Cassidy2013 Attachment Theory and Research PDF

NIH Public Access

Author Manuscript
Dev Psychopathol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.
Published in final edited form as:
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Dev Psychopathol. 2013 November ; 25(4 0 2): 1415–1434. doi:10.1017/S0954579413000692.

Contributions of Attachment Theory and Research: A

Framework for Future Research, Translation, and Policy
Jude Cassidy,
University of Maryland
Jason D. Jones, and

University of Maryland
Phillip R. Shaver
University of California, Davis
Abstract
Attachment theory has been generating creative and impactful research for almost half a century.
In this article we focus on the documented antecedents and consequences of individual differences
in infant attachment patterns, suggesting topics for further theoretical clarification, research,
clinical interventions, and policy applications. We pay particular attention to the concept of
cognitive “working models” and to neural and physiological mechanisms through which early
attachment experiences contribute to later functioning. We consider adult caregiving behavior that
predicts infant attachment patterns, and the still-mysterious “transmission gap” between parental
AAI classifications and infant Strange Situation classifications. We also review connections
between attachment and (a) child psychopathology, (b) neurobiology, (c) health and immune
function, (d) empathy, compassion, and altruism, (e) school readiness, and (f) culture. We
conclude with clinical-translational and public policy applications of attachment research that
could reduce the occurrence and maintenance of insecure attachment during infancy and beyond.
Our goal is to inspire researchers to continue advancing the field by finding new ways to tackle
long-standing questions and by generating and testing novel hypotheses.
One gets a glimpse of the germ of attachment theory in John Bowlby's 1944 article, “Forty-
Four Juvenile Thieves: Their Character and Home-Life,” published in the International
Journal of Psychoanalysis. Using a combination of case studies and statistical methods
(novel at the time for psychoanalysts) to examine the precursors of delinquency, Bowlby
arrived at his initial empirical insight: The precursors of emotional disorders and
delinquency could be found in early attachment-related experiences, specifically separations
from, or inconsistent or harsh treatment by, mothers (and often fathers or other men who
were involved with the mothers). Over the subsequent decades, as readers of this journal
know, he built a complex and highly generative theory of attachment.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jude Cassidy, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD, 20742. [email protected].
Invited contribution to the 25th anniversary edition of Development and Psychopathology.
Cassidy et al. Page 2
Unlike other psychoanalytic writers of his generation, Bowlby formed a working

relationship with a very talented empirically oriented researcher, Mary Ainsworth. Her
careful observations, first in Uganda (Ainsworth, 1967) and later in Baltimore, led to a
detailed specification of aspects of maternal behavior that preceded individual differences in

infant attachment. Her creation of the Strange Situation (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall,
1978) provided a gold standard for identifying and classifying individual differences in
infant attachment security (and insecurity) and ushered in decades of research examining the
precursors and outcomes of individual differences in infant attachment. (A PsycInfo
literature search using the keyword “attachment” yields more than 15,000 titles).
By the beginning of the 21st century, the National Research Council and the Institute of
Medicine's Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development based its
policy and practice conclusions and recommendations on four themes, one of which was that
“early environments matter and nurturing relationships are essential (Shonkoff & Phillips,
2000, p. 4) … Children grow and thrive in the context of close and dependable relationships
that provide love and nurturance, security, responsive interaction, and encouragement for
exploration. Without at least one such relationship, development is disrupted, and the
consequences can be severe and long-lasting” (p. 7). This clear and strong statement could
be made in large part because of the research inspired by Bowlby's theory and Ainsworth's
creative research methods.
Years after Ainsworth's Strange Situation was proposed, Mary Main and colleagues (e.g.,
George, Kaplan, & Main, 1984; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985) provided a way to study
the intergenerational transmission of attachment patterns. They and other researchers found
that a parent's “state of mind with respect to attachment” predicted his or her infant's pattern
of attachment. Moreover, since the 1980's there has been an explosion of research examining
attachment processes beyond the parent-child dyad (e.g., in adult romantic relationships),
which has supported Bowlby's (1979) belief that attachment is a process that characterizes
humans “from the cradle to the grave” (p. 129). In the present article, space limitations lead
us to focus principally on attachment processes early in life and consider the adult
attachment literature largely in relation to parental predictors of infant attachment.
A Simple Model of Infant-Mother Attachment

During the 70 years since Bowlby's initial consideration of the developmental precursors of
adolescent delinquency and psychopathology, researchers have provided a complex picture
of the parental and experiential precursors of infant attachment, the links between early
attachment-related experiences and later child functioning, the mechanisms involved in
explaining these links, and moderators of these linking mechanisms. Much has been learned
at each of several analytic levels, including behavior, cognition, emotion, physiology, and
genetics. Figure 1 summarizes this literature in a simple model. We have selected several of
the components in Figure 1 for further discussion. For each component, following a brief
background and review of the current state of knowledge, we offer suggestions for future
research, based largely on identification of gaps in theory or methodological innovations that
make new lines of discovery possible. We begin by considering one of the central concepts
of attachment theory, the internal working model, followed by a consideration of

physiological mechanisms that also help to explain the influence of early attachments. Next,
we consider the caregiving behavior that predicts infant attachment and the perplexing issue
of the transmission gap between parental Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) classifications
and infant Strange Situation classifications. We then examine connections between

attachment and (a) child psychopathology, (b) neurobiology, (c) health and immune
function, (d) empathy, compassion, and altruism, (e) school readiness, and (f) culture.
Finally, we discuss the translational application of attachment research to reducing the risk
of developing or maintaining insecure attachments and the policy implications of attachment
research.
Internal Working Models

One of the key concepts in attachment theory is the “attachment behavioral system,” which
refers to an organized system of behaviors that has a predictable outcome (i.e., proximity)
and serves an identifiable biological function (i.e., protection). According to Bowlby
(1969/1982), such a system is organized by experience-based “internal working models”
(IWMs) of self and environment, including especially the caregiving environment.
It is by postulating the existence of these cognitive components and their utilization

by the attachment system that the theory is enabled to provide explanations of how
a child's experiences with attachment figures come to influence in particular ways
the pattern of attachment he develops. (pp. 373-374)
Much of the research on these models is based on the notion that, beginning in the first year
of life, mentally healthy individuals develop a “secure base script” that provides a causal-
temporal prototype of the ways in which attachment-related events typically unfold (e.g.,
“When I am hurt, I go to my mother and receive comfort”). According to Bretherton (1991;
Bretherton & Munholland, 2008), secure base scripts are the “building blocks” of IWMs.
Theoretically, secure children's and adults' scripts should allow them to create attachment-
related “stories” in which one person successfully uses another as a secure base from which
to explore and as a safe haven in times of need or distress. Insecure individuals should
exhibit gaps in, or distortion or even absence of, such a script. H. Waters and colleagues (H.
Waters & Rodrigues-Doolabh, 2001; H. Waters & Waters, 2006) tested this hypothesis by
having children complete story stems that began with a character's attachment behavioral
system presumably being activated (e.g., a child rock-climbing with parents hurts his knee).
Secure attachment at 2 years of age was positively correlated with the creation of stories
involving knowledge of and access to the secure base script at ages 3 and 4. (A similar
methodology has been used in studies of young adults; see Mikulincer, Shaver, Sapir-Lavid,
& Avihou-Kanza, 2009.)
New Directions in the Examination of IWM Formation during Infancy

Despite Bowlby's hypothesis that infants develop IWMs during the first year of life (see also
Main et al., 1985), almost no empirical work has focused on attachment representations
during infancy (instead, most research on IWMs has involved children, adolescents, and
adults). We believe, as do others (Johnson et al., 2010; Sherman & Cassidy, 2013;
Thompson, 2008), that IWMs can be studied in infancy. Such work is made possible by

recent efforts to bridge social-emotional and cognitive developmental research (e.g., Calkins
& Bell, 2010; Olson & Dweck, 2008), along with methodological advances and
accumulating research on an array of previously unexplored infant mental capacities.
Attachment researchers have assumed that infants recall the emotional nature of their
attachment-related social experiences with specific individuals (e.g., experiences of comfort
with vs. rejection by mother), and that they use these memories to create IWMs that guide
their attachment behavior in subsequent interactions with these individuals. This claim has
been supported with correlational research findings; for example observations indicating that
infants' daily interactions with attachment figures are linked to their IWMs reflected in
behavior in the Strange Situation (Ainsworth et al., 1978). These findings can now be
supplemented with results from experimental studies.
There is a compelling body of experimental work showing that infants extract complex
social-emotional information from the social interactions they observe. For example, they
notice helpful and hindering behaviors of one “person” (usually represented by a puppet or a
geometric figure) toward another, they personally prefer individuals who have helped others,
they form expectations about how two characters should behave toward each other in
subsequent interactions, and they behave positively or negatively toward individuals based
on what they have observed (e.g., Hamlin & Wynn, 2011; Hamlin, Wynn, Bloom, &
Mahajan, 2011). This work could and should be extended to include attachment
relationships, revealing in detail how infants form “models” of particular adults and then
modify their emotional reactions and social behaviors toward those adults accordingly
(Johnson et al., 2010). At present, there is no experimental research showing that infants
form expectations about the later social behavior of another person toward them based on
the infants' own past interactions with that person – a capacity that is assumed to underlie
infants' development of working models of their caregivers.
As explained in detail in another paper (Sherman & Cassidy, 2013), we urge infancy
researchers to consider the specific cognitive and emotional capacities required to form
IWMs and then to examine these capacities experimentally. Methods used by researchers
who study infant cognition, but rarely used by attachment researchers (e.g., eye-tracking,
habituation paradigms), will prove useful. For example, habituation paradigms could allow
attachment researchers to study infant IWMs of likely mother and infant responses to infant
distress (see Johnson et al., 2010). Another research area relevant to attachment researchers'
conception of IWMs concerns infants' understanding of statistical probabilities. When
considering individual differences in how mothering contributes to attachment quality,
Bowlby (1969/1982) adopted Winnicott's (1953) conception of “good enough” mothering;
that is, mothering which assures a child that probabilistically, and often enough, the mother
will prove responsive to the child's signals. Implicit in such a perspective is the assumption
that an infant can make probabilistic inferences. Only recently has there been a surge in
interest in the methods available to evaluate this assumption of attachment theory (e.g.,
Krogh, Vlach, & Johnson, 2013; Pelucchi, Hay, & Saffran, 2009; Romberg & Saffran, 2013;
Xu & Kushnir, 2013).

One useful conceptual perspective, called rational constructivism, is based on the idea that
infants use probabilistic reasoning when integrating existing knowledge with new data to
test hypotheses about the world. Xu and Kushnir (2013) reviewed evidence that by 18
months of age, infants use probabilistic reasoning to evaluate alternative hypotheses

(Gerken, 2006; Gweon, Tenenbaum, & Schulz, 2010), revise hypotheses in light of new data
(Gerken, 2010), make predictions (Denison & Xu, 2010), and guide their actions (Denison
& Xu, 2010). Moreover, infants are capable of integrating prior knowledge and multiple
contextual factors into their statistical computations (Denison & Xu, 2010; Teglas, Girotto,
Gonzales, & Bonatti, 2007; Xu & Denison, 2009). Xu and Kushnir (2013) have further
proposed that these capacities appear to be domain-general, being evident in a variety of
areas: language, physical reasoning, psychological reasoning, object understanding, and
understanding of individual preferences. Notably absent from this list is the domain of social
relationships, including attachment relationships.
Several questions about probabilistic inferences can be raised: Do infants make such
inferences about the likely behavior of particular attachment figures, and could this ability
account for qualitatively different attachments to different individuals (e.g., mother as
distinct from father)? Do infants use probabilistic reasoning when drawing inferences related
to the outcomes of their own attachment behaviors? (This is related to if-then contingencies:
“If I cry, what is the probability that χ will occur?”) How complex can this infant reasoning
become, and across what developmental trajectory? “If I do χ, the likelihood of outcome y is
80%, but if I do w, the likelihood of y is only 30%.” Do infants consider context? “If I do χ,
the likelihood of y is 90% in context q, but only 20% in context r.” How do infants calculate
variability in these probabilities across attachment figures?
In sum, it seems likely that infants use statistical inference to understand their social worlds.
This ability would seem to be evolutionarily adaptive in relation to attachment figures,
because infants could incorporate probabilistic inferences into their IWMs and use them to
guide their attachment behavior. Important advances in our understanding of attachment
behavior might occur with respect to how and when this incorporation happens, and also
with respect to the role of statistical inference in infants' openness to change in response to
changing environmental input (e.g., in response to interventions designed to change parental
behavior).
Child-Parent Attachment, Response to Threat, and Physiological Mechanisms of Influence

Bowlby's emphasis on cognitive IWMs as the mechanism through which early experiences
influence later functioning is understandable given the emerging cognitive emphasis in
psychology when he was writing. But scientists are becoming increasingly aware that the
effects of attachment-related experiences are carried in the body and brain in ways not easily
reducible to cognition. As a way to touch briefly on the physiological processes involved in
attachment, we focus here on a central issue in attachment theory: infants' responses to threat
as these are shaped by attachment relationships. One of the core propositions of attachment
theory is that proximity to an attachment figure reduces fear in the presence of a possible or
actual threat. As explained in the previous section, Bowlby thought the mechanism that
explained this link is children's experience-based cognitive representation of the availability

of an attachment figure. Specifically, it is because securely attached infants are more likely
than insecurely attached infants to have mental representations of caregiver availability and
responsiveness that they are able to interpret a threat as manageable and respond to it with
less fear and anxiety. Yet in species that do not possess human representational capacities,
the link between attachment and response to threat clearly exists, suggesting that in humans
there is likely to be more to attachment orientations than cognitive IWMs. (For the initial
and more extensive discussion of ideas presented in this section, see Cassidy, Ehrlich, and
Sherman [2013].)
Another Level of “Representation” or Internal Structure: Physiology

Since the time of Bowlby's original writings, one important advance that has extended our
understanding of the link between attachment and response to threat has roots in Myron
Hofer's laboratory in the 1970s. Hofer, a developmental psychobiologist, noticed defensive
vocal protest responses to maternal separation in infant rat pups and asked what non-
representational process could account for them. He and his colleagues conducted a series of
tightly controlled experiments to identify what physiological subsystems, which he called
hidden regulators, are disrupted when mothers are removed from their pups (for reviews, see
Hofer, 2006; Polan & Hofer, 2008). The pups exhibit changes in multiple physiological and
behavioral systems, such as those controlling heart rate, body temperature, food intake, and
exploration. Hofer concluded that mother-infant interactions have embedded within them a
number of vital physiological regulatory functions that are disrupted by separation from
mother and do not require cognitive mediators. These regulators can be disentangled by
experimentally manipulating parts of a “mother”: the food she provides, her warmth, her
licking and grooming, etc. Later, Meaney and colleagues (e.g., Liu et al., 1997; reviewed in
Meaney, 2001) found that rat pups that received high levels of maternal licking and
grooming and arched-back nursing positions had milder responses to threat and increased
exploratory behavior – effects that lasted into adulthood (and in fact, into subsequent
generations as a function of maternal affection in each successive generation). This research
group further found that individual differences in maternal behavior were mediated by
differences in offsprings' gene expression (Weaver et al., 2004), a finding that has opened up
a new research domain for researchers studying both animals and humans (Sharp, Pickles,
Meaney, Marshall, Tibu, & Hill, 2012; Suomi, 2011).
Early Attachment-Related Experiences and Human Infant Biological

Response to Stress
In humans, a fully developed stress response system, the HPA axis, is present at birth
(Adam, Klimes-Dougan, & Gunnar, 2007). A growing body of research indicates that
differences in the quality of early care contribute to variations in the initial calibration and
continued regulation of this system. This regulation in turn plays an important role in
shaping behavioral responses to threat (Jessop & Turner-Cobb, 2008).
Researchers have examined connections between caregiving experiences and infant stress
physiology by comparing infants' cortisol levels before and after a stressful task (e.g., the
Strange Situation). For example, Nachmias, Gunnar, Mangelsdorf, Parritz, and Buss (1996)

found that inhibited toddlers who were insecurely attached to their caregivers exhibited
elevated cortisol levels following exposure to novel stimuli. There is also experimental
evidence that mothers' touch buffers infants' cortisol stress response (in this case, during the
still-face laboratory procedure in which mothers are asked to cease interacting emotionally
with their infants; Feldman, Singer, & Zagoory, 2010). Children living in violent families
endure particularly stressful caregiving environments, which are extremely dysregulating for
them (Taylor, Repetti, & Seeman, 1997). A number of studies have documented the
disrupted stress response of maltreated children (e.g., De Bellis et al., 1999; Hart, Gunnar, &
Cicchetti, 1995). Even living in a family in which the violence does not involve them
directly has negative consequences for children, and studies suggest that the quality of
caregiving in these harsh environments plays an important role in modifying the stress
response (e.g., Hibel, Granger, Blair, Cox, & The FLP Investigators, 2011).
Attachment as a Regulator of Infant Stress Reactivity: Further Questions

Just as infants are thought to have evolved a capacity to use experience-based information
about the availability of a protective caregiver to calibrate their attachment behavioral
system (Main, 1990), and given the close intertwining of the attachment and fear systems, it
is likely that infants also evolved a capacity to use information about the availability of an
attachment figure to calibrate their threat response system at both the behavioral and
physiological levels (Cassidy, 2009). And this capacity is probably not solely “cognitive,”
which raises important questions for research: How are representational and physiological
processes linked and how do they influence each other and affect child functioning? Does
the nature of their interaction vary across particular aspects of child functioning and across
developmental periods? How can we understand these interactions in relation to both
normative development and individual differences?
In humans, representations and physiological (e.g., stress) reactions are thought to affect
each other in ways unlikely to occur in other species. Sapolsky (2004) noted that, in humans,
representational processes – the anticipation of threat when none currently exists – can
launch a stress response. Relatedly, Bowlby (1973), focusing on the link between attachment
and fear, specified representational “forecasts of availability or unavailability” of an
attachment figure as “a major variable that determines whether a person is or is not alarmed
by any potentially alarming situation” (p. 204). Thus, the representations that others will be
unavailable or rejecting when needed – that is, representations that characterize insecure
attachment – could contribute to chronic activation of physiological stress response systems,
as could the associated representations of others as having hostile intentions (Dykas &
Cassidy, 2011). Conversely, in times of both anticipated and actual threat, the capacity to
represent a responsive attachment figure can diminish physiological responses associated
with threatening or painful experiences (see Eisenberger et al., 2011; Coan, Schaefer, &
Davidson, 2006). Moreover, consideration of linkages between representational and non-
representational processes must include the possibility that causality flows in both
directions: Physiological stress responses can presumably prompt a person to engage in
higher-level cognitive processes to understand, justify, or eliminate the stressor.

When and how do young children use attachment-related representations as regulators of

stress? Neither normative trajectories nor individual differences in the use of representations
to influence stress reactivity have been examined extensively. Evidence that stress
dysregulation can lead to the conscious engagement of representational processes comes

from children as young as 4 who are able to describe strategies for alleviating distress (e.g.,
changing thoughts, reappraising the situation, mental distraction; Sayfan & Lagattuta, 2009).
Less studied but of great interest are possible “automatic emotion regulation” processes
(Mauss, Bunge, & Gross, 2007) that do not involve conscious or deliberate self-regulation.
Recent studies of adults show that there are such processes, that there are individual
differences in them that might relate to attachment orientations, that they are associated with
particular brain regions that are not the same as those associated with conscious, deliberate
emotion regulation, and that they can be influenced experimentally with priming procedures.
Many researchable questions remain: Given the extent to which many forms of
psychopathology reflect problems of self-regulation in the face of stress (e.g., Kring &
Sloan, 2010), can “hidden regulators” stemming from infant-mother interactions tell us
about the precursors of psychopathology? What about hidden regulators embedded within a
relationship with a therapist (who, according to Bowlby [1988], serves as an attachment
figure in the context of long-term psychotherapy)? When change occurs following long-term
therapy, does this change emerge through cognitive representations, changes at the
physiological level, or both? See Cassidy et al., (2013) for additional suggestions for future
research.
Maternal Caregiving and Infant Attachment: Intergenerational Transmission of Attachment

and the “Transmission Gap”
In 1985, Main and colleagues published the first evidence of the intergenerational
transmission of attachment: a link between a mother's attachment representations (coded
from responses to the AAI; George et al., 1984) and her infant's attachment to her (Figure 1,
Path c). Based on findings from Ainsworth's initial study of the precursors of individual
differences in infant attachment (Ainsworth et al., 1978), researchers expected this link to be
explained by maternal sensitivity: That is, they believed that a mother's state of mind with
respect to attachment guides her sensitive behavior toward her infant (Figure 1, Path a),
which in turn influences infant attachment quality (Figure 1, Path b). However, at the end of
a decade of research, van IJzendoorn (1995) published a meta-analysis indicating that the
strong and well-replicated link between maternal and infant attachment was not fully
mediated by maternal sensitivity (see also Madigan et al., 2006). van IJzendoorn labeled
what he had found as the “transmission gap.” Moreover, meta-analytic findings revealed
that the link between maternal sensitivity and infant attachment, although nearly universally
present across scores of studies, was typically considerably weaker than that reported in
Ainsworth's original study (De Wolff & van IJzendoorn, 1997).
The transmission gap has been one of the most perplexing issues facing attachment
researchers during the past 15-20 years. Immediate attempts to understand it focused largely
on measurement of maternal behavior. Many studies have been aimed at understanding why
the strength of the association between maternal sensitivity and infant attachment, while not

negligible, is lower than the particularly strong effect found in Ainsworth's original study,
and lower than attachment researchers expected. These studies have provided important
insights, but no consensus has emerged about how to understand maternal behavior as a
predictor of infant attachment. Continued efforts in this area are essential, and they will
inform both researchers' understanding of the workings of the attachment behavioral system
and clinicians' attempts to reduce the risk of infant insecure attachments.
Further consideration of Bowlby's concept of the secure base may help researchers better
understand maternal contributors to infant attachment. First, we should note that any
consideration of caregiving influences necessitates consideration of differential child
susceptibility to rearing influence. According to the differential susceptibility hypothesis
(Belsky, 2005; see also Boyce & Ellis, 2005, on the theory of biological sensitivity to
context, and Ellis, Boyce, Belsky, Bakermans-Kranenberg, & van IJzendoorn, 2011, for an
integration of the differential susceptibility hypothesis and the theory of biological
sensitivity to context), children vary genetically in the extent to which they are influenced by
environmental factors, and for some children the influence of caregiving behavior on
attachment may be minimal. Moreover, we underscore that the thinking presented in the
present paper relates to the initial development of infant attachment during the first year of
life; contributors to security are likely to differ at different developmental periods.
A focus on secure base provision—For Bowlby (1988), the secure base concept was
the heart of attachment theory: “No concept within the attachment framework is more
central to developmental psychiatry than that of the secure base” (pp. 163–164). When
parents provide a secure base, their children's confidence in the parents' availability and
sensitive responsiveness when needed allows the children to explore the environment freely.
The secure base phenomenon contains two intertwined components: a secure base from
which a child can explore and a haven of safety to which the child can return in times of
distress. In fact, as noted earlier, the central cognitive components of secure attachment are
thought to reside in a secure base script (i.e., a script according to which, following a
distressing event, the child seeks and receives care from an available attachment figure,
experiences comfort, and returns to exploration).
If the goal of research is to understand what components of a parent's behavior allow a child
to use the parent as a secure base, researchers should focus as precisely as possible on the
parent's secure base provision rather than on his or her parental behavior more broadly.
Through experience-based understanding of parental intentions and behavior, an infant
gathers information to answer a central secure base question: What is my attachment figure
likely to do when activation of my attachment system leads me to seek contact? If
experiences lead the infant to believe that the parent will be responsive (most of the time) to
behaviors related to activation of his/her attachment system, then the infant will use the
parent as a secure base, and behavioral manifestations of the secure base script will appear
(i.e., the secure base script will be evident in the Strange Situation attachment assessment,
and the infant will be classified as secure). In 2000, E. Waters and Cummings, when
proposing an agenda for the field in the millennium of the 2000s, urged that the secure-base
concept be kept “at center stage in attachment theory and research” (p. 164). We share this
opinion, and believe that additional consideration of the secure base notion will provide a

useful framework within which to consider parental behavior as a predictor of infant

attachment.
Bowlby (1988) emphasized that an infant's sense of having a secure base resides in the
infant's confidence that parental sensitive responsiveness will be provided when needed
(e.g., specifying “especially should he [the infant] become tired or frightened” [p. 132]). As
such, it may be useful for attachment researchers to frame their question as: Which contexts
provide the infant with information about the parent's likely behavior when needed – not in
all contexts, but specifically in response to activation of the infant's attachment system?
Bowlby (1969/1982) described the relevant contexts as “fall[ing] into two classes: those
which indicate the presence of potential danger or stress (internal or external), and those
concerning the whereabouts and accessibility of the attachment figure” (p. 373).
Especially during the early years of life, both of these circumstances are likely to be
associated with infant distress. This association has led some writers to wonder whether
maternal response to infant distress is particularly predictive of infant attachment quality
(e.g., Thompson, 1997), and there is compelling evidence that this is the case (e.g., Del
Carmen, Pedersen, Huffman, & Bryan, 1993; Leerkes, 2011; Leerkes, Parade, &
Gudmundson, 2011; McElwain & Booth-LaForce, 2006). When infants experience comfort
from parental sensitive responses to their distress, they develop mental representations that
contribute to security (“When I am distressed, I seek care, and I am comforted”). These
representations are then thought to guide secure attachment behavior, and the physiological
regulation that comes from regaining calmness in contact with the parent is thought to
calibrate the child's stress reactivity systems and feed back into further secure mental
representations (e.g., Cassidy et al., 2013; Suomi, 2008). The greater predictive power of the
maternal response to distress, compared to maternal response to non-distress, may emerge
from the considerable intertwining of infant distress and the infant's attachment system
during the first year of life.
Future studies attempting to predict infant attachment might benefit from a framework that
considers two components of parental behavior: (a) parental behavior related specifically to
the secure base function of the infant's attachment system as Bowlby described it (see
above), and (b) parental response to infant distress. Table 1 presents a 2 (attachment-related
or not) × 2 (infant distressed or not) matrix that gives rise to a number of research questions.
One key question is the following: Is parental behavior in response to an infant's attachment
behavioral system most predictive of infant attachment, regardless of whether or not the
infant is distressed (i.e., parental behavior in both cells 1 and 2)? Another set of questions
relates to distress: Is parental response to any form of infant distress the most central
predictor of infant attachment (i.e., parental behavior in both cells 1 and 3)? Does the
termination of the physiological and emotional dysregulation of distress – no matter what
the cause – that occurs through parental care solidify a tendency to use the parent as a secure
base? Or do the cognitive models that derive from experiences of distress in different
contexts (e.g., distress during play versus distress when seeking comfort) contribute
differentially to secure base use? Most previous research has not drawn distinctions
concerning the context of infant distress; future work that considers this distinction is
needed.

Additional questions raised by Table 1 include: Is it the combination of maternal behavior

when the infant's attachment system is central, along with any behavioral response to infant
distress, that best predicts infant attachment (i.e., maternal behavior in cells 1, 2, and 3)?
Finally, is it the case (as some have suggested; e.g., Pedersen & Moran, 1999) that maternal
behavior in all four cells is predictive of infant attachment? Attempts to increase
understanding of the precursors of infant attachment will require the development of
detailed coding systems.
Finally, it will be crucial for future research conducted within a secure base framework to
identify the specific maternal behaviors in response to activation of the infant's attachment
system that predict infant security (for one approach, see Cassidy et al., 2005, and
Woodhouse & Cassidy, 2009, who note that providing physical contact until the infant is
fully calmed may be a more powerful predictor of later security than the general sensitivity
of the parent's response). Basic research examining the extent to which infant distress occurs
in relation to the attachment behavioral system will provide an important foundation for
further work.
Additional mediational pathways: Genetics, cognitions, and emotions—

Following the discovery of the transmission gap, several studies examined the possibility of
a genetic mediating mechanism. However, neither behavior-genetic nor molecular-genetic
research so far indicates a genetic component to individual differences in secure vs. insecure
attachment, although mixed findings have emerged concerning a genetic vulnerability for
infant disorganized attachment (Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 2004, 2007;
Bokhorst et al. 2003; Fearon et al., 2006; Roisman & Fraley, 2008). (For evidence that
variability in infants' serotonin-transporter-linked polymorphic region 5-HTTLPR predicts
not whether infants are secure or insecure, but their subtype of security or subtype of
insecurity, see Raby et al., 2012). Future research should examine other genes and gene X
environment interactions (see Suomi, 2011, for examples from primate research).
Despite a conceptual model of intergenerational transmission in which maternal behavior is

central, examination of additional linking mechanisms purported to underlie maternal
behavior, such as maternal cognitions and emotions, will continue to be important. Perhaps
such factors may be more reliably measured than maternal behavior, and if they are,
mediating relations may emerge to shed light on mechanisms of transmission (e.g., Bernier
& Dozier, 2003). Moreover, from a clinical standpoint, factors thought to underlie maternal
behavior may be more amenable targets of intervention than her behavior itself. For
example, continued examination of maternal cognition through the study of constructs such
as reflective functioning and maternal insightfulness may shed light on the link between
mother and child attachment (Oppenheim & Koren-Karie, 2009; Slade, Sadler, & Mayes,
2005). These constructs refer to the extent to which a mother can see the world from her
infant's point of view while also considering her own mental state. There is evidence that
these and other components of maternal cognition (e.g., perceptions of the baby, attributions
about infant behavior and emotions, maternal mindmindedness) are linked to maternal
and/or child attachment, and additional research is needed to clarify the extent to which
these components mediate the link between the two (e.g., Leerkes & Siepak, 2006; Zeanah,
Benoit, Hirshberg, Barton, & Regan, 1994).

Another aspect of maternal functioning that should prove fruitful for researchers examining
the transmission gap is maternal emotion regulation. As Cassidy (2006) has proposed, much
maternal insensitivity can be recast as a failure of maternal emotion regulation. That is,
when mothers themselves become dysregulated in the face of child behavior or child
emotions that they find distressing (particularly child distress), their maternal behavior is
more likely to be driven by their own dysregulation rather than the needs of the child (see
also Slade, in press). Evidence that maternal emotion-regulation capacities contribute to
problematic parenting and insecure attachment has been reported (Leerkes et al., 2011;
Lorber & O'Leary, 2005), as have data indicating that maternal state of mind with respect to
attachment (i.e., maternal secure base script knowledge) is uniquely related to maternal
physiological regulation in response to infant cries (but not in response to infant laughter;
Groh & Roisman, 2009). Unfortunately, although there is a sound conceptual and empirical
basis for maternal emotion regulation as a mediator of the link between maternal and child
attachment, there has been no empirical examination of this possibility.
In sum, the direction of future work depends on researchers' goals. If the goal is to
understand the maternal behavior that mediates the link between maternal state of mind and
child attachment, then the focus, obviously, must be on maternal behavior. If, however, the
goal is to understand what factors may guide maternal behavior, and as such may themselves
be successful targets of intervention, then examination of factors such as maternal cognitions
and emotions should prove useful as well.
Caregiving as a Function of Adult Attachment Style

Although most researchers using self-report measures of adult attachment have not focused
on links with parenting, there is a substantial and growing body of literature (more than 50
published studies) that addresses this link (see Jones, Cassidy, & Shaver, 2013, for a
review). Whereas researchers using the AAI have focused mainly on links between adults'
AAI classifications and their observed parenting behaviors, attachment style researchers
have focused mainly on links between adult attachment style and self-reported parenting
cognitions and emotions (reviewed by Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). But the few studies in
which self-report attachment measures were used to predict parenting behavior have found
support for predicted associations (e.g., Edelstein et al., 2004; Mills-Koonce et al., 2011;
Rholes, Simpson, & Blakely, 1995, Study 1; Selcuk et al., 2010). This is especially the case
for maternal self-reported attachment-related avoidance (note that each of these studies was
conducted with mothers only [Edelstein et al. included 4 fathers], so caution is warranted in
generalizing these findings to fathers).
It would be useful to have more studies of adult attachment styles and observed parenting
behavior. It would also be important to conduct longitudinal and intergenerational research
using self-report measures. Prospective research is needed examining the extent to which
adult attachment styles predict both parenting behaviors and infant attachment (see
Mayseless, Sharabany, & Sagi, 1997, and Volling, Notaro, & Larsen, 1998, for mixed
evidence concerning parents' adult attachment style as a predictor of infant attachment). Of
related interest to researchers examining attachment styles and parenting will be longitudinal
research examining the developmental precursors of adult attachment as measured with self-

report measures (see Fraley, Roisman, Booth-LaForce, Tresch Owen, & Holland, 2013, and
Zayas, Mischel, Shoda, & Aber, 2011, for evidence that self-reported attachment style in
adolescence and early adulthood is predictable from participants' mothers' behavior during
the participants' infancy and early childhood).
In general, we need more merging of social and developmental research traditions. It would
be useful to include both the AAI and self-report attachment style measures in studies of
parenting behaviors and cognitions. It would also be useful to know how the two kinds of
measures relate similarly and differently to parenting variables. Scharf and Mayseless
(2011) included both kinds of measures and found that both of them prospectively predicted
parenting cognitions (e.g., perceived ability to take care of children), and in some cases, the
self-report measure yielded significant predictions when the AAI did not (e.g., desire to have
children). From the viewpoint of making predictions for practical or applied purposes, it is
beneficial that both interview and self-report measures predict important outcomes but
sometimes do so in non-redundant ways, thus increasing the amount of explained variance.
Mothers and Fathers

It is unclear whether it is best to think of a single kind of parental caregiving system in
humans or of separate maternal and paternal caregiving systems. Harlow proposed separate
maternal and paternal systems in primates (e.g., Harlow, Harlow, & Hansen, 1963). Within a
modern evolutionary perspective, the existence of separate maternal and paternal caregiving
systems is readily understood. Because mothers and fathers may differ substantially in the
extent to which the survival of any one child enhances their overall fitness, their parenting
behavior may differ. In addition, the inclusion of fathers in future attachment research is
crucial. We contend that the field's continued focus on mothers is more likely to reflect the
difficulty of recruiting fathers as research participants than a lack of interest in fathers.
Bowlby, after all, was careful to use the term “attachment figure” rather than “mother,”
because of his belief that although biological mothers typically serve as principal attachment
figures, other figures such as fathers, adoptive mothers, grandparents, and child-care
providers can also serve as attachment figures. Presumably, it is the nature of the interaction
rather than the category of the individual that is important to the child. Also, addition of
fathers will permit examination of attachment within a family systems perspective (Byng-
Hall, 1999; Johnson, 2008). Future research should examine (a) whether the precursors of
infant-father attachment are similar to or different from the precursors of infant-mother

attachment; (b) whether the Strange Situation best captures the quality of infant-father
attachments (some have suggested that it does not; Grossmann Grossman, Kindler, &
Zimmermann, 2008); (c) the influence of infants' relationships with fathers and father
figures on their subsequent security and mental health; (d) possible differences in the
working models children have of mothers and fathers; and (e) possible influences of parents'
relationship with each other on the child's sense of having, or not having, a secure base
(Bretherton, 2010; Davies & Cummings, 1994).
Attachment and Psychopathology

As mentioned at the outset of this article, Bowlby was a clinician interested in the influence
of early experiences with caregivers on children's later mental health and delinquency

(Bowlby, 1944, 1951). Yet following a line of thinking that later came to characterize the
developmental psychopathology approach (e.g., Cicchetti, 1984), Bowlby developed
attachment theory as a framework for investigating and understanding both normal and
abnormal development (Sroufe, Carlson, Levy, & Egeland, 1999). Given space limitations
and the focus of this journal, we will concentrate on relations between attachment and child
psychopathology (Figure 1, Path d; see Cassidy & Shaver, 2008, and Sroufe, Egeland,
Carlson, & Collins, 2005a, for reviews of attachment and psychosocial functioning more
broadly). The vast majority of existing studies have, however, not focused on clinically
diagnosed psychopathology, but have been concerned with relations between attachment and
continuous measures of internalizing and externalizing symptoms (e.g., assessed with the
Child Behavior Checklist [CBCL]; Achenbach, 1991).
Bowlby's Theory of Attachment and Psychopathology

Bowlby used Waddington's (1957) developmental pathways model to explain how early
attachment relates to later developmental outcomes, including psychopathology. According
to this model, developmental outcomes are a product of the interaction of early childhood
experiences and current context (at any later age). Early attachment is not expected to be
perfectly predictive of later outcomes. Moreover, attachment insecurity per se is not

psychopathology nor does it guarantee pathological outcomes. Instead, insecurity in infancy
and early childhood is thought to be a risk factor for later psychopathology if subsequent
development occurs in the context of other risk factors (e.g., poverty, parental
psychopathology, abuse). Security is a protective factor that may buffer against emotional
problems when later risks are present (see Sroufe et al., 1999, for a review).
Attachment and Internalizing/Externalizing Behavior Problems: State of the

Field
Over the past few decades, there have been many studies of early attachment and child
mental health. The findings are complicated and difficult to summarize, as explained by
Fearon, Bakermans-Kranenburg, van IJzendoorn, Lapsley, and Roisman (2010, p. 437):
“With the sheer volume, range, and diversity of studies…it has become virtually impossible
to provide a clear narrative account of the status of the evidence concerning this critical
issue in developmental science” (italics added). Studies contributing to this body of work
have used diverse samples and different methods and measures, and have yielded
inconsistent and, at times, contradictory results. Fortunately, two recent meta-analyses
(Fearon et al., 2010; Groh, Roisman, van IJzendoorn, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & Fearon,
2012) provide quantitative estimates of the degree of association between child attachment
and internalizing/externalizing symptoms.
The meta-analyses revealed that insecurity (avoidant, ambivalent, and disorganized

combined) was related to higher rates of internalizing and externalizing symptoms (though
the link appears to be stronger for externalizing symptoms). When the subtypes of insecurity
were examined individually, avoidance and disorganization were each significantly related
to higher rates of externalizing problems, but only avoidance was significantly related to
internalizing problems. Ambivalence was not significantly related to internalizing or

externalizing. Contrary to expectations, neither meta-analysis yielded much support for an

interaction of child attachment and contextual risk in predicting behavior problems. For
example, neither meta-analysis found support for the predicted child attachment by SES
interaction. However, given that high versus low SES is a rather imprecise measure of the
numerous psychosocial risk factors that could contribute (individually and additively) to
behavior problems, along with evidence from large sample studies supporting an attachment
by risk interaction (e.g., Fearon & Belsky, 2011), these results should be interpreted
cautiously. In sum, the answer to the question “Is early attachment status related to later
mental health difficulties?” is a resounding yes, but the precise nature of the connections
remains unclear.
Attachment and Psychopathology: Gaps in the Research and Future

Directions
More research is needed on mechanisms, or mediators, that help to explain how insecurity,
or a particular form of insecure attachment, leads in some cases to psychopathology. These
mechanisms should be considered at different levels of analysis: neurological, hormonal,
cognitive, behavioral, and social-interactional. Mediators may include difficulties in emotion
regulation and deficits in social skills, for example. Given the documented links between
early attachment and emotion regulation and physiological stress responses (Cassidy, 1994;
Spangler & Grossmann, 1993), as well as the role of emotion dysregulation and HPA axis
irregularities in psychopathology (Gunnar & Vazquez, 2006; Kring & Sloan, 2010), emotion
regulation seems to be a promising target for mechanism research. More research is also
needed on potential moderators and risk factors, such as age, gender, personality, traumas
and losses, SES, exposure to family and neighborhood violence. Researchers should
consider the cumulative effects of multiple risk factors as well as interactions among risk
factors (Belsky & Fearon, 2002; Fearon & Belsky, 2011; Kazdin & Kagan, 1994).
Given that most research on the mental health sequelae of early attachment has focused on
internalizing and externalizing symptoms in non-clinical samples, future research should
focus more on clinically significant problems and consider specific clinical disorders. The
CBCL is not a measure of psychopathology, although it does indicate risk for eventual
psychopathology (Koot & Verhulst, 1992; Verhulst, Koot, & Van der Ende, 1994). Future
research should address why the link between attachment and problematic behaviors is
stronger for externalizing than for internalizing problems, and whether this difference holds
for diagnosable pathology (e.g., conduct disorder or major depression). This may be
partially a measurement issue. The CBCL is often completed, with reference to a child, by a
parent, a teacher, or both. It may be easier to see and remember externalizing behaviors than
it is to notice whether a child is experiencing anxiety, sadness, or internal conflicts. Another
important diagnostic issue is comorbidity. It is very common for clinicians to assign a
person to multiple diagnostic categories. Perhaps attachment theory and related measures
could help to identify common processes underlying comorbid conditions and suggest where
their roots lie (Mineka, Watson, & Clark, 1998). One likely possibility is emotion regulation
and dysregulation influenced by early experiences with parents.

Moreover, additional research is needed on the precise nature of the early childhood
predictive factors and issues of causation. Is the issue really attachment status at age 1, for
example, or is it continual insecure attachment across years of development? Also, we need
to know whether attachment status per se is the issue or whether, for example, poor
parenting predicts both attachment classification and psychopathology. Answering these
questions will require studies using repeated assessments of attachment, parenting, context,
and psychopathology. Further, there is increasing recognition of the importance of genetics
and gene-by-environment interactions in understanding the development of
psychopathology (e.g., Moffitt, 2005). Given preliminary evidence for genetic influences on
disorganized attachment (Lakatos et al., 2000) as well as evidence for a gene-by-early-
maternal-sensitivity interaction in predicting mental health outcomes (Bakermans-
Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 2006), this area of inquiry is a very promising avenue for
further research. There is also growing evidence concerning environmental effects on gene
expression (i.e., epigenetics; Meaney, 2010). Especially interesting is the possibility that
secure attachment may protect a child from the expression of risky genotypes (see
Kochanska, Philibert, & Barry, 2009, for preliminary evidence).
The Neuroscience of Attachment

Recent methodological advances (e.g., fMRI) have enabled researchers to investigate the
neural correlates of attachment in humans. Initial theoretical formulations and empirical
findings from the nascent subfield of “attachment neuroscience” (Coan, 2008) have begun to
provide answers to important questions about the neurobiology of attachment. Recent
advances in this area include: (a) identifying key brain structures, neural circuits,
neurotransmitter systems, and neuropeptides involved in attachment system functioning (see
Coan, 2008, 2010, and Vrtička & Vuilleumier, 2012, for reviews); (b) providing preliminary
evidence that individual differences in attachment can be seen at the neural level in the form
of differential brain responses to social and emotional stimuli (Vrtička & Vuilleumier,
2012); (c) demonstrating the ability of attachment figures to regulate their spouses' neural
threat response (i.e., hidden regulators; Coan et al., 2006); and (d) advancing our
understanding of the neurobiology of parenting (see Parsons, Young, Murray, Stein, &
Kringelbach, 2010, for a review).
These early findings suggest important directions for attachment research. First, the vast
majority of research on the neurobiology of attachment has been conducted with adults (yet
see Dawson et al., 2001; White et al., 2012). However, researchers have the tools to examine
the neural bases of attachment in younger participants. It is feasible to have children as
young as 4 or 5 years old perform tasks in a functional magnetic resonance imaging scanner
(Byars et al., 2002; Yerys et al., 2009), and less invasive measures such as EEG are
commonly used with infants and even newborns. Additional investigations with younger
participants could move the field of attachment neuroscience forward in important ways. For
example, researchers could find ethically acceptable ways to extend the work of Coan and
colleagues (2006) to parents and children: Just as holding the hand of a spouse attenuates the
neural threat response in members of adult couples, holding the hand of a caregiver may
have a similar effect on children. Researchers should also extend the sparse literature on

how individual differences in attachment in children relate to differential neural responses to

social and emotional stimuli.
Second, there is a need for longitudinal investigations that address several important
unanswered questions: (a) What does child-parent attachment formation look like at the
neural level in terms of the circuits involved and changes in neurobiology over time? (b)
What is the role of developmental timing (i.e., sensitive and critical periods in brain
development) in the formation of neural circuits associated with attachment? (c) Is the
neural circuitry associated with attachment the same for children, adolescents, and adults?
Some researchers have suggested that the neural circuitry associated with attachment may be
different at different ages (Coan, 2008).
Third, future research should examine the ability of experience to change neural activity in
brain regions related to attachment, and should explore potential clinical implications of
these findings. For example, Johnson et al. (2013) compared the ability of spousal hand-
holding to buffer neural responses to threat before and after couples underwent Emotion-
Focused Therapy (EFT). They found that EFT increased the ability of hand-holding to
attenuate threat responses; similar examination of both parent and child neural activity in
response to attachment-related interventions would be informative.
Fourth, it is important for future research to identify which, if any, brain regions are specific
to attachment and which are shared with other related social constructs such as caregiving or
affiliation more broadly. There is initial evidence that caregiving and attachment involve
both unique and overlapping brain regions (Bartels & Zeki, 2004).
Finally, given the inherent interpersonal nature of attachment, future research should attempt
to study attachment-related neural processes in situations that approximate as closely as
possible “real” social interactions (Vrtička & Vuilleumier, 2012). To date, all studies of the
neuroscience of attachment have focused on the neural activity of only one partner in a
relationship. By capitalizing on further methodological advances in neuroimaging (e.g.,
hyperscanning; Montague et al., 2002) researchers may be able to examine simultaneously
the neural activity of a parent and child while they are interacting.
Attachment, Inflammation, and Health

Evidence is accumulating that attachment insecurity in adulthood is concurrently associated

with negative health behaviors (e.g., poor diet, tobacco use; Ahrens, Ciechanowski, &
Katon, 2012; Huntsinger & Luecken, 2004; Scharfe & Eldredge, 2001) and problematic
health conditions (e.g., chronic pain, hypertension, stroke, heart attack; McWilliams &
Bailey, 2010). Despite these intriguing cross-sectional findings in adult samples, much less
is known about how early attachment relates to long-term health outcomes. One longitudinal
study (Puig, Englund, Collins, & Simpson, 2012) reported that individuals classified as
insecurely attached to mother at 18 months were more likely to report physical illnesses 30
years later. Two other studies found that early insecure attachment was associated with
higher rates of obesity at age 4.5 (Anderson & Whitaker, 2011) and 15 (Anderson, Gooze,
Lemeshow, & Whitaker, 2012). Additional longitudinal investigations of the links between
early attachment and health outcomes are needed to replicate these findings in different

samples using a wider variety of health measures (e.g., medical records, biomarkers, onset
and course of specific health problems).
Another goal for future research is to advance our understanding of the processes or
mechanisms by which early attachment is related to later health outcomes. Recent proposals
that early psychosocial experiences become “biologically embedded” at the molecular level
and influence later immune system functioning (e.g., inflammation) provide a promising
model with which to pursue this kind of research (see Miller, Chen, & Parker, 2011, for a
review of the conceptual model and its empirical support). In brief, the model proposes that
early adverse experiences result in immune system cells with a “proinflammatory
phenotype” and neuroendocrine dysregulation leading to chronic inflammation.
Inflammation, in turn, is involved in a variety of aging-related illnesses including
cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases, and certain types of cancer (Chung et al.,
2009).
As mentioned earlier, there is mounting evidence that early experiences with caregivers
(including their influence on attachment) contribute to the calibration and ongoing
regulation of the HPA axis (e.g., cortisol reactivity, diurnal cortisol rhythms), a system that
is central to the body's stress response (Adam et al., 2007; Gunnar & Quevedo, 2007; Luijk
et al., 2010; Spangler & Grossmann, 1993). The HPA axis also plays an integral role in
inflammatory responses and immune system functioning. In addition, there is evidence that
early maternal warmth (retrospectively reported) can buffer the deleterious effects of early
adversity on pro-inflammatory signaling in adulthood (Chen, Miller, Kobor, & Cole, 2011;
see also Pietromonaco, DeBuse, & Powers, 2013, for a review of the links between adult
attachment and HPA axis functioning). Finally, studies show that attachment in adulthood is
concurrently related to biomarkers of immunity: attachment-related avoidance is related to
heightened levels of the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-6 (IL-6) in response to an
interpersonal stressor (Gouin et al., 2009) and to lower levels of natural killer cell (NK)
cytotoxicity (NK cells are involved in immune defense; Picardi et al., 2007); attachment-
related anxiety is related to elevated cortisol production and lower numbers of T cells
(Jaremka et al., 2013).
These initial findings provide an empirical basis for researchers to pursue further the
connections between attachment and health. Future research should prospectively examine
the relation between early attachment security and biomarkers of inflammation in adulthood.
Further, researchers should attempt to elucidate the relations among attachment, HPA axis
functioning, inflammation, and the immune system to better understand the biological
processes underlying the link between early experience and later health outcomes.
Attachment and Empathy, Compassion, and Altruism

Shortly after the development of the Strange Situation, which allowed researchers to validly
assess infants' attachment orientations, there was strong interest in the potential links
between attachment security and prosocial motives and behaviors (e.g., empathy,
compassion). From a theoretical standpoint, there are reasons to expect that secure children
– whose own needs have been responded to in a sensitive and responsive way – will develop
the capacity to respond to the needs of others empathically. Several early investigations

confirmed the association between child attachment security and empathic responding
(Kestenbaum, Farber, & Sroufe, 1989; Sroufe, 1983; Teti & Ablard, 1989). Over the past 24
years, however, the link between child attachment status and prosocial processes (e.g.,
empathy, helping, altruism) has received surprisingly little research attention (though see
Panfile & Laible, 2012; Radke-Yarrow, Zahn-Waxler, Richardson, Susman, & Martinez,
1994; van der Mark, van IJzendoorn, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2002). In contrast, social/
personality psychologists have generated substantial and compelling empirical support for a
connection between adult attachment and prosocial motives and behaviors.
Mikulincer, Shaver, and colleagues (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2001; Mikulincer, Shaver,
Gillath, & Nitzberg, 2005; Mikulincer, Shaver, Sahdra, & Bar-On, in press) have
demonstrated that both dispositional and experimentally augmented attachment security
(accomplished through various forms of “security priming”) are associated with several
prosocial constructs, including reduced outgroup prejudice, increased compassion for a
suffering stranger and willingness to suffer in her place, and the ability and willingness of
one partner in a couple to listen sensitively and respond helpfully to the other partner's
description of a personal problem. In addition, surveys completed in three different countries
(United States, Israel, the Netherlands) revealed that more secure adults (measured by self-
reports) were more likely to volunteer in their communities (e.g., by donating blood or
helping the elderly). Avoidant respondents were much less likely to volunteer, and although
anxious respondents volunteered, their reasons for doing so (e.g., to receive thanks, to feel
included) were less generous than those of their more secure peers (Gillath et al., 2005).
Further study of how early attachment relates to various forms of prosocial behavior is
needed. Developmental attachment researchers would benefit from using the experimental
techniques that Mikulincer, Shaver, and colleagues used. Are young children who were
classified as secure in the Strange Situation (especially in comparison to children classified
as avoidant) more willing to help a suffering individual or more willing to interact with a
child from a different ethnic group? Can experimental security “boosts” increase tolerance,
empathy, compassion, and altruism in children? There is already robust experimental
evidence that infants as young as 14 to 18 months readily engage in altruistic behavior (e.g.,
retrieving an out-of-reach object for a stranger; see Warneken & Tomasello, 2009, for a
review). To the best of our knowledge, however, no study has examined whether variations
in infant attachment predict individual differences in this kind of instrumental helping
behavior (although the potential for attachment-related differences has been proposed by
Dweck; see Tomasello, Dweck, Silk, Skyrms, & Spelke, 2009). Warneken and Tomasello
(2009) have proposed that these early helping behaviors reflect a biological predisposition
for altruism in infants that begins to be influenced by social and cultural experiences only “a
year or two after [the infants] have started behaving altruistically” (p. 400). However, given
the innumerable social experiences that infants encounter in the first year of life and the
pioneering work by Johnson and colleagues (Johnson, Dweck, & Chen, 2007; Johnson et al.,
2010) showing that 12- to 16-month-old infants with different attachment patterns have
different expectations about others' helpfulness, it may be possible to observe attachment-
related individual differences in early helping behaviors earlier than Warneken and
Tomasello suggest.

Attachment and School Readiness

In recent years researchers, educators, and policy makers have been increasingly interested
in understanding factors that predict children's school readiness and in developing and
testing programs that may better prepare children (particularly at-risk children) for school
entry. In his 2013 State of the Union Address at the beginning of his second term, President
Obama proposed implementing universal, high-quality preschool for all American children
with the idea that these early preparatory experiences will enhance school readiness and
future academic performance. The focus of much of the initial research on school readiness
has been on children's basic cognitive skills such as early literacy and numeracy abilities
(e.g., Duncan et al., 2007). More recently, researchers have recognized the importance of
other competencies such as emotion regulation and social skills (e.g., High and the
Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care and Council on School
Health, 2008). Further, High et al. listed “strong nurturing relationships” as one of the
universal needs of children that must be met to promote school readiness and positive
educational outcomes (p. e1009).
The conclusions reached by High et al. suggest that child attachment security is an important
factor to consider when studying school readiness and developing programs designed to
improve school readiness (for initial empirical evidence, see Belsky & Fearon, 2002, and
Stacks & Oshio, 2009). Decades of research have provided substantial evidence that early
attachment security is associated with better emotion regulation capacities and greater social
competence (e.g., Cassidy, 1994; Sroufe et al., 2005a; Thompson, 2008). In addition,
research has demonstrated that secure attachment is associated with better academic
performance (Granot & Mayseless, 2001) as well as enhanced cognitive skills and executive
functions (Bernier, Carlson, Deschênes, & Matte-Gagné, 2012; Jacobsen, Edelstein, &
Hofmann, 1994). Thus, as research on school readiness continues to advance, greater
consideration of the direct and indirect influences of early attachment security on school
readiness is warranted. For example, researchers should test mediational models in which
attachment security predicts greater emotion regulation or social competence, which in turn
predicts greater school readiness. In addition, both parenting and school readiness
interventions could consider whether increasing parental secure base provision fosters a
child's school readiness. Moreover, consideration of the extent to which preschool teachers
perform secure base and safe haven functions for their young students, and whether these
components of the student-teacher relationship relate to young children's classroom

functioning will be important (see Commodari, 2013).
Attachment and Culture

Bowlby (1969/1982) viewed the attachment behavioral system as a product of human
evolutionary history, making it cross-culturally universal. Ainsworth's (1967; Ainsworth et
al., 1978) early studies in Uganda and the US provided empirical support for similar
attachment processes in very different cultures. Although some researchers have disputed
the cross-cultural validity of core tenets of attachment theory (e.g., Rothbaum, Weisz, Pott,
Miyake, & Morelli, 2000), decades of research strongly suggest that the basic phenomenon
and the major kinds of individual differences are universal (see van IJzendoorn & Sagi-
Schwartz, 2008, for a review). Three hypotheses rooted in attachment theory have been

examined and supported in cross-cultural research: that secure attachment is the most
prevalent pattern in all cultures and is viewed as the most desirable pattern; that maternal
sensitivity influences infant attachment patterns; and that secure infant attachment predicts
later social and cognitive competence.
Yet much more research is needed. As psychological knowledge, research, and applications
become increasingly global, it will become more feasible to map the detailed effects of
cross-cultural and contextual differences in parenting, co-parenting, community care,
environmental harshness and instability, and conflicts and war on attachment patterns and
attachment-related mental health problems. It will be increasingly important to define
“culture” and “context” more specifically. Within any large and diverse society, and in every
large urban area (in a world increasingly urbanized), there are many cultures and
subcultures. Moreover, within any modern society there are large differences in ethnicity,
religion, diet, education, income, economic security, and threats to health and the
availability of medical care. It is therefore important not to think of differences only between
nation states but also within different groups and contexts within each nation.
Translating Attachment Research to Clinical Practice Interventions with Infants and Young
Children at Risk for Insecure Attachment

Just as the study of individual differences in attachment began with the study of infants, so
the systematic study of how to create attachment-related change focused initially on
attempts to alter the developmental trajectory of infants who are at risk of developing or
maintaining insecure attachments. Given the substantial and converging longitudinal
research underscoring the risks associated with insecure attachment (e.g., poorer mental and
physical health and lower social competence), the need to intervene to reduce the risk of
insecure attachment is clear. In the past 20 years, researchers and clinicians have developed
numerous therapeutic programs to prevent or reduce insecure attachment (Bakermans-
Kranenburg, van IJzendoorn, & Juffer, 2003; Egeland, Weinfield, Bosquet, & Cheng, 2000;
see Berlin, Zeanah, & Lieberman, 2008, for a review). Despite the fact that a handful of
attachment interventions have shown initial success (e.g., Bernard et al., 2012; Cassidy et
al., 2011; Cicchetti, Rogosch, & Toth, 2006; Hoffman, Marvin, Cooper, & Powell, 2006;
Klein Velderman, Bakermans-Kranenburg, Juffer, & van IJzendoorn, 2006; Lieberman,
Weston, & Pawl, 1991; Lyons-Ruth & Easterbrooks, 2006; Sadler et al., 2013; Toth,
Rogosch, Manly, & Cicchetti, 2006; van den Boom, 1994, 1995), we have as yet a collection
of individual initiatives with little replication. More research is needed to identify the critical
targets of attachment interventions and to understand the process of change.
Targets of early intervention—What should an intervention target? Until recently, this

question was framed largely as: Should interventions target parental behavior, parental
representations, or both? Greater specificity is required. When an intervention targets
parental behavior, what specific components of behavior should be targeted? We discussed
potential aspects of parental behavior earlier. When an intervention targets parental
representations, what specific components should be targeted? Should interventions target
representations of the parent her- or himself, of the infant, of the relationship; of the baby as

an entity with a mind (e.g., mentalizing approaches; Slade et al., 2005); or maternal
attributions about the infant's behavior (Bugental et al., 2002)?
Several studies (described earlier) suggest additional intervention targets. For example, the
evidence that maternal emotion regulation capacities influence parenting (Dix, 1991;
Leerkes, Crockenberg, & Burrous, 2004; Lorber & Slep, 2005; Smith & O'Leary, 1995)
suggests that targeting maternal emotion regulation capacities might be useful in bringing
about change (e.g., the Circle of Security intervention; Hoffman et al., 2006). Another target
of intervention is suggested by research with non-human primates and other mammals that
demonstrates the soothing and regulatory functions that physical contact with an attachment
figure can provide (Hofer, 1994, 2006; Meaney, 2001; Suomi, 2008; see Feldman, Singer, &
Zagoory, 2010, for such evidence in humans; see also Field, 2011). Interventions focused on
infant-mother contact may prove useful (see Anisfeld, Casper, Nozyce, & Cunningham,
1990, for a randomized trial in which mothers assigned to carry their infants in soft baby
carriers were more likely to have infants who were securely attached at age 1). Of course,
consideration of intervention targets necessarily requires considering moderators of
intervention effectiveness. Targeting certain components may be more effective for some
mothers than others.
The desire to intervene to reduce the risk of insecure attachment rests on the assumption that
doing so in turn reduces the risk of poor child functioning, including a reduction in behavior
problems and psychopathology. Remarkably, although there are a number of studies,
described above, that show a link between insecure attachment and behavior problems and
psychopathology, much less research has focused on whether intervening to reduce the risk
of insecure attachment actually leads to a reduction in later problems (yet see Dozier et al.,
2006; Moss et al., 2011; Klein Velderman et al., 2006; van den Boom, 1995; Van Zeijl et al.,
2006). Future intervention research should test the change model according to which
improving parenting reduces the risk of insecure attachment, which in turn reduces child
behavior problems and psychopathology. Given that behavior problems associated with
early insecure attachment may not emerge until later in development, and the evidence that
the link between insecure attachment and behavior problems grows stronger over time
(Fearon & Belsky, 2011), longitudinal studies with long-term outcome assessments will be
an important component of future intervention research.
Intervention development and issues of implementation—No attachment

intervention has yet achieved widespread implementation. When following the typical
efficacy-to-effectiveness clinical model, researchers initially design an intervention with a
highly specified protocol, and only once it has proven to be efficacious in a tightly
controlled setting do they begin to consider the adaptations needed for effectiveness in real-
world settings. With attachment-based infant interventions, the problem has been that initial
interventions are typically very expensive, and real-world social agencies attempting to meet
the needs of at-risk infants cannot afford them. This is an unfortunate situation, especially
because, over the past decade, there has been a call for researchers to attend to issues of
implementation during the early stages of intervention planning. For instance, an argument
that “the focus on feasibility in the prevention research cycle should not be restricted to the
effectiveness stage” has been put forward by Ialongo and colleagues (2006).

Several components of early attachment-based interventions make implementation at a

broad public health level impractical. Many such interventions involve videotaping
individual parent-infant interactions and providing individualized parental feedback (e.g.,
Dozier et al., 2006; Klein Velderman et al., 2006). This requires considerable resources:
extensive training and supervision of staff; expertise and time to create individual diagnostic
and treatment plans; and time, space, equipment, skills, and parental assent for individual
videotaping. From an attachment perspective, the problem is how to provide an
individualized approach that does not require expensive highly skilled staff. This problem
has not been easy to solve (e.g., Berlin, Ziv, Amaya-Jackson, & Greenberg, 2005).
Continued attempts to develop interventions that are widely and affordably implementable
are important.
We urgently need evaluations of comprehensive theory- and research-based intervention

protocols that can be widely implemented among families whose infants and children are at
elevated risk for developing or maintaining insecure attachments. Addressing this need is in
keeping with the NIMH (2008) strategic plan's objective of moving interventions to
“common practice” more quickly and of examining interventions in “the care setting in
which they are delivered” (p. 35). Continued testing of attachment-based interventions
should occur further down the efficacy-to-effectiveness stream – with affordable protocols
that can be provided through existing service delivery mechanisms. Expensive interventions
are not implementable on a broad scale within the current American health care and
educational structures.
Intervention development and testing are enormously expensive, yet replication of existing
interventions is crucial. We propose that the dedication of resources to development of new
interventions occur only when theory, clinical perspectives, or research indicate that existing
interventions lack an important component that could reasonably contribute to change.
Interventions during Adolescence

Adolescence is a period of increased risk-taking behavior and mental health disorders
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2012; Roberts, Attkisson, &
Rosenblatt, 1998), and attempts to reduce these problematic symptoms and behaviors are
important. The dramatic biological and cognitive changes that occur during adolescence
have led some researchers to consider this period as a second sensitive period (e.g.,
Andersen & Teicher, 2008; Guttmannova et al., 2011), and as such, adolescents may be
particularly open to environmental interventions that can lead to improved functioning.
Interventions designed to help adolescents are typically targeted at the reduction of specific
problems (e.g., depression or delinquency), and there are many effective interventions for
helping troubled adolescents (e.g., Dishion & Kavanagh, 2003; Stein, Zitner, & Jensen,
2006). Yet given evidence that the link between attachment security and healthy functioning
continues to exist in adolescence (Dykas, Ziv, & Cassidy, 2008; Kobak & Sceery, 1988; see
Allen, 2008, for a review), increasing adolescent attachment security may also be an
effective means of reducing adolescent problems. In other words, does an intervention
focused on the adolescent-parent attachment relationship increase the likelihood of reduced

problematic adolescent behavior? There has been remarkably little research on this
important question. Moreover, the associations among intervention, attachment, and
psychopathology may be more complex in adolescence than they are in infancy and early
childhood. Another important way to examine the connections among these factors is to
design studies to determine whether reducing adolescent psychopathology contributes to
secure adolescent attachment.
In an intervention designed to enhance adolescent-parent attachment security – with the idea

being that increased security will reduce the prevalence of adolescent problems – questions
about intervention approaches arise. For instance, should an intervention include the parent,
the adolescent, or both? Bretherton (1992) described Bowlby as the first family therapist
because of his proposition that change in a child's attachment to a parent is possible only
when there is change within the interaction between the child and the parent (see also Byng-
Hall, 1999). There has been almost no examination of this proposition in adolescence. One
randomized controlled trial (Diamond et al., 2010) showed that Attachment-Based Family
Therapy (ABFT) was more efficacious than Enhanced Usual Care in reducing adolescents'
depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation.
Policy Implications
Throughout this article we have suggested topics for future research. At least as important
are the needs for application of the findings already obtained and increased collaborations
among researchers, policy makers, educators, and child service workers. Here we list a few
important areas for such efforts.
Attachment research has clearly established the importance of early experiences with parents
for child development. Yet far too many parents enter parenthood with insufficient
knowledge about child development and the importance of the early parent-child
relationship, and without the knowledge and skills needed to parent in a sensitive,
responsive manner. Unfortunately, there is almost no future-parent education at any grade
level in public schools. In American schools, there seems to be a greater focus on education
about sex than about successful parenting. (And most sex education classes do not deal with
other aspects of couple relationships, even though there is a considerable body of
attachment-related research relevant to establishing and maintaining healthy couple
relationships – a foundation for healthy parent-child relationships.) Even at the college level,
there are few courses aimed at preparing young adults for healthy marriages and parenting.
Researchers and educators should work together to develop future-parent curricula that
could be implemented as part of high school and university education. There are several
empirically supported parent training programs based on attachment research (described
earlier; see Berlin et al., 2008, for a review), but these have yet to be made a part of general
education.
In the context of dramatic social and economic changes, many parents are struggling to
strike a balance between work and family responsibilities and to find quality care for their
children while the parents are at work or school. There is a need for more flexible work
arrangements that recognize child care as a prime societal concern. This includes re-
examination of parental leave policies that require parents to return to work too soon after

childbirth, either because of company policy or because of financial necessity. In addition,

greater attention to the training and screening of childcare workers and prospective foster
parents is warranted. In a review of attachment theory and its implications for society,
Sweeney (2007) suggested, among several policy implications, “legislative initiatives

reflecting higher standards for credentialing and licensing childcare workers, requiring
education in child development and attachment theory, and at least a two-year associate's
degree course as well as salary increases and increased stature for childcare positions” (p.
342). The massive NICHD childcare study showed that high quality daycare is compatible
with secure attachment of young children to their parents, and also that when home
conditions make secure attachment unlikely, high quality daycare can increase children's
chances of achieving attachment-related security (NICHD Early Child Care Research
Network, 1997).
Policies directed at helping families in which one or both parents serve in the military could
also be informed by attachment theory and research. Military service often entails frequent
moves within the United States and separation of at least one parent from the family during
periods of service overseas. In thousands of cases, the separation ends with a soldier's death,
and his or her family is left to cope with the tragedy. Attention to helping spouses and
children cope effectively with attachment-related stresses that have the potential to damage
their lives for years to come has increased in recent years (e.g., Maholmes, 2012; see also
Riggs & Riggs, 2011, for consideration of military families within an attachment theory
framework), but there continues to be a need for research-informed interventions that
consider the particular challenges faced by military families (for discussion, see Miller,
Miller, & Bjorklund, 2010; Paris et al., 2010).
We end with a brief mention of policy implications related to parental incarceration.

Elsewhere (Cassidy, Poehlmann, & Shaver, 2010) we have provided reviews and studies
related to this issue. Often, incarcerated parents are unable to see their children, and
pressures are placed on the rest of extended families, and in many cases on the foster care
system. For each adult placed in prison, there are likely to be, on average, more than one or
two people outside of prison who suffer from the incarceration. Policy makers could
consider the separations and losses that accompany parental incarceration within an
attachment framework. Research is needed to assess the value of greater contact between
incarcerated individuals and their children, and of parenting interventions that can take place
as part of rehabilitation.
Brief Conclusions
Our goal in this article has been to provide a current “state of the art” description of what is
known in many important areas of attachment research, discuss gaps in current knowledge,
and suggest important avenues for future research and for creating and evaluating practical
interventions. Although we have, by design, focused on issues within attachment research
specifically, an important enterprise for the future is to consider how attachment is
differentiated from, and integrated with, other features of development. As our colleague
Alan Sroufe responded when asked his views on the future of attachment research (personal
communication, 2012; see also Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2005b), “There is a lot

more to personal development than attachment, and there is a lot more even to parenting
than attachment. The task is to describe how all of this fits and works together.” That task
arises with respect to every phase of development – infancy, childhood, adolescence, and
adulthood. And the range of issues and factors to be considered is somewhat different at
every stage or phase of development.
Certain large goals of any worthy society – the mental and physical health of its members,
the optimal development of each individual's interests and capacities, and a safe
environment free of violence and hatred – are likely to be achieved only to the extent that
infants and children receive the benefits of what Bowlby and Ainsworth called a safe haven
and a secure base, which as far as we can see imaginatively into the future are likely to
depend on responsive attachment figures. Partly through the efforts of Bowlby, Ainsworth,
and their intellectual offspring, it has been possible to improve hospital procedures, reduce
child abuse, contribute to better parenting, increase understanding of the development of
psychopathology, and to provide a much better understanding of our social nature as
mammals, primates, and human beings. With the goal of a mentally and physically healthy
human race in mind, we can simultaneously be proud of the accomplishments of attachment
researchers and look forward to participating in addressing the many intellectual, clinical,
and educational challenges remaining.
Acknowledgments
Author Note: The writing of this article was supported by awards to Jude Cassidy from NIDA (R21 DA025550), to
Jason Jones from NIDA (F31 DA033848), and to Phillip Shaver from the Fetzer Institute. The authors are grateful
to Susan S. Woodhouse for engaging in extensive conversations about maternal response to distress, and to Kenneth
N. Levy for helpful suggestions about links between attachment and psychopathology.
References
Achenbach, TM. Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT:
University of Vermont; 1991.
Adam, EK.; Klimes-Dougan, B.; Gunnar, MR. Social regulation of the adrenocortical response to
stress in infants, children, and adolescents. In: Coch, D.; Dawson, G.; Fischer, KW., editors. Human
behavior and the developing brain: Atypical development. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2007. p.
264-304.
Ahrens KR, Ciechanowski P, Katon W. Associations between adult attachment style and health risk
behaviors in an adult female primary care population. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2012;
72:364–370. [PubMed: 22469278]

Ainsworth, MDS. Infancy in Uganda: Infant care and the growth of love. Baltimore, MD: The Johns
Hopkins Press; 1967.
Ainsworth, MDS.; Blehar, M.; Waters, E.; Wall, S. Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of
the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1978.
Allen, JP. The attachment system in adolescence. In: Cassidy, J.; Shaver, PR., editors. Handbook of
attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. 2nd. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008.
p. 419-435.
Andersen SL, Teicher MH. Stress, sensitive periods and maturational events in adolescent depression.
Trends in Neurosciences. 2008; 31:183–191. [PubMed: 18329735]
Anderson SE, Gooze RA, Lemeshow S, Whitaker RC. Quality of early maternal-child relationship and
risk of adolescent obesity. Pediatrics. 2012; 129:132–140. [PubMed: 22201144]
Anderson SE, Whitaker RC. Attachment security and obesity in US preschool aged children. Archives
of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. 2011; 165:235–242.

Anisfeld E, Casper V, Nozyce M, Cunningham N. Does infant carrying promote attachment? An

experimental study of the effects of increased physical contact on the development of attachment.
Child Development. 1990; 61:1617–1627. [PubMed: 2245751]
Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH. No association of the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4)
and 521 C/T promotor polymorphisms with infant attachment disorganization. Attachment and
Human Development. 2004; 6:211–218. [PubMed: 15513263]
Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH. Gene-environment interaction of the dopamine D4
receptor (DRD4) and observed maternal insensitivity predicting externalizing behavior in
preschoolers. Developmental Psychobiology. 2006; 48:406–409. [PubMed: 16770765]
Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH. Research review: Genetic vulnerability or
differential susceptibility in child development: The case of attachment. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry. 2007; 48:1160–1173. [PubMed: 18093021]
Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH, Juffer F. Less is more: Meta-analyses of sensitivity
and attachment interventions in early childhood. Psychological Bulletin. 2003; 129:195–215.
[PubMed: 12696839]
Bartels A, Zeki S. The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love. NeuroImage. 2004; 21:1155–
1166. [PubMed: 15006682]
Belsky, J. Differential susceptibility to rearing influence: An evolutionary hypothesis and some
evidence. In: Ellis, BJ.; Bjorklund, DF., editors. Origins of the social mind: Evolutionary
psychology and child development. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2005. p. 139-163.
Belsky J, Fearon R. Infant-mother attachment security, contextual risk, and early development: A
moderational analysis. Development and Psychopathology. 2002; 14:293–310. [PubMed:

12030693]
Berlin, LJ.; Zeanah, CH.; Lieberman, AF. Prevention and intervention programs for supporting early
attachment security. In: Cassidy, J.; Shaver, PR., editors. Handbook of attachment: Theory,
research, and clinical applications. 2nd. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008. p. 745-761.
Berlin, LJ.; Ziv, Y.; Amaya-Jackson, L.; Greenberg, MT. Enhancing early attachments: Theory,
research, intervention, and policy. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2005.
Bernard K, Dozier M, Bick J, Lewis-Morrarty E, Lindhiem O, Carlson E. Enhancing attachment
organization among maltreated children: Results of a randomized clinical trial. Child
Development. 2012; 83:623–636. [PubMed: 22239483]
Bernier A, Carlson SM, Deschênes M, Matte-Gagné C. Social factors in the development of early
executive functioning: A closer look at the caregiving environment. Developmental Science. 2012;
15:12–24. [PubMed: 22251288]
Bernier A, Dozier M. Bridging the attachment transmission gap: The role of maternal mind-
mindedness. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2003; 27:355–365.
Bokhorst CL, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Fearon P, van IJzendoorn MH, Fonagy P, Schuengel C.
The importance of shared environment in mother-infant attachment security: A behavioral-genetic
study. Child Development. 2003; 74:1769–1782. [PubMed: 14669895]
Bowlby J. Forty-four juvenile thieves: Their character and home-life. International Journal of
Psychoanalysis. 1944; 25:19–52.

Bowlby J. Maternal care and mental health. World Health Organization Monograph (Serial No 2).
1951
Bowlby, J. Attachment and loss: Vol 1. Attachment. 2nd. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1969/1982.
Bowlby, J. Attachment and loss: Vol 2. Separation. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1973.
Bowlby, J. The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London, UK: Tavistock; 1979.
Bowlby, J. A secure base. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1988.
Boyce W, Ellis BJ. Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary-developmental theory of the
origins and functions of stress reactivity. Development and Psychopathology. 2005; 17:271–301.
[PubMed: 16761546]
Bretherton, I. Pouring new wine into old bottles: The social self as internal working model. In: Gunnar,
M.; Sroufe, LA., editors. Minnesota Symposia in Child Psychology: Self processes in
development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1991. p. 1-41.

Bretherton I. The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental
Psychology. 1992; 28:759–775.
Bretherton I. Fathers in attachment theory and research: A review. Early Child Development and Care.
2010; 180:9–23.
Bretherton, I.; Munholland, KA. Internal working models in attachment relationships. In: Cassidy, J.;
Shaver, PR., editors. The Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications.
2nd. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008. p. 102-127.
Bugental D, Ellerson P, Lin EK, Rainey B, Kokotovic A, O'Hara N. A cognitive approach to child
abuse prevention. Journal of Family Psychology. 2002; 16:243–258. [PubMed: 12238408]
Byars A, Holland SK, Strawsburg RH, Bommer W, Dunn R, Schmithorst VJ, Plante E. Practical
aspects of conducting large-scale functional magnetic resonance imaging studies in children.
Journal of Child Neurology. 2002; 17:885–890. [PubMed: 12593460]
Byng-Hall, J. Family couple therapy: Toward greater security. In: Cassidy, J.; Shaver, PR., editors.
Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. New York, NY: Guilford
Press; 1999. p. 625-645.
Calkins, SD.; Bell, MA., editors. Child development at the intersection of emotion and cognition.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2010.
Cassidy J. Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development. 1994; 59:228–283. [PubMed: 7984163]
Cassidy, J. Intervention with parents and infants: An emotion regulation approach. Paper presented as
part of the NIMH workshop, Developmental and Translational Models of Emotion Regulation and
Dysregulation: Links to Childhood Affective Disorders; Bethesda, MD. 2006 Apr.

Cassidy, J. New directions in attachment research. Paper presented at the Attachment pre-conference
of the meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development; Denver, CO. 2009 Mar.
Cassidy, J.; Ehrlich, KB.; Sherman, LJ. Child-parent attachment and response to threat: A move from
the level of representation. In: Mikulincer, M.; Shaver, PR., editors. Nature and development of
social connections: From brain to group. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association;
2013.
Cassidy J, Poehlmann J, Shaver PR. An attachment perspective on incarcerated parents and their
children. Attachment & Human Development. 2010; 12:285–288. [PubMed: 20582841]
Cassidy, J.; Shaver, PR., editors. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications.
2nd. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008.
Cassidy, J.; Woodhouse, S.; Cooper, G.; Hoffman, K.; Powell, B.; Rodenberg, MS. Examination of the
precursors of infant attachment security: Implications for early intervention and intervention
research. In: Berlin, LJ.; Ziv, Y.; Amaya-Jackson, LM.; Greenberg, MT., editors. Enhancing early
attachments: Theory, research, intervention, and policy. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2005. p.
34-60.
Cassidy J, Woodhouse SS, Sherman LJ, Stupica B, Lejuez CW. Enhancing infant attachment security:
An examination of treatment efficacy and differential susceptibility. Development and
Psychopathology. 2011; 23:131–148. [PubMed: 21262044]
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2012). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United
States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2011; 61(SS-4):1–162.
Chen E, Miller GE, Kobor MS, Cole SW. Maternal warmth buffers the effects of low early-life
socioeconomic status on proinflammatory signaling in adulthood. Molecular Psychiatry. 2011;
16:729–737. [PubMed: 20479762]
Chung HY, Cesari M, Anton S, Marzetti E, Giovannini S, Seo AY, Leeuwenburgh C. Molecular
inflammation: Underpinnings of aging and age- related diseases. Ageing Research Reviews. 2009;
8:18–30. [PubMed: 18692159]
Cicchetti D. The emergence of developmental psychopathology. Child Development. 1984; 55:1–7.
[PubMed: 6705613]
Cicchetti D, Rogosch FA, Toth SL. Fostering secure attachment in infants in maltreating families
through preventive interventions. Development and Psychopathology. 2006; 18:623–649.
[PubMed: 17152394]

Coan, JA. Toward a neuroscience of attachment. In: Cassidy, J.; Shaver, PR., editors. Handbook of
attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. 2nd. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008.
p. 241-265.
Coan JA. Adult attachment and the brain. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2010; 27:210–
217.
Coan JA, Schaefer HS, Davidson RJ. Lending a hand: Social regulation of the neural response to
threat. Psychological Science. 2006; 17:1032–1039. [PubMed: 17201784]
Commodari E. Preschool teacher attachment, school readiness and risk of learning difficulties. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly. 2013; 28:123–133.10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.03.004
Davies PT, Cummings E. Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin. 1994; 116:387–411. [PubMed: 7809306]
Dawson G, Ashman SB, Hessl D, Spieker S, Frey K, Panagiotides H, Embry L. Autonomic and brain
electrical activity in securely and insecurely attached infants of depressed mothers. Infant
Behavior and Development. 2001; 24:135–149.
De Bellis MD, Baum AS, Birmaher B, Keshavan MS, Eccard CH, Boring AM, Ryan ND.
Developmental traumatology part I: Biological stress systems. Biological Psychiatry. 1999;
45:1259–1270. [PubMed: 10349032]
Del Carmen R, Pedersen FA, Huffman LC, Bryan YE. Dyadic distress management predicts
subsequent security of attachment. Infant Behavior and Development. 1993; 16:131–147.
Denison S, Xu F. Integrating physical constraints in statistical inference by 11-month-old infants.
Cognitive Science. 2010; 34:885–908. [PubMed: 21564238]
De Wolff MS, van IJzendoorn MH. Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-analysis on parental
antecedents of infant attachment. Child Development. 1997; 68:571–591. [PubMed: 9306636]
Diamond GS, Wintersteen MB, Brown GK, Diamond GM, Gallop R, Shelef K, Levy S. Attachment-
based family therapy for adolescents with suicidal ideation: A randomized controlled trial. Journal
of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2010; 49:122–131. [PubMed:
20215934]
Dishion, TJ.; Kavanagh, K. Intervening in adolescent problem behavior: A family- centered approach.
New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2003.
Dix T. The affective organization of parenting: Adaptive and maladaptative processes. Psychological
Bulletin. 1991; 110:3–25. [PubMed: 1891517]
Dozier M, Peloso E, Lindhiem O, Gordon M, Manni M, Sepulveda S, Levine S. Developing evidence-
based interventions for foster children: An example of a randomized clinical trial with infants and
toddlers. Journal of Social Issues. 2006; 62:767–785.
Duncan GJ, Dowsett CJ, Claessens A, Magnuson K, Huston AC, Klebanov P, Japel C. School
readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology. 2007; 43:1428–1446. [PubMed:
18020822]
Dykas MJ, Cassidy J. Attachment and the processing of social information across the life span: Theory
and evidence. Psychological Bulletin. 2011; 137:19–46. [PubMed: 21219056]
Dykas MJ, Ziv Y, Cassidy J. Attachment and peer relations in adolescence. Attachment & Human
Edelstein RS, Alexander K, Shaver PR, Schaaf JM, Quas JA, Lovas GS, Goodman GS. Adult
attachment style and parental responsiveness during a stressful event. Attachment & Human
Egeland, B.; Weinfield, NS.; Bosquet, M.; Cheng, V. Remembering, repeating, and working through:
Lessons from attachment-based intervention. In: Osofsky, J.; Fitzgerald, H., editors. WAIMH
handbook of infant mental health, Volume 4: Infant mental health in groups at high risk. New
York, NY: Wiley; 2000. p. 37-89.
Eisenberger NI, Master SL, Inagaki TK, Taylor SE, Shirinyan D, Lieberman MD, Naliboff BD.
Attachment figures activate a safety signal-related neural region and reduce pain experience.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2011; 108:11721–11726.
Ellis BJ, Boyce W, Belsky J, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH. Differential
susceptibility to the environment: An evolutionary–neurodevelopmental theory. Development and

Fearon R, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH, Lapsley A, Roisman GI. The significance
of insecure attachment and disorganization in the development of children s externalizing
behavior: A meta-analytic study. Child Development. 2010; 81:435–456. [PubMed: 20438450]
Fearon R, Belsky J. Infant–mother attachment and the growth of externalizing problems across the
primary school years. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2011; 52:782–791. [PubMed:
21214546]
Fearon P, van IJzendoorn MH, Fonagy P, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Schengel C, Bokhorst CL. In
search of shared and nonshared environmental factors in security of attachment: A behavior-
genetic study of the association between sensitivity and attachment security. Developmental
Psychology. 2006; 42:1026–1040. [PubMed: 17087539]
Feldman R, Singer M, Zagoory O. Touch attenuates infants' physiological reactivity to stress.
Developmental Science. 2010; 13:271–278. [PubMed: 20136923]
Field, T. Massage therapy: A review of recent research. In: Hertenstein, MJ.; Weiss, SJ., editors. The
handbook of touch: Neuroscience, behavioral, and health perspectives. New York, NY: Springer;
2011. p. 455-468.
Fraley RC, Roisman GI, Booth-LaForce C, Tresch Owen M, Holland AS. Interpersonal and genetic
origins of adult attachment styles: A longitudinal study from infancy to early adulthood. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 2013; 104:817–838. [PubMed: 23397970]
George, C.; Kaplan, N.; Main, M. Adult Attachment Interview protocol. University of California;
Berkeley: 1984. Unpublished manuscript
Gerken LA. Decisions, decisions: Infant language learning when multiple generalizations are possible.
Cognition. 2006; 98:B67–B74. [PubMed: 15992791]

Gerken LA. Infants use rational decision criteria for choosing among model of their input. Cognition.
2010; 115:362–368. [PubMed: 20144828]
Gillath O, Shaver PR, Mikulincer M, Nitzberg RE, Erez A, van IJzendoorn MH. Attachment,
caregiving, and volunteering: Placing volunteerism in an attachment-theoretical framework.
Personal Relationships. 2005; 12:425–446.
Gouin J, Glaser R, Loving TJ, Malarkey WB, Stowell J, Houts C, Kiecolt-Glaser JK. Attachment
avoidance predicts inflammatory responses to marital conflict. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
2009; 23:898–904.
Granot D, Mayseless O. Attachment security and adjustment to school in middle childhood.
International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2001; 25:530–541.
Groh A, Roisman GI. Adults' autonomic and subjective emotional responses to infant vocalizations:
The role of secure base script knowledge. Developmental Psychology. 2009; 45:889–893.
[PubMed: 19413441]
Groh AM, Roisman GI, van IJzendoorn MH, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Fearon R. The significance
of insecure and disorganized attachment for children's internalizing symptoms: A meta-analytic
study. Child Development. 2012; 83:591–610. [PubMed: 22235928]
Grossmann, K.; Grossmann, KE.; Kindler, H.; Zimmermann, P. A wider view of attachment and
exploration: The influence of mothers and fathers on the development of psychological security
from infancy to young adulthood. In: Cassidy, J.; Shaver, PR., editors. Handbook of attachment:
Theory, research, and clinical applications. 2nd. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008. p. 857-879.
Gunnar M, Quevedo K. The neurobiology of stress and development. Annual Review of Psychology.
2007; 58:145–173.
Gunnar, MR.; Vazquez, D. Stress neurobiology and developmental psychopathology. In: Cicchetti, D.;
Cohen, DJ., editors. Developmental psychopathology, Vol 2: Developmental neuroscience. 2nd.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2006. p. 533-577.
Guttmannova K, Bailey JA, Hill KG, Lee J, Hawkins J, Woods M, Catalano RF. Sensitive periods for
adolescent alcohol use initiation: Predicting the lifetime occurrence and chronicity of alcohol
problems in adulthood. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2011; 72:221–231. [PubMed:
21388595]
Gweon H, Tenenbaum JB, Schulz LE. Infants consider both the sample and the sampling process in
inductive generalization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America. 2010; 107:9066–9071. [PubMed: 20435914]

Hamlin J, Wynn K. Young infants prefer prosocial to antisocial others. Cognitive Development. 2011;
26:30–39. [PubMed: 21499550]
Hamlin J, Wynn K, Bloom P, Mahajan N. How infants and toddlers react to antisocial others.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2011;
108:19931–19936. [PubMed: 22123953]
Harlow, HF.; Harlow, MK.; Hansen, EW. The maternal affectional system of rhesus monkeys. In:
Rheingold, L., editor. Maternal behavior in mammals. New York, NY: Wiley; 1963. p. 254-281.
Hart J, Gunnar M, Cicchetti D. Salivary cortisol in maltreated children: Evidence of relations between
neuroendocrine activity and social competence. Development and Psychopathology. 1995; 7:11–
26.
Hibel LC, Granger DA, Blair C, Cox MJ, the FLP Investigators. Maternal sensitivity buffers the
adrenocortical implications of intimate partner violence exposure during early childhood.
Development and Psychopathology. 2011; 23:689–701. [PubMed: 23786704]
High PC. Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption and Dependent Care, & Council on School
Health. Pediatrics. 2008; 121:1008–1015. School readiness.
Hofer, MA. Hidden regulators in attachment, separation, and loss. In: Fox, N., editor. The
development of emotion regulation, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development. Vol. 59. 1994. p. 192-207.
Hofer MA. Psychobiological roots of early attachment. Current Directions in Psychological Science.
2006; 15:84–88.
Hoffman KT, Marvin RS, Cooper G, Powell B. Changing toddlers' and Preschoolers' attachment
classifications: The circle of security intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Huntsinger ET, Luecken LJ. Attachment relationships and health behavior: The mediational role of
self-esteem. Psychology & Health. 2004; 19:515–526.
Ialongo, NS.; Rogosch, FA.; Cicchetti, D.; Toth, SL.; Buckley, J.; Petras, H.; Neiderhiser, J. A
developmental psychopathology approach to the prevention of mental health disorders. In:
Cicchetti, D.; Cohen, DJ., editors. Developmental psychopathology, Vol 1: Theory and method.
2nd. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2006. p. 968-1018.
Jacobsen T, Edelstein W, Hofmann V. A longitudinal study of the relation between representations of
attachment in childhood and cognitive functioning in childhood and adolescence. Developmental
Psychology. 1994; 30:112–124.
Jaremka L, Glaser R, Loving T, Malarkey W, Stowell J, Kiecolt-Glaser J. Attachment anxiety is linked
to alterations in cortisol production and cellular immunity. Psychological Science. Advance
online publication. 2013
Jessop DS, Turner-Cobb JM. Measurement and meaning of salivary cortisol: A focus on health and
disease in children. Stress: The International Journal on the Biology of Stress. 2008; 11:1–14.
Johnson, SM. Couple and family therapy: An attachment perspective. In: Cassidy, J.; Shaver, PR.,
editors. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. 2nd. New York,
NY: Guilford Press; 2008. p. 811-829.
Johnson SM, Coan JA, Moser MB, Beckes L, Smith A, Dalgleish T, Merali Z. Soothing the threatened
brain: Leveraging contact comfort with Emotionally Focused Therapy. 2013 Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Johnson SC, Dweck CS, Chen FS. Evidence for infants' internal working models of attachment.
Psychological Science. 2007; 18:501–502. [PubMed: 17576262]
Johnson SC, Dweck CS, Chen FS, Stern HL, Ok S, Barth M. At the intersection of social and cognitive
development: Internal working models of attachment in infancy. Cognitive Science. 2010;
34:807–825. [PubMed: 21564237]
Jones JD, Cassidy J, Shaver PR. Parents' self-reported attachment styles and their parenting behaviors,
emotions, and cognitions: A review. 2013 Manuscript submitted for publication.
Kazdin AE, Kagan J. Models of dysfunction in developmental psychopathology. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice. 1994; 1:35–52.
Kestenbaum R, Farber EA, Sroufe LA. Individual differences in empathy among preschoolers:
Relation to attachment history. New Directions for Child Development. 1989; 44:4451–4464.

Klein Velderman M, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Juffer F, van IJzendoorn MH. Effects of attachment-
based interventions on maternal sensitivity and infant attachment: Differential susceptibility of
highly reactive infants. Journal of Family Psychology. 2006; 20:266–274. [PubMed: 16756402]
Kobak R, Sceery A. Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and
representations of self and others. Child Development. 1988; 59:135–146. [PubMed: 3342708]
Kochanska G, Philibert RA, Barry RA. Interplay of genes and early mother-child relationship in the
development of self-regulation from toddler to preschool age. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry. 2009; 50:1331–1338. [PubMed: 19207629]
Koot HM, Verhulst FC. Prediction of children's referral to mental health and special education services
from earlier adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1992; 33:717–729.
[PubMed: 1601945]
Kring, AM.; Sloan, DM. Emotion regulation and psychopathology: A transdiagnostic approach to
etiology and treatment. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2010.
Krogh L, Vlach HA, Johnson SP. Statistical learning across development: Flexible yet constrained.
Frontiers in Psychology. 2013; 3:1–11.
Lakatos K, Toth I, Nemoda Z, Ney K, Sasvari-Szekely M, Gervai J. Dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4)
gene polymorphism is associated with attachment disorganization in infants. Molecular
Psychiatry. 2000; 5:633–637. [PubMed: 11126393]
Leerkes EM. Maternal sensitivity during distressing tasks: A unique predictor of attachment security.
Infant Behavior and Development. 2011; 34:443–446. [PubMed: 21616538]
Leerkes EM, Crockenberg SC, Burrous CE. Identifying components of maternal sensitivity to infant
distress: The role of maternal emotional competencies. Parenting: Science & Practice. 2004; 4:1–
23.
Leerkes EM, Parade SH, Gudmundson JA. Mothers' emotional reactions to crying pose risk for
subsequent attachment insecurity. Journal of Family Psychology. 2011; 25:635–643. [PubMed:
21517171]
Leerkes EM, Siepak KJ. Attachment linked predictors of women's emotional and cognitive responses
to infant distress. Attachment and Human Development. 2006; 8:11–32. [PubMed: 16581621]
Lieberman AF, Weston DR, Pawl JH. Preventive intervention and outcome with anxiously attached
dyads. Child Development. 1991; 62:199–209. [PubMed: 2022136]
Liu D, Diorio J, Tannenbaum B, Caldji C, Francis D, Freedman A, Meaney MJ. Maternal care,
hippocampal glucocorticoid receptor gene expression and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal
responses to stress. Science. 1997; 277:1659–1662. [PubMed: 9287218]
Lorber MF, O'Leary SG. Mediated paths to overreactive discipline: Mothers' experienced emotion,
appraisals, and physiological responses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2005;
73:972–981. [PubMed: 16287397]
Lorber MF, Slep A. Mothers' emotion dynamics and their relations with harsh and lax discipline:
Microsocial time series analyses. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2005;
34:559–568. [PubMed: 16026219]
Luijk MPCM, Saridjan N, Tharner A, van IJzendoorn MH, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Jaddoe VWV,
Tiemeier H. Attachment, depression, and cortisol: Deviant patterns in insecure-resistant and
disorganized infants. Developmental Psychobiology. 2010; 52:441–452. [PubMed: 20583141]
Lyons-Ruth K, Easterbrooks M. Assessing mediated models of family change in response to infant
home visiting: A two-phase longitudinal analysis. Infant Mental Health Journal. 2006; 27:55–69.
[PubMed: 17710114]
Madigan S, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH, Moran G, Pederson DR, Benoit D.
Unresolved states of mind, anomalous parental behavior, and disorganized attachment: A review
and meta-analysis of a transmission gap. Attachment & Human Development. 2006; 8:89–111.
[PubMed: 16818417]
Maholmes V. Adjustment of children and youth in military families: Toward developmental
understandings. Child Development Perspectives. 2012; 6:430–435.
Main M. Cross-cultural studies of attachment organization: Recent studies, changing methodologies,
and the concept of conditional strategies. Human Development. 1990; 33:48–61.

Main M, Kaplan N, Cassidy J. Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of
representation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 1985; 50:66–104.
Mauss IB, Bunge SA, Gross JJ. Automatic emotion regulation. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass. 2007; 1:146–167.

Mayseless O, Sharabany R, Sagi A. Attachment concerns of mothers as manifested in parental,
spousal, and friendship relationships. Personal Relationships. 1997; 4:255–269.
McElwain NL, Booth-LaForce C. Maternal sensitivity to infant distress and nondistress as predictors
of infant-mother attachment security. Journal of Family Psychology. 2006; 20:247–255.
[PubMed: 16756400]
McWilliams LA, Bailey S. Associations between adult attachment ratings and health conditions:
Evidence from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Health Psychology. 2010; 29:446–
453. [PubMed: 20658833]
Meaney MJ. Maternal care, gene expression, and the transmission of individual differences in stress
reactivity across generations. Annual Review of Neuroscience. 2001; 24:1161–1192.
Meaney MJ. Epigenetics and the biological definition of gene×environment interactions. Child
Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. Attachment theory and intergroup bias: Evidence that priming the secure
base schema attenuates negative reactions to out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Mikulincer, M.; Shaver, PR. Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York,
NY: Guilford Press; 2007.
Mikulincer M, Shaver PR, Gillath O, Nitzberg RE. Attachment, caregiving, and altruism: Boosting
attachment security increases compassion and helping. Journal of Personality and Social
Mikulincer M, Shaver PR, Sahdra BK, Bar-On N. Can security-enhancing interventions overcome
psychological barriers to responsiveness in couple relationships? Attachment & Human
Development. in press.
Mikulincer M, Shaver PR, Sapir-Lavid Y, Avihou-Kanza N. What's inside the minds of securely and
insecurely attached people? The secure-base script and its associations with attachment-style
dimensions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2009; 97:615–633. [PubMed:
19785482]
Miller GE, Chen E, Parker KJ. Psychological stress in childhood and susceptibility to the chronic
diseases of aging: Moving toward a model of behavioral and biological mechanisms.
Psychological Bulletin. 2011; 137:959–997. [PubMed: 21787044]
Miller HB, Miller L, Bjorklund D. Helping military children cope with parental deployment: Role of
attachment theory and recommendations for mental health clinicians and counselors.
International Journal of Emergency Mental Health. 2010; 12:231–236. [PubMed: 21870381]
Mills-Koonce W, Appleyard K, Barnett M, Deng M, Putallaz M, Cox M. Adult attachment style and
stress as risk factors for early maternal sensitivity and negativity. Infant Mental Health Journal.
2011; 32:277–285. [PubMed: 24855326]
Mineka S, Watson D, Clark L. Comorbidity of anxiety and unipolar mood disorders. Annual Review
of Psychology. 1998; 49:377–412.
Moffitt TE. The new look of behavioral genetics in developmental psychopathology: Gene-
environment interplay in antisocial behaviors. Psychological Bulletin. 2005; 131:533–554.
[PubMed: 16060801]
Montague PR, Berns GS, Cohen JD, McClure SM, Pagnoni G, Dhamala M, Fisher RE.
Hyperscanning: Simultaneous fMRI during linked social interactions. NeuroImage. 2002;
16:1159–1164. [PubMed: 12202103]
Moss E, Dubois-Comtois K, Cyr C, Tarabulsy GM, St-Laurent D, Bernier A. Efficacy of a home-
visiting intervention aimed at improving maternal sensitivity, child attachment, and behavioral
outcomes for maltreated children: A randomized control trial. Development and

Nachmias M, Gunnar M, Mangelsdorf S, Parritz RH, Buss K. Behavioral inhibition and stress
reactivity: The moderating role of attachment security. Child Development. 1996; 67:508–522.
[PubMed: 8625725]
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). NIMH strategic plan. 2008. Retrieved from: http://
www.nimh.nih.gov/about/strategic-planning-reports/nimh-strategic-plan-2008.pdf
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. The effects of infant child care on infant-mother
attachment security: Results of the NICHD study of early child care. Child Development. 1997;
68:860–879.
Olson K, Dweck C. A blueprint for social cognitive development. Perspectives on Psychological
Science. 2008; 3:193–202.
Oppenheim, D.; Koren-Karie, N. Infant-parent relationship assessment: Parents' insightfulness
regarding their young children's internal worlds. In: Zeanah, CR., editor. Handbook of infant
mental health. 3rd. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2009. p. 266-280.
Panfile TM, Laible DJ. Attachment security and child's empathy: The mediating role of emotion
regulation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 2012; 58:1–21.
Paris R, DeVoe ER, Ross AM, Acker ML. When a parent goes to war: Effects of parental deployment
on very young children and implications for intervention. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry.
2010; 80:610–618. [PubMed: 20950302]
Parsons CE, Young KS, Murray L, Stein A, Kringelbach ML. The functional neuroanatomy of the
evolving parent-infant relationship. Progress in Neurobiology. 2010; 91:220–241. [PubMed:
20363287]
Pederson DR, Moran G. The relationship imperative: Arguments for a broad definition of attachment.
Journal of Family Psychology. 1999; 13:496–500.
Pelucchi B, Hay JF, Saffran JR. Learning in reverse: Eight-month-old infants track backwards
transitional probabilities. Cognition. 2009; 113:244–247. [PubMed: 19717144]
Picardi A, Battisti F, Tarsitani L, Baldassari M, Copertaro A, Mocchegiani E, Biondi M. Attachment
security and immunity in healthy women. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2007; 69:40–46. [PubMed:
17244847]
Pietromonaco PR, DeBuse CJ, Powers SI. Does attachment get under the skin? Adult romantic
attachment and cortisol responses to stress. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2013;
22:63–68.
Polan, HJ.; Hofer, MA. Psychobiological origins of infant attachment and its role in development. In:
Cassidy, J.; Shaver, PR., editors. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical
applications. 2nd. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008. p. 158-172.
Puig J, Englund MM, Simpson JA, Collins W. Predicting adult physical illness from infant attachment:
A prospective longitudinal study. Health Psychology. 2012 Advance online publication.
Raby K, Cicchetti D, Carlson EA, Cutuli JJ, Englund MM, Egeland B. Genetic and caregiving-based
contributions to infant attachment: Unique associations with distress reactivity and attachment
security. Psychological Science. 2012; 23:1016–1023. [PubMed: 22829464]
Radke-Yarrow M, Zahn-Waxler C, Richardson DT, Susman A. Caring behavior in children of

clinically depressed and well mothers. Child Development. 1994; 65:1405–1414. [PubMed:
7982358]
Rholes WS, Simpson JA, Blakely BS. Adult attachment styles and mothers' relationships with their
young children. Personal Relationships. 1995; 2:35–54.
Riggs SA, Riggs DS. Risk and resilience in military families experiencing deployment: The role of the
family attachment network. Journal of Family Psychology. 2011; 25:675–687. [PubMed:
21875201]
Roberts RE, Attkisson C, Rosenblatt A. Prevalence of psychopathology among children and
adolescents. The American Journal of Psychiatry. 1998; 155:715–725. [PubMed: 9619142]
Roisman GI, Fraley RC. A behavior-genetic study of parenting quality, infant attachment security, and
their covariation in a nationally representative sample. Developmental Psychology. 2008;
44:831–839. [PubMed: 18473647]
Romberg AR, Saffran JR. Expectancy learning from probabilistic input by infants. Frontiers in
Psychology, 3. 2013; 3:610.10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00610

Rothbaum F, Weisz J, Pott M, Miyake K, Morelli G. Attachment and culture: Security in the United
States and Japan. American Psychologist. 2000; 55:1093–1104. [PubMed: 11080829]
Sadler LS, Slade A, Close N, Webb DL, Simpson T, Fennie K, Mayes LC. Minding the Baby:
Improving early health and relationship outcomes in vulnerable young families in an

interdisciplinary reflective parenting home visiting program. 2013 Manuscript under invited
revision.
Sapolsky, RM. Why zebras don't get ulcers. 3rd. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, LLC;
2004.
Sayfan L, Lagattuta K. Scaring the monster away: What children know about managing fears of real
and imaginary creatures. Child Development. 2009; 80:1756–1774. [PubMed: 19930350]
Scharf M, Mayseless O. Buds of parenting in emerging adult males: What we learned from our
parents. Journal of Adolescent Research. 2011; 26:479–505.
Scharfe E, Eldredge D. Associations between attachment representations and health behaviors in late
adolescence. Journal of Health Psychology. 2001; 6:295–307. [PubMed: 22049374]
Selcuk E, Günaydin G, Sumer N, Harma M, Salman S, Hazan C, Ozturk A. Self-reported romantic
attachment style predicts everyday maternal caregiving behavior at home. Journal of Research in
Personality. 2010; 44:544–549.
Sharp H, Pickles A, Meaney M, Marshall K, Tibu F, Hill J. Frequency of infant stroking reported by
mothers moderates the effect of prenatal depression on infant behavioural and physiological
outcomes. PLOS ONE. 2012; 7:e45446. [PubMed: 23091594]
Sherman LJ, Cassidy J. Infant capacities related to building internal working models of attachment
figures: A theoretical and empirical review. 2013 Manuscript submitted for publication.
Shonkoff, JP.; Phillips, DA. From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood
development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000.
Slade A. Imagining fear: Attachment, threat, and psychic experience. Psychoanalytic Dialogues. in
press.
Slade, A.; Sadler, L.; Mayes, LC. Maternal reflective functioning: Enhancing parental reflective
functioning in a nursing/mental health home visiting program. In: Berlin, L.; Ziv, Y.; Amaya-
Jackson, L.; Greenberg, M., editors. Enhancing early attachments: Theory, research, intervention,
and policy. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2005. p. 152-177.
Smith AM, O'Leary SG. Attributions and arousal as predictors of maternal discipline. Cognitive
Therapy and Research. 1995; 19:459–471.
Spangler GG, Grossmann KE. Biobehavioral organization in securely and insecurely attached infants.
Child Development. 1993; 64:1439–1450. [PubMed: 8222882]
Sroufe, LA. Infant-caregiver attachment and patterns of adaptation in preschool: The roots of
maladaptation and competence. In: Perlmutter, M., editor. Minnesota Symposium on Child
Psychology: Vol 16. Development and policy concerning children with special needs. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum; 1983. p. 41-83.
Sroufe LA, Carlson EA, Levy AK, Egeland B. Implications of attachment theory for developmental
psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology. 1999; 11:1–13. [PubMed: 10208353]

Sroufe, LA.; Egeland, B.; Carlson, EA.; Collins, W. The development of the person: The Minnesota
study of risk and adaptation from birth to adulthood. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2005a.
Sroufe, LA.; Egeland, B.; Carlson, EA.; Collins, W. Placing early attachment experiences in
developmental context: The Minnesota Longitudinal Study. In: Grossmann, KE.; Grossmann, K.;
Waters, E., editors. Attachment from infancy to adulthood: The major longitudinal studies. New
York, NY: Guilford Press; 2005b. p. 48-70.
Stacks AM, Oshio T. Disorganized attachment and social skills as indicators of Head Start children's
school readiness skills. Attachment & Human Development. 2009; 11:143–164. [PubMed:
19266363]
Stein RE, Zitner LE, Jensen PS. Interventions for adolescent depression in primary care. Pediatrics.
2006; 118:669–682. [PubMed: 16882822]
Suomi, SJ. Attachment in rhesus monkeys. In: Cassidy, J.; Shaver, PR., editors. Handbook of
attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. 2nd. New York, NY: Guilford Press;
2008. p. 173-191.

Suomi SJ. Risk, resilience, and gene-environment interplay in primates. Journal of the Canadian
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2011; 20:289–298. [PubMed: 22114610]
Sweeney, GM. Why childhood attachment matters: Implications for personal happiness, families and
public policy. In: Loveless, S.; Homan, T., editors. The family in the new millennium. Westport,
CT: Praeger; 2007. p. 332-346.
Taylor SE, Repetti RL, Seeman TE. Health psychology: What is an unhealthy environment and how
does it get under the skin? Annual Review of Psychology. 1997; 48:411–447.
Teglas E, Girotto V, Gonzales M, Bonatti L. Intuitions of probabilities shape expectations about the
future at 12 months and beyond. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America. 2007; 104:19156–19159. [PubMed: 18025482]
Teti DM, Ablard KE. Security of attachment and infant-sibling relationships: A laboratory study. Child
Thompson RA. Sensitivity and security: New questions to ponder. Child Development. 1997; 68:595–
597.
Thompson, RA. Early attachment and later development: Familiar questions, new answers. In:
Cassidy, J.; Shaver, PR., editors. The Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical
applications. 2nd. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008. p. 348-366.
Tomasello, M.; Dweck, CS.; Silk, JB.; Skyrms, B.; Spelke, ES. Why we cooperate. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press; 2009.
Toth SL, Rogosch FA, Manly J, Cicchetti D. The efficacy of toddler-parent psychotherapy to
reorganize attachment in the young offspring of mothers with major depressive disorder: A
randomized preventive trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2006; 74:1006–
1016. [PubMed: 17154731]
van den Boom DC. 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. 1994; 65:1457–1477. [PubMed: 7982362]
van den Boom DC. Do first-year intervention effects endure? Follow-up during toddlerhood of a
sample of Dutch irritable infants. Child Development. 1995; 66:1798–1816. [PubMed: 8556900]
van der Mark IL, van IJzendoorn MH, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ. Development of empathy in girls
during the second year of life: Associations with parenting, attachment, and temperament. Social
Development. 2002; 11:451–468.
van IJzendoorn MH. Adult attachment representations, parental responsiveness, and infant attachment:
A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the Adult Attachment Interview. Psychological
Bulletin. 1995; 117:387–403. [PubMed: 7777645]
van IJzendoorn, MH.; Sagi-Schwartz, A. Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: Universal and
contextual dimensions. In: Cassidy, J.; Shaver, PR., editors. Handbook of attachment: Theory,
research, and clinical applications. 2nd. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008. p. 880-905.
Van Zeijl J, Mesman J, van IJzendoorn MH, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Juffer F, Stolk MN, Alink
LA. Attachment-based intervention for enhancing sensitive discipline in mothers of 1- to 3-year-
old children at risk for externalizing behavior problems: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2006; 74:994–1005. [PubMed: 17154730]

Verhulst FC, Koot HM, Van der Ende J. Differential predictive value of parents' and teachers' reports
of children's problem behaviors: A longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.
1994; 22:531–546. [PubMed: 7822627]
Volling BL, Notaro PC, Larsen JJ. Adult attachment styles: Relations with emotional well-being,
marriage, and parenting. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family
Studies. 1998; 47:355–367.
Vrtička P, Vuilleumier P. Neuroscience of human social interactions and adult attachment style.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2012; 6:1–17. [PubMed: 22279433]
Waddington, CH. The strategy of the genes. London, UK: Allen & Unwin; 1957.
Warneken F, Tomasello M. Varieties of altruism in children and chimpanzees. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences. 2009; 13:397–402. [PubMed: 19716750]
Waters E, Cummings E. A secure base from which to explore close relationships. Child Development.
2000; 71:164–172. [PubMed: 10836570]

Waters, HS.; Rodrigues-Doolabh, L. Are attachment scripts the building blocks of attachment
representations?. Paper presented at the meetings of the Society for Research in Child
Development. 2001 Apr. Retrieved from www.psychology.sunysb.edu/attachment/srcd2001/
srcd2001.htm
Waters HS, Waters E. The attachment working models concept: Among other things, we build script-
like representations of secure base experiences. Attachment & Human Development. 2006;
8:185–197. [PubMed: 16938702]
Weaver ICG, Cervoni N, Champagne FA, D'Alessio AC, Sharma S, Seckl JR, Meaney MJ. Epigenetic
programming by maternal behavior. Nature Neuroscience. 2004; 7:847–854.
White LO, Wu J, Borelli JL, Rutherford HV, David DH, Kim–Cohen J, Crowley MJ. Attachment
dismissal predicts frontal slow-wave ERPs during rejection by unfamiliar peers. Emotion. 2012;
12:690–700. [PubMed: 22251047]
Winnicott D. Transitional objects and transitional phenomena. International Journal of Psychoanalysis.
1953; 34:89–97. [PubMed: 13061115]
Woodhouse, SS.; Cassidy, J. Development of a culturally appropriate parenting assessment:
Implications for prevention. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association; Toronto. 2009 Aug.
Xu F, Denison S. Statistical inference and sensitivity to sampling in 11-month old infants. Cognition.
2009; 112:97–104. [PubMed: 19435629]
Xu F, Kushnir T. Infants are rational constructivist learners. Current Directions in Psychological
Science. 2013; 22:28–32.
Yerys BE, Jankowski KF, Shook D, Rosenberger LR, Barnes K, Berl MM, Gaillard WD. The fMRI
success rate of children and adolescents: Typical development, epilepsy, attention deficit/
hyperactivity disorder, and autism spectrum disorders. Human Brain Mapping. 2009; 30:3426–
3435. [PubMed: 19384887]
Zayas V, Mischel W, Shoda Y, Aber JL. Roots of adult attachment: Maternal caregiving at 18 months
predicts adult peer and partner attachment. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2011;
2:289–297.
Zeanah CH, Benoit D, Hirshberg L, Barton ML, Regan C. Mothers' representations of their infants are
concordant with infant attachment classifications. Developmental Issues in Psychiatry and
Psychology. 1994; 1:1–14.

Figure 1. A Simple Model of Attachment-Related Processes

Note. A complete depiction of attachment processes would require several pages. For
instance, here we note the parent's own attachment representations as a contributor to
parental attachment-related behavior. There are many other important contributors to

parental behavior, including culture, SES, parental age, parental personality, child
temperament, and presence or absence of a partner, to name a few. Each of the constructs
and arrows in Figure 1 could be surrounded by numerous others.

Table 1
Role of Distress and Context in Parenting
Attachment system-related?a
Yes No
Distressed?
Yes 1 3
No 2 4
a
It is important to keep in mind that Bowlby (1969/82) believed that the attachment system is best viewed as being “never idle” (p. 373), with a
continuum of infant behavioral manifestations ranging from the simple monitoring of levels of threat and attachment figure availability, to the high
distress and intense attachment behavior evident when a crying infant rushes to be picked up. In this table we use the term attachment system-
related to indicate that the context in question is related centrally to the infant's attachment behavioral system rather than to another behavioral
system.
Note. The following examples describe 5- to 12-month old infants participating in studies with their mothers in Cassidy's lab. Cell 1. The context is
attachment-related, and the infant is distressed: After having been left alone in an unfamiliar laboratory playroom, a crying 12-month-old crossed
the room to her returning mother and reached to be picked up. Cell 2. The context is attachment-related, and the infant is not distressed: An 8-
month-old infant had been playing contentedly for 20 minutes near her mother at home. The mother had been sitting on the floor holding a toddler
whose hair she was braiding. When the mother finished and the toddler moved away, the infant crawled to the mother, clambered up on her lap,
and snuggled in for a hug; after exchanging tender pats with her mother, the infant returned to play on the floor. The lack of accessibility to the
mother may have led to the infant's seeking contact in a manner that did not involve other activities (e.g., play or feeding). Cell 3. The context is
not attachment-related, and the infant is distressed: A 12-month-old infant became distressed when a toy was removed. Cell 4. The context is not
attachment-related, and the infant is not distressed: An infant, with her mother nearby, played happily with toys.

Cassidy2013 Attachment Theory and Research PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cassidy2013 Attachment Theory and Research PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cassidy2013 Attachment Theory and Research PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NIH Public Access

Dev Psychopathol. 2013 November ; 25(4 0 2): 1415–1434. doi:10.1017/S0954579413000692.

Contributions of Attachment Theory and Research: A

Jason D. Jones, and

Unlike other psychoanalytic writers of his generation, Bowlby formed a working

detailed specification of aspects of maternal behavior that preceded individual differences in

A Simple Model of Infant-Mother Attachment

Dev Psychopathol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.

and infant Strange Situation classifications. We then examine connections between

Internal Working Models

It is by postulating the existence of these cognitive components and their utilization

New Directions in the Examination of IWM Formation during Infancy

Dev Psychopathol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.

Dev Psychopathol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.

months of age, infants use probabilistic reasoning to evaluate alternative hypotheses

Child-Parent Attachment, Response to Threat, and Physiological Mechanisms of Influence

Dev Psychopathol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.

Another Level of “Representation” or Internal Structure: Physiology

Early Attachment-Related Experiences and Human Infant Biological

Dev Psychopathol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.

Attachment as a Regulator of Infant Stress Reactivity: Further Questions

Dev Psychopathol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.

When and how do young children use attachment-related representations as regulators of

dysregulation can lead to the conscious engagement of representational processes comes

Maternal Caregiving and Infant Attachment: Intergenerational Transmission of Attachment

Dev Psychopathol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.

life; contributors to security are likely to differ at different developmental periods.

Dev Psychopathol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.

useful framework within which to consider parental behavior as a predictor of infant

Dev Psychopathol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.

Additional questions raised by Table 1 include: Is it the combination of maternal behavior

Additional mediational pathways: Genetics, cognitions, and emotions—

Despite a conceptual model of intergenerational transmission in which maternal behavior is

Dev Psychopathol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.

Caregiving as a Function of Adult Attachment Style

Dev Psychopathol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.

the participants' infancy and early childhood).

Mothers and Fathers

infant-father attachment are similar to or different from the precursors of infant-mother

Attachment and Psychopathology

Dev Psychopathol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.

Bowlby's Theory of Attachment and Psychopathology

perfectly predictive of later outcomes. Moreover, attachment insecurity per se is not

Attachment and Internalizing/Externalizing Behavior Problems: State of the

The meta-analyses revealed that insecurity (avoidant, ambivalent, and disorganized

Dev Psychopathol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.

externalizing. Contrary to expectations, neither meta-analysis yielded much support for an

Attachment and Psychopathology: Gaps in the Research and Future

Dev Psychopathol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.

The Neuroscience of Attachment

Dev Psychopathol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.

how individual differences in attachment in children relate to differential neural responses to

response to attachment-related interventions would be informative.

Attachment, Inflammation, and Health

Evidence is accumulating that attachment insecurity in adulthood is concurrently associated

Dev Psychopathol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.

Attachment and Empathy, Compassion, and Altruism

Dev Psychopathol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.

Dev Psychopathol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.