent dyads, including several from studies with non-Western language and/or cultural bases found the global distribution of attachment categorizations to be A (21%), B (65%), and C (14%) This global
47:
In this procedure of the Strange Situation, the child is observed playing for 21 minutes while caregivers and strangers enter and leave the room, recreating the flow of the familiar and unfamiliar presence in most children's lives. The situation varies in stressfulness and the child's responses are
204:
However, controversy has been raised over a few cultural differences in these rates of "global" attachment classification distributions. In particular, two studies diverged from the global distributions of attachment classifications noted above. One study was conducted in North Germany in which
415:
Karlen Lyons-Ruth, Jean-Francois Bureau, M. Ann Easterbrooks, Ingrid Obsuth, Kate Hennighausen & Lauriane Vulliez-Coady (2013) Parsing the construct of maternal insensitivity: distinct longitudinal pathways associated with early maternal withdrawal, Attachment & Human Development, 15:5-6,
112:
Securely attached children are best able to explore when they have the knowledge of a secure base to return to in times of need. When assistance is given, this bolsters the sense of security and also, assuming the caregiver's assistance is helpful, educates the child in how to cope with the same
183:
It is by no means free of limitations (see Lamb, Thompson, Gardener, Charnov & Estes, 1984). To begin with, it is very dependent on brief separations and reunions having the same meaning for all children. This may be a major constraint when applying the procedure in cultures, such as that in
125:
Ainsworth's narrative records showed that infants avoided the caregiver in the stressful Strange Situation Procedure when they had a history of experiencing rebuff of attachment behaviour. The child's needs are frequently not met and the child comes to believe that communication of needs has no
167:
Main and Hesse found that most of the mothers of these children had suffered major losses or other trauma shortly before or after the birth of the infant and had reacted by becoming severely depressed. In fact, 56% of mothers who had lost a parent by death before they completed high school
321:
Hans, S.L., Berstein, V.J., Sims, B.E. (2000) 'Change and Continuity in Ambivalent Attachment Relationships from Infancy through Adolescence' in The Organization of Attachment Relationships, ed. Patricia M. Crittenden & Angelika H. Claussen, Cambridge: CUP,
209:, Japan where more resistant (C) infants were found. Of these two studies, the Japanese findings have sparked the most controversy as to the meaning of individual differences in attachment behavior as originally identified by Ainsworth et al. (1978).
470:
Crittenden, P. (1999) "Danger and development: the organisation of self-protective strategies" in Atypical Attachment in Infancy and Early Childhood Among Children at Developmental Risk ed. Joan I. Vondra & Douglas Barnett, Oxford: Blackwell pp.
354:
Crittenden, P.(1999) 'Danger and development: the organisation of self-protective strategies' in Atypical Attachment in Infancy and Early Childhood Among Children at Developmental Risk ed. Joan I. Vondra & Douglas Barnett, Oxford: Blackwell pp.
344:
Solomon, J., George, C. & De Jong, A. (1995) Children classified as controlling at age six: Evidence of disorganized representational strategies and aggression at home and at school. Development and Psychopathology 7:
31:, that is relationships between a caregiver and child. It applies to children between the age of 9 to 30 months. Broadly speaking, the attachment styles were (1) secure and (2) insecure (ambivalent and avoidance). Later,
670:
Belsky, J. & Cassidy, J. (1994). Attachment Theory and Evidence. In M. Rutter & D. Hay (Eds) Development Through Life; A Handbook For Clinicians (pp. 373-402). Oxford; Blackwell Scientific Publications.
537:
Madigan, Sheri, et al. "Unresolved states of mind, anomalous parental behavior, and disorganized attachment: A review and meta-analysis of a transmission gap." Attachment & human development 8.2 (2006):
883:
Grossmann, Klaus E.; Grossmann, Karin; Huber, Franz; Wartner, Ulrike (1981). "German Children's Behavior Towards Their Mothers at 12 Months and Their Fathers at 18 Months in Ainsworth's Strange Situation".
946:
Behrens, Kazuko Y.; Hesse, Erik; Main, Mary (2007). "Mothers' attachment status as determined by the Adult Attachment Interview predicts their 6-year-olds' reunion responses: A study conducted in Japan".
94:
On the basis of their behaviors, the children were categorized into three groups, with a fourth added later. Each of these groups reflects a different kind of attachment relationship with the caregiver.
434:
Svanberg, P.O. (2009). Promoting a secure attachment through early assessment and interventions. In J. Barlow & P.O. Svanberg (Eds.) Keeping the Baby in Mind, (pp. 100-114), London: Routledge.
425:
Kochanska, Grazyna, and Sanghag Kim. "Early Attachment Organization With Both Parents and Future Behavior Problems: From Infancy to Middle Childhood." Child Development 84.1 (2013): 283-296
461:
Sroufe, A. Egeland, B., Carlson, E. & Collins, W.A. (2005) The Development of the person: the Minnesota study of risk and adaptation from birth to adulthood, NY: Guilford Press, p.245
452:
Solomon, J. & George, C. (1999a) The place of disorganisation in attachment theory. In Judith Solomon & Carol George (Eds) Attachment Disorganisation (pp3-32), p.27, NY: Guilford
303:
Main, M. (1977a) Analysis of a peculiar form of reunion behaviour seen in some daycare children. In R. Webb (ed.) Social Development in Childhood (pp.33-78), Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
982:
Main, Mary; Cassidy, Jude (1988). "Categories of response to reunion with the parent at age 6: Predictable from infant attachment classifications and stable over a 1-month period".
276:
Ainsworth, M. D. & Bell, S. M. (1970), Attachment, exploration, and separation: Illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child Development, 41:49-67
217:
and its relevance to questions concerning whether the insecure-resistant (C) style of interaction may be engendered in Japanese infants as a result of the cultural practice of
1092:
Fraley, R. Chris; Spieker, Susan J. (2003). "Are infant attachment patterns continuously or categorically distributed? A taxometric analysis of strange situation behavior".
443:
Ainsworth, M. (1990). "Epilogue" in Attachment in the Preschool Years, ed. M.T. Greenberg, D. Ciccheti & E.M. Cummings. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, pp.463-488
486:"Parents' Unresolved Traumatic Experiences Are Related to Infant Disorganized Attachment Status: Is Frightened and/or Frightening Parental Behavior the Linking Mechanism?"
1202:
713:
Vaughn, BE; Waters, E (1990). "Attachment behavior at home and in the laboratory: Q-sort observations and strange situation classifications of one-year-olds".
109:
the caregiver on their return. The child feels confident that the caregiver is available, and will be responsive to their attachment needs and communications.
1009:
Richters, JE; Waters, E; Vaughn, BE (1988). "Empirical classification of infant-mother relationships from interactive behavior and crying during reunion".
788:
Ziv, Yair; Hotam, Yotam (2015-06-01). "Theory and measure in the psychological field: The case of attachment theory and the strange situation procedure".
628:
Miyake, Kazuo; Chen, Shing-Jen; Campos, Joseph J. (1985). "Infant Temperament, Mother's Mode of Interaction, and Attachment in Japan: An Interim Report".
771:
156:
Drawing on records of behaviors discrepant with the A, B and C classifications, a fourth classification was added by Ainsworth's graduate student
312:
Cassidy, Jude, and Lisa J. Berlin. "The insecure/ambivalent pattern of attachment: Theory and research." Child development 65.4 (1994): 971-991
1144:
377:
Crittenden, P.M. (1983) "Mother and Infant Patterns of Attachment" Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Virginia, May 1983, p.73
35:
and her husband Erik Hesse introduced the 4th category, disorganized. The procedure played an important role in the development of
697:
522:
497:
400:
1055:
Van Ijzendoorn, Marinus H.; Kroonenberg, Pieter M. (1990). "Cross-cultural consistency of coding the strange situation".
832:
1355:
294:
Main, M. (1990) The “ultimate” causation of some infant attachment phenomena. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2: 640-643
201:
distribution was generally consistent with Ainsworth et al.'s (1978) original attachment classification distributions.
919:
Takahashi, Keiko (1986). "Examining the strange-situation procedure with Japanese mothers and 12-month-old infants".
331:
Mayseless, Ofra. "Maternal caregiving strategy—a distinction between the ambivalent and the disorganized profile."
1137:
1350:
676:
285:
Sroufe, A. & Waters, E. (1987) Attachment as an Organizational Construct. Child Development, 48: 1184-1199
1207:
73:
Second reunion episode: Parent enters, greets infant, and picks up the infant; stranger leaves conspicuously.
1371:
1258:
1227:
332:
248:
150:
1392:
1130:
389:"Procedures for Identifying Infants as Disorganized/Disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation"
70:
Continuation of second separation episode: Stranger enters and gears behavior to that of the infant.
1345:
1222:
58:
Stranger enters, converses with the parent, then approaches infant. Parent leaves conspicuously.
1177:
243:
28:
485:
388:
1187:
593:
Grossmann, Klaus E.; Grossmann, Karin (2010). "Discovery and proof in attachment research".
1319:
1217:
1172:
558:
Rutter, M (1995). "Clinical implications of attachment concepts: Retrospect and prospect".
755:
8:
1192:
1182:
258:
1324:
1303:
1026:
901:
865:
813:
765:
730:
645:
610:
571:
205:
more avoidant (A) infants were found than global norms would suggest, and the other in
189:
81:
The amount of exploration (e.g. playing with new toys) the child engages in throughout.
55:
Parent and infant are alone. The parent does not participate while the infant explores.
1197:
1153:
1109:
1068:
1034:
964:
905:
817:
805:
738:
693:
672:
653:
614:
575:
518:
493:
396:
36:
1329:
1248:
1167:
1101:
1072:
1064:
1050:
1048:
1018:
991:
956:
928:
893:
855:
847:
797:
722:
637:
602:
567:
833:"Cross-Cultural Patterns of Attachment: A Meta-Analysis of the Strange Situation"
1045:
1002:
960:
1243:
1105:
995:
932:
897:
176:
24:
606:
61:
First separation episode: Stranger's behavior is geared to that of the infant.
1386:
1288:
1283:
1268:
1212:
824:
809:
801:
188:
Other researchers as well have raised concerns about the strange situation's
1298:
688:
Greenberg, Mark T.; Cicchetti, Dante; Cummings, E. Mark, eds. (1993-05-15).
64:
First reunion episode: Parent greets and comforts infant, then leaves again.
1278:
1273:
1263:
1113:
968:
253:
231:
192:
and questioned its terminology as a "gold standard" measure of attachment.
1038:
742:
657:
579:
1253:
939:
1030:
869:
734:
649:
1077:
860:
366:
Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation
1293:
690:
Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research, and Intervention
490:
Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research, and Intervention
488:. In Greenberg, Mark T.; Cicchetti, Dante; Cummings, E. Mark (eds.).
393:
Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research, and Intervention
391:. In Greenberg, Mark T.; Cicchetti, Dante; Cummings, E. Mark (eds.).
157:
127:
32:
1122:
1022:
851:
726:
641:
756:
Clarke-Stewart, K. A., Allhusen, V. D., & Goossens, F. (2001).
1085:
560:
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines
206:
134:
87:
The stranger anxiety (when the baby is alone with the stranger).
882:
364:
Ainsworth, M.D., Blehar, M, Waters, E, & Wall, S. (1978)
234:, A. Sroufe, E. Waters & T. Beauchaine, and M. Cummings.
213:
Sapporo, Behrens et al. also discuss the Japanese concept of
171:
975:
831:
van IJzendoorn, Marinus H.; Kroonenberg, Pieter M. (1988).
630:
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development
218:
214:
48:
observed. The child experiences the following situations:
687:
52:
Parent and infant are introduced to the experimental room.
1054:
830:
492:. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 161–84.
395:. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 121–60.
84:
The child's reactions to the departure of its caregiver.
1203:
Dynamic-maturational model of attachment and adaptation
681:
195:
876:
1008:
116:
512:
77:Four aspects of the child's behavior are observed:
592:
143:
1384:
945:
627:
179:describes the procedure in the following terms:
126:influence on the caregiver. Ainsworth's student
90:The child's reunion behavior with its caregiver.
886:International Journal of Behavioral Development
706:
664:
621:
517:. Routledge, London and New York. p. 13.
135:3. Anxious-ambivalent/resistant, insecure (C)
98:
1138:
1091:
912:
479:
477:
770:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
712:
586:
981:
386:
67:Second separation episode: Infant is alone.
16:Concept in psychology related to attachment
1145:
1131:
551:
474:
172:Critique of the strange situation protocol
1076:
918:
859:
483:
224:
42:
787:
692:. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
368:, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, p.282
1385:
557:
506:
1152:
1126:
783:
781:
387:Main, Mary; Solomon, Judith (1990).
196:Ecological validity and universality
1346:Attachment-based therapy (children)
13:
1356:Dyadic developmental psychotherapy
778:
572:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1995.tb02314.x
14:
1404:
758:Daycare and the Strange Situation
117:2. Anxious-avoidant, insecure (A)
484:Main, Mary; Hesse, Erik (1993).
103:
1057:Infant Behavior and Development
749:
541:
531:
464:
455:
446:
437:
428:
419:
409:
380:
371:
358:
144:4. Disorganized/disoriented (D)
1351:Attachment-based psychotherapy
348:
338:
325:
315:
306:
297:
288:
279:
270:
1:
1208:Fathers as attachment figures
595:Behavioral and Brain Sciences
264:
1372:History of attachment theory
1259:Patricia McKinsey Crittenden
1228:Reactive attachment disorder
1069:10.1016/0163-6383(90)90017-3
513:Colin Murray Parkes (2006).
333:Infant Mental Health Journal
249:Reactive attachment disorder
7:
961:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1553
237:
99:Four patterns of attachment
10:
1409:
1106:10.1037/0012-1649.39.3.387
996:10.1037/0012-1649.24.3.415
933:10.1037/0012-1649.22.2.265
898:10.1177/016502548100400202
23:is a procedure devised by
1364:
1338:
1312:
1236:
1160:
607:10.1017/S0140525X00026601
1094:Developmental Psychology
984:Developmental Psychology
949:Developmental Psychology
921:Developmental Psychology
802:10.1177/0959354315577970
27:in the 1970s to observe
1223:Object relations theory
790:Theory & Psychology
1178:Attachment in children
244:Attachment in children
225:Attachment measurement
186:
43:Structured observation
29:attachment in children
1339:Clinical applications
1188:Attachment and health
181:
1320:Attachment parenting
1218:Maternal deprivation
1173:Attachment in adults
1193:Attachment measures
1183:Attachment disorder
259:Attachment measures
151:Patricia Crittenden
1325:Attachment therapy
1304:Nikolaas Tinbergen
335:19.1 (1998): 20-33
190:construct validity
1393:Attachment theory
1380:
1379:
1237:Notable theorists
1198:Attachment theory
1154:Attachment theory
1011:Child Development
840:Child Development
715:Child Development
699:978-0-226-30630-8
524:978-0-415-39041-5
499:978-0-226-30630-8
402:978-0-226-30630-8
37:attachment theory
21:strange situation
1400:
1330:Candace Newmaker
1249:William E. Blatz
1168:Affectional bond
1147:
1140:
1133:
1124:
1123:
1118:
1117:
1089:
1083:
1082:
1080:
1052:
1043:
1042:
1006:
1000:
999:
979:
973:
972:
943:
937:
936:
916:
910:
909:
880:
874:
873:
863:
837:
828:
822:
821:
785:
776:
775:
769:
761:
753:
747:
746:
710:
704:
703:
685:
679:
668:
662:
661:
625:
619:
618:
590:
584:
583:
555:
549:
545:
539:
535:
529:
528:
510:
504:
503:
481:
472:
468:
462:
459:
453:
450:
444:
441:
435:
432:
426:
423:
417:
413:
407:
406:
384:
378:
375:
369:
362:
356:
352:
346:
342:
336:
329:
323:
319:
313:
310:
304:
301:
295:
292:
286:
283:
277:
274:
1408:
1407:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1376:
1360:
1334:
1308:
1232:
1156:
1151:
1121:
1090:
1086:
1053:
1046:
1023:10.2307/1130329
1007:
1003:
980:
976:
944:
940:
917:
913:
881:
877:
852:10.2307/1130396
835:
829:
825:
786:
779:
763:
762:
754:
750:
727:10.2307/1130850
711:
707:
700:
686:
682:
669:
665:
642:10.2307/3333838
636:(1–2): 276–97.
626:
622:
591:
587:
556:
552:
546:
542:
536:
532:
525:
511:
507:
500:
482:
475:
469:
465:
460:
456:
451:
447:
442:
438:
433:
429:
424:
420:
414:
410:
403:
385:
381:
376:
372:
363:
359:
353:
349:
343:
339:
330:
326:
320:
316:
311:
307:
302:
298:
293:
289:
284:
280:
275:
271:
267:
240:
227:
198:
174:
146:
137:
119:
106:
101:
45:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1406:
1396:
1395:
1378:
1377:
1375:
1374:
1368:
1366:
1362:
1361:
1359:
1358:
1353:
1348:
1342:
1340:
1336:
1335:
1333:
1332:
1327:
1322:
1316:
1314:
1310:
1309:
1307:
1306:
1301:
1296:
1291:
1286:
1281:
1276:
1271:
1266:
1261:
1256:
1251:
1246:
1244:Mary Ainsworth
1240:
1238:
1234:
1233:
1231:
1230:
1225:
1220:
1215:
1210:
1205:
1200:
1195:
1190:
1185:
1180:
1175:
1170:
1164:
1162:
1158:
1157:
1150:
1149:
1142:
1135:
1127:
1120:
1119:
1100:(3): 387–404.
1084:
1044:
1001:
974:
955:(6): 1553–67.
938:
911:
875:
823:
796:(3): 274–291.
777:
748:
721:(6): 1965–73.
705:
698:
680:
663:
620:
585:
550:
540:
530:
523:
505:
498:
473:
463:
454:
445:
436:
427:
418:
408:
401:
379:
370:
357:
347:
337:
324:
314:
305:
296:
287:
278:
268:
266:
263:
262:
261:
256:
251:
246:
239:
236:
226:
223:
197:
194:
177:Michael Rutter
173:
170:
145:
142:
136:
133:
118:
115:
105:
102:
100:
97:
92:
91:
88:
85:
82:
75:
74:
71:
68:
65:
62:
59:
56:
53:
44:
41:
25:Mary Ainsworth
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1405:
1394:
1391:
1390:
1388:
1373:
1370:
1369:
1367:
1363:
1357:
1354:
1352:
1349:
1347:
1344:
1343:
1341:
1337:
1331:
1328:
1326:
1323:
1321:
1318:
1317:
1315:
1311:
1305:
1302:
1300:
1297:
1295:
1292:
1290:
1289:Konrad Lorenz
1287:
1285:
1284:Melanie Klein
1282:
1280:
1277:
1275:
1272:
1270:
1269:Sigmund Freud
1267:
1265:
1262:
1260:
1257:
1255:
1252:
1250:
1247:
1245:
1242:
1241:
1239:
1235:
1229:
1226:
1224:
1221:
1219:
1216:
1214:
1213:Human bonding
1211:
1209:
1206:
1204:
1201:
1199:
1196:
1194:
1191:
1189:
1186:
1184:
1181:
1179:
1176:
1174:
1171:
1169:
1166:
1165:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1148:
1143:
1141:
1136:
1134:
1129:
1128:
1125:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1088:
1079:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1063:(4): 469–85.
1062:
1058:
1051:
1049:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1017:(2): 512–22.
1016:
1012:
1005:
997:
993:
990:(3): 415–26.
989:
985:
978:
970:
966:
962:
958:
954:
950:
942:
934:
930:
927:(2): 265–70.
926:
922:
915:
907:
903:
899:
895:
892:(2): 157–81.
891:
887:
879:
871:
867:
862:
857:
853:
849:
846:(1): 147–56.
845:
841:
834:
827:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
799:
795:
791:
784:
782:
773:
767:
759:
752:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
709:
701:
695:
691:
684:
678:
674:
667:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
624:
616:
612:
608:
604:
600:
596:
589:
581:
577:
573:
569:
566:(4): 549–71.
565:
561:
554:
544:
534:
526:
520:
516:
515:Love and Loss
509:
501:
495:
491:
487:
480:
478:
467:
458:
449:
440:
431:
422:
412:
404:
398:
394:
390:
383:
374:
367:
361:
351:
341:
334:
328:
318:
309:
300:
291:
282:
273:
269:
260:
257:
255:
252:
250:
247:
245:
242:
241:
235:
233:
222:
220:
216:
210:
208:
202:
193:
191:
185:
180:
178:
169:
165:
161:
159:
154:
152:
141:
132:
129:
123:
114:
110:
104:1. Secure (B)
96:
89:
86:
83:
80:
79:
78:
72:
69:
66:
63:
60:
57:
54:
51:
50:
49:
40:
38:
34:
30:
26:
22:
1279:Jerome Kagan
1274:Harry Harlow
1264:Erik Erikson
1097:
1093:
1087:
1060:
1056:
1014:
1010:
1004:
987:
983:
977:
952:
948:
941:
924:
920:
914:
889:
885:
878:
843:
839:
826:
793:
789:
757:
751:
718:
714:
708:
689:
683:
666:
633:
629:
623:
598:
594:
588:
563:
559:
553:
543:
533:
514:
508:
489:
466:
457:
448:
439:
430:
421:
411:
392:
382:
373:
365:
360:
350:
340:
327:
317:
308:
299:
290:
281:
272:
254:Visual cliff
228:
211:
203:
199:
187:
182:
175:
166:
162:
155:
147:
138:
124:
120:
111:
107:
93:
76:
46:
20:
18:
1313:Controversy
1254:John Bowlby
760:. Guilford.
601:: 154–155.
1299:René Spitz
1078:1887/11624
861:1887/11634
677:0632036931
265:References
232:J. Cassidy
1294:Mary Main
906:145760368
818:146749917
810:0959-3543
766:cite book
615:143816481
158:Mary Main
128:Mary Main
33:Mary Main
1387:Category
1114:12760508
969:18020832
238:See also
1039:3359869
1031:1130329
870:1130396
743:2083508
735:1130850
658:4069131
650:3333838
580:7650083
471:159-160
416:562-582
355:145–171
345:447–447
207:Sapporo
1365:Others
1161:Theory
1112:
1037:
1029:
967:
904:
868:
816:
808:
741:
733:
696:
675:
656:
648:
613:
578:
548:Press.
538:89-111
521:
496:
399:
322:pp.279
1027:JSTOR
902:S2CID
866:JSTOR
836:(PDF)
814:S2CID
731:JSTOR
646:JSTOR
611:S2CID
1110:PMID
1035:PMID
965:PMID
806:ISSN
772:link
739:PMID
694:ISBN
673:ISBN
654:PMID
576:PMID
519:ISBN
494:ISBN
397:ISBN
219:amae
215:amae
19:The
1102:doi
1073:hdl
1065:doi
1019:doi
992:doi
957:doi
929:doi
894:doi
856:hdl
848:doi
798:doi
723:doi
638:doi
603:doi
568:doi
1389::
1108:.
1098:39
1096:.
1071:.
1061:13
1059:.
1047:^
1033:.
1025:.
1015:59
1013:.
988:24
986:.
963:.
953:43
951:.
925:22
923:.
900:.
888:.
864:.
854:.
844:59
842:.
838:.
812:.
804:.
794:25
792:.
780:^
768:}}
764:{{
737:.
729:.
719:61
717:.
652:.
644:.
634:50
632:.
609:.
597:.
574:.
564:36
562:.
476:^
221:.
39:.
1146:e
1139:t
1132:v
1116:.
1104::
1081:.
1075::
1067::
1041:.
1021::
998:.
994::
971:.
959::
935:.
931::
908:.
896::
890:4
872:.
858::
850::
820:.
800::
774:)
745:.
725::
702:.
660:.
640::
617:.
605::
599:7
582:.
570::
527:.
502:.
405:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.