Attachment to Mother/Attachment to Father: A Meta-Analysis

Author(s): Nathan A. Fox, Nancy L. Kimmerly and William D. Schafer

Source: Child Development , Feb., 1991, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Feb., 1991), pp. 210-225
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1130716

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1130716?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Society for Research in Child Development and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Child Development

This content downloaded from

148.228.13.22 on Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:19:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Attachment to Mother/Attachment to Father:
A Meta-Analysis

Nathan A. Fox

University of Maryland

Nancy L. Kimmerly
National Institute for Child Health and Human Development

William D. Schafer

University of Maryland

Fox, NATHAN A.; KIMMERLY, NANCY L.; and SCHAFER, WILLIAM D. Attachment to M
Attachment to Father: A Meta-Analysis. CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 1991, 62, 210-225. An im
tenet of attachment theory is that classification of security or insecurity as derived from the
Situation reflects the quality of an infant's relationship with its caregiver. One piece of ev
supporting this claim is the lack of concordance of classification between an infant and its
and father. We performed a meta-analysis of the 11 studies that have examined the concor
mother/father attachment to an infant. We found that security of attachment to one par
dependent upon security to the other parent, that type of insecurity (avoidant/resistant) to on
was dependent upon type of insecurity to the other, and that subcategory classification w
secure category (B1B2/B3B4) to one parent was dependent upon subcategory classificatio
other. These data raise important questions regarding the meaning of infant attachment clas
as derived from the Strange Situation. Among the possible explanations for the pattern of
existence of concordant parenting styles and/or influence of infant temperament (possibly
dency to cry upon separation) on classification of Security/insecurity in the Strange Situati

One of the claims of attachment theory

rity is
and for the use of the Strange Situation as
that security or insecurity derived from the
a paradigm from which to derive estimates of
Strange Situation reflects the quality of of attachment (Main & Weston, 1981;
security
the relationship between an infant and its1985).
Sroufe,
caregiver (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall,
1978; Sroufe & Waters, 1977). The major evi-There are 11 samples that have examined
dence for this claim is Ainsworth's demon- the concordance of infant attachment classi-
stration of correlations between home interac- fication to mother and father (Belsky, Gar-
tion between mother and infant during theduque, & Hmcir, 1984; Belsky & Rovine,
first year of life and Strange Situation classifi-1987 [two samples]; Goossens & van IJzen-
cation (Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton, 1974). Adoom, 1990; Grossmann, Grossmann, Huber,
number of independent studies have repli- & Wartner, 1981 [two samples]; Lamb, 1978;
Lamb, Hwang, Frodi, & Frodi, 1982; Main
cated this relation (Belsky, Rovine, & Taylor,
1984; Grossmann, Grossmann, Spangler, & Weston, 1981; Owen & Chase-Lansdale,
Suess, & Unzer, 1985; Isabella, Belsky, & von1982; Sagi et al., 1985). Classification to one
Eye, 1989). Another piece of evidence for this parent was dependent on classification to the
claim is the lack of concordance of classifica- other parent in only three of these 11 samples
tion between an infant and its mother and (Goossens & van IJzendoorn, 1990; Lamb,
father. These latter data have also been used 1978; Owen & Chase-Lansdale, 1982). Were
to argue for the lack of influence of infant tem-individual differences in infant temperament
perament on the quality of attachment secu-to influence attachment classification derived

Support for this work was provided, in part, by a grant to NAF from the National Institutes of
Health (HD 17899). We would like to thank each of the authors of the individual studies of mother/
father concordance who provided the raw data for the meta-analyses. In addition, we would like to
thank the anonymous reviewers whose suggestions and comments were helpful in revising this
paper. Requests for reprints should be sent to Nathan A. Fox, Institute for Child Study, University of
Maryland, College Park, MD 20742.

[Child Development, 1991, 62, 210-225. ? 1991 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/91/6201-0016$01.00]

This content downloaded from

148.228.13.22 on Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:19:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Fox, Kimmerly, and Schafer 211

from the Strange Situation, one would expect Researchers interested in infant tempera-
a higher degree of concordance between ment have argued that behavior in the
classification of the same infant to mother or Strange Situation and to some extent attach-
father. If temperament were orthogonal to at- ment classification reflects the infant's tem-
tachment classification, but not behavior in peramental bias (Goldsmith, Bradshaw, &
the Strange Situation (Belsky & Rovine, 1987;Rieser-Danner, 1986; Kagan, 1982; Thomp-
Sroufe, 1985; Sroufe & Waters, 1982) andson, Connell, & Bridges, 1988; Weber, Levitt,
classification reflected the individual infant- & Clark, 1986). For example, Kagan (1982)
caregiver relationship, the pattern of classifi- has claimed that threshold to respond with
cation to mother might be different than the negative affect to mild stress is a tempera-
pattern to father. This argument is based on mental characteristic that may be highlighted
the organizational view of attachment in in the Strange Situation. Infants who cry and
which security as derived from the Strange are not easily soothed in the Strange Situation
Situation reflects the ongoing relationship may more likely be classified into one cate-
that has developed between caregiver and gory as opposed to another. While attachment
child over the first year of life (Ainsworth et theorists have disputed these claims (Sroufe,
al., 1978; Sroufe & Waters, 1977). Mothers 1985), a "strong" infant temperament per-
and fathers may interact with their infants dif- spective would predict a great deal of simi-
ferently, and the degree to which they are larity of classification between caregivers
sensitive and responsive to their infants' bids based on the infant's dispositional tendency
for comfort may vary. Were that the case, a to respond to novelty or stress. To date, how-
child might not have the same attachment ever, most of the data on temperament and
classification to both. Indeed, it is possible for attachment have found only that disposition
a child to be securely attached to one parent to cry outside of the Strange Situation is re-
or caregiver and insecurely attached to a sec- lated to crying in the Strange Situation, but
ond caregiver. Attachment theorists have ar- that infant temperament does not discrimi-
gued that the data on discordance of mother/ nate among different classifications (see
father attachment support these claims. Al- Goldsmith & Alansky, 1987). Realistically,
ternatively, concordance of classification to classification of an infant and the quality of
mother and father may reflect similarity in in- attachment relationship are probably the re-
teractive style between parents. If father and sult of a complex interaction of parental
mother were both sensitive and responsive to caregiving styles, infant temperament, and
their infant's cues, one would expect a high the working model developed by the infant
degree of identity in classification between (Sroufe, 1985). However, there are only a few
parents and infant. studies that have described that interaction
between infant disposition and parental
Researchers who approach the study of caregiving style (e.g., Crockenberg, 1981).
behavior in the Strange Situation from a tem-
perament perspective might expect a high de- In one of a number of attempts to recon-
gree of concordance. For many, temperament cile temperament and attachment interpreta-
is regarded as a constitutionally based predis- tions of behavior in the Strange Situation,
position that is stable across time and general- Belsky (Belsky & Rovine, 1987) argued that
izes across situations (Buss & Plomin, 1984; behaviors in the Strange Situation are, in part,
Rothbart & Derryberry, 1981). Thus, for ex- a function of the child's temperament, though
ample, there may be individual differences in security or insecurity is not. He demonstrated
infant irritability or threshold to respond with across a number of data sets that infants of
distress to novelty that would present them- similar temperament were more likely to be
selves in the Strange Situation in a similar classified in either a grouping of Al to B2 or
manner regardless of presence of mother or B3 to C2. Temperament, however, could not
father. Infants with a low threshold to express discriminate avoidant/insecure infants (All/
negative affect, who are highly irritable, may A2) from their "dispositionaly close neigh-
be more likely to be classified as insecure/ bors" (B1 or B2), or, on the other extreme,
resistant (Davidson & Fox, 1989; Fox, 1989). resistant/insecure infants (Cl and C2) from
Or, there may be differences in infant play B4s. In this rapprochement, Belsky argued,
behavior evident from the early months of life one could find a solution to the conflict be-
that might indicate an infant highly focused tween opposing camps. Temperament influ-
on interaction with toys and objects. Such an enced behavior in the Strange Situation, but
infant may be more likely to be classified as security was still a function of the history of
insecure/avoidant in the Strange Situation the relationship with the caregiver. This argu-
(Lewis & Feiring, 1989). ment was first proposed by Ainsworth (Ains-

This content downloaded from

148.228.13.22 on Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:19:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 212 Child Development
worth et al., 1978), who presented evidence fants were classified in similar B subcatego-
how crying to separation and during reunion ries to father and mother, this might lend
varied, not only across the categories of A, support
B, to the importance of these sub-
and C but also across the subcategories. Re-categories as relevant temperament distinc-
cently, there have been a number of studies tions. This argument is in agreement with
that have essentially replicated this finding.
Belsky (Belsky & Rovine, 1987), since he
For example, Vaughn, Lefever, Seifer, and
found that B1 and B2 infants grouped to-
Barglow (1989) found that maternal report gether
of and were different along tempera-
temperament was associated with behaviormental
in lines than were infants classified as B3
the Strange Situation but not classification.
or B4. Similarly, Lamb et al. (1982) argued
Gunnar et al. (1988) and Thompson et al. that the subgroup variation in the secure cate-
(1988) have reported similar findings. gory has been ignored. In a series of studies,
Lamb has identified behavioral correlates
If the infant's temperament affects his or
her behavior in the Strange Situation but not such as sociability to the stranger (Thompson
attachment classification, it would seem rea- & Lamb, 1982) and toward peers (Easter-
brooks
sonable that it might affect it in a similar man- & Lamb, 1979) that distinguish B1 and
B2 from B3 and B4 infants.
ner with either mother and father (though
perhaps not to the same degree). That is, if There are 11 samples that have examined
infants have a tendency to display distress the
to issue of concordance of classification of an
novelty, that tendency may make itself obvi- infant to mother and father. These studies
ous across different caregivers, although the vary in the number of subjects (range 32-132)
final form of the behavior may differ based and
on in the distribution of attachment classifi-
the history of interaction with each specific cations within a sample (one sample had no
caregiver. Therefore, classification to motherinfants in the C classification to one parent).
and father may not be as independent as has For this reason we undertook a meta-analysis
previously been claimed. It would, for ex- of these data. The purpose of the following
ample, be surprising if infants displayed anarticle is to review the existing data on moth-
avoidant pattern to father and a resistant pat-
er/father attachment and to determine if, in-
tern to mother. Theoretically, if one holdsdeed,
a classification to mother is independent
"strong" attachment position, such a patternof classification to father. In reanalyzing these
should be possible. However, given the evi- existing data sets, we set out to examine both
dence that has begun to accumulate on the the traditional questions of security/insecurity
role of temperament in affecting behavior and, in addition, investigate whether there
during the Strange Situation, it is more likely
were possible underlying similarities in in-
that infants will display similar behavioralfant response to mother and father that might
styles across caregivers, though the nature cut
of across classification of security.
the security may differ (Thompson et al.,
1988). Method
Similarly, if temperament affects behav- Each of the authors of the 11 studies was
ioral style in the Strange Situation, an individ-
contacted, and the raw data (e.g., the break-
ual infant classified as secure to both mother
down of attachment classifications and sub-
and father might have similar subclassifi- classifications to mother and father), as well as
cations within the security category. That is, it
additional information about the sample,
is unlikely that an infant classified as B1 to were requested. Table 1 presents the basic
mother would be classified as a B4 in re-
characteristics of each of these studies. The
sponse to interaction with the father. This ar-
data in this table represent information from
gument, while logical within a temperament the published studies and personal communi-
analysis, finds less support within an attach-
cation from the authors.
ment framework. Since Ainsworth's original
work (Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton, 1971) thereAge of testing.-In eight of the 11 stud-
have been few attempts to differentiate ies, all infants were first seen in the Strange
among the B categories. Presumably a B1L Situation
in- at 12 months of age. In two studies,
fant is as secure as a B4, although the behav-
infants were also seen with caregivers other
ioral pattern in the Strange Situation is differ-
than the parents, and the times at which
ent. These different behavioral patterns may mothers, fathers, and caregivers were ob-
be the result of different caregiving interac-
served alternated over either a 3- (Sagi et al.,
tions or the result of individual temperament.
1985) or 6-month period (Goossens & van IJ-
zendoorn, 1990). For example, Goossens and
That is, the B subcategories may reflect differ-
ent styles of temperamental behavior. If van
in- IJzendoorn (1990) saw two-thirds of the

This content downloaded from

148.228.13.22 on Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:19:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 cO00 0 mm 0 0 vt
0 - CQ CQ OQ001 Q Qc
4 m 01 ?4 m C 00 ~
C I )C)C 11 C11 In l b

'CU
0 0 0

-, 00~ - -e 0 0
-o o c 1 o 01 0
- CA CA CA~ 0 0

Q1 C4C'C')

0 CU
tC 0

C4 CU
cd 0 p 4

cn >

u Cd

0 a 0

?M o X Xo ?o o o o ?o o 4 0

w w W V) W WCU

Cz Cd " ~ , 14" ~dW,14Cd CU

0 0 0 0 CU

EU o

0 0

a -01 00 0 E0 -0lo.-.
01 0

CO C IOC)

Q 00......
4) C- -

0 Cd
00 CU
4) Cl
SE m
E o

~UF-4 1l
Eg P-4 -4 0
C01 01
PO 11C 11 C)
f) CO x

>% oo E oo E
cts ts 0 0
po P-4 m Cd( C:
(M3~ 00 r( m m 0
( T
9 cdJw~O~j
P4 innSI~j~j~jr
0 U -0 0 0* *N0 0 0 '

00 0

CI c I tIc

S0

0-B

This content downloaded from

148.228.13.22 on Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:19:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 214 Child Development
parents with their infants when the infant was
They found that female children displayed
significant dependence of classification to
12 months of age and one-third of the parent-
infant dyads when the infants were 15 monthsboth parents, while males did not.
of age. Lamb et al. (1982) and Sagi et al.
Meta-analytic methods.-Through quan-
(1985) first saw infants when they were 11
titative synthesis it is possible both to esti-
months of age.
mate and test the significance of a common
Time interval between first and second
effect size index across studies using similar
sessions.-The time interval between ses- methods, as well as to evaluate whether there
sions varied across studies. The average inter-
exist differences among the studies in the ef-
val was 11.2 weeks (SD = 9.28 weeks). Threefects they are investigating. It is not always
of the studies used a 1-month interval (Bel-
possible, however, to anticipate the outcome
sky, Gilstrap, & Rovine, 1984; Belsky & of Ro-a meta-analysis merely by noting whether
vine, 1987; two samples). Two studies had or not each study developed a significant out-
a 6-week interval (Owen & Chase-Lansdale, come. There are at least two reasons for this.
1982; Sagi et al., 1985), one had an 8-weekFirst, the power of a meta-analysis is different
interval (Lamb et al., 1982), and one hadfroman and usually greater than that of any of
interval of 16 weeks (Goossens & van IJzen-the individual studies because it combines in-
doom, 1990). Main and Weston (1981) and formation from all of them. Second, among
Grossmann et al. (1981; two samples) had the
significant as well as among nonsignificant
longest time intervals between testingstudies(6 there are differences in the evidence
months), while Lamb (1978) reported the presented for the existence of a relationship.
shortest interval (1 week). In the meta-analysis methods used here, raw
data from each of the individual studies were
Counterbalance of mother/father ses-
sions.-Seven of the studies report counter-used as opposed to significance judgments.
balancing the order of mother or father The meta-analytic strategy we adopted
was to first compute a log-linear analysis
sessions. Grossmann et al. (1981) and Belsky
and Rovine (1987) report seeing mothers in the 11 studies to determine the depen-
across
the first session across their subjects. dence or independence of classification (A/B/
C) to mother and father. Following this analy-
Bias of coders.-All of the studies report
sis we broke the 3 x 3 tables (A/B/C x A/B/
that the coder of one set of data (for either
C) into six 2 x 2 contingency tables. We did
mother or father) was blind to the attachment
so because even with a significant interaction
status of the child to the other parent.
in the 3 x 3 (A/B/C x A/B/C) analysis, with 4
Maternal work status.-In only fourdegrees
of of freedom, it is impossible to specify
the studies was there any mention of maternal
where the effect originated. We therefore
employment history (Goossens & van IJzen- computed the following comparisons be-
doom, 1990; Grossmann et al., 1981; Main tween classification with mother and father
& Weston, 1981; Owen & Chase-Lansdale, across studies: (1) secure versus insecure; (2)
1982; and see Chase-Lansdale & Owen,
A versus C; (3) B1 and B2 versus B3 and B4;
1981). (4) Al through B2 versus B3 through C2; (5)
A versus B1 and B2; and (6) C versus B3 and
Ordinal position of the infant.-Four of
the studies examined only firstborn children. B4. Data from all 11 studies were available for
There are no reports among the 11 of differ- the first 2 x 2 analysis. Lamb (1978) did not
ences in concordance as a function of infant differentiate between the two types of inse-
ordinal position. cure pattern in his data. Therefore, 10 studies
were available for the second 2 x 2 analysis.
Different unfamiliar adults for the Neither Lamb (1978) nor Main and Weston
Strange Situation.-This information was (1981) provided a breakdown of subjects
provided in only three of the 11 studieswithin the B category. Thus, data from these
(Goossens & van IJzendoorn, 1990; Lamb,two studies were not included in analyses 3-
1978; and Sagi et al., 1985). 6, leaving nine studies available.
Male/female subjects.-Most of the stud- The first 2 x 2 comparison placed the
ies had a similar number of male and femaletwo different types of insecure infant, those
subjects. The exceptions are one of the sam-classified as A or C, into the insecure cate-
ples cited in Belsky and Rovine (1987) and gory. It examined the possibility of concor-
Owen and Chase-Lansdale (1982). In only dance in security or insecurity to both par-
one study is the concordance of mother/fatherents. The analysis is interesting from an
attachment analyzed separately for males andattachment perspective since it investigated
females (Owen & Chase-Lansdale, 1982). the quality of the relationship a child has with

This content downloaded from

148.228.13.22 on Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:19:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Fox, Kimmerly, and Schafer 215

each parent. However, from a temperamentfants classified as B3 through C2. These dis-
perspective, it may confound relationship and
positional differences express themselves in
disposition since it combined infants whoinfant behavior during the Strange Situation
may present opposite temperamental patterns but do not directly influence classification.
(A and C). Indeed, one would expect the For example, B4 infants may be as likely to
weakest relations of concordance. On the cry as infants classified as C. We examined, in
other hand, since most infants in each indi-analyses 5 and 6, concordance within each
vidual study were classified as secure, one half of this dichotomy. In analysis 5 we exam-
might expect high concordance in this analy-ined the relation between classification as A
sis. versus classification as either B1 or B2. If
The second comparison examined the re-
Belsky and Rovine (1987) are correct, there
should not be significant dependence found
lation of classifications of insecurity to either
in this table. Infants within this continuum
parent by comparing the type of insecurity
should as likely be classified as A (avoidant)
(avoidant or resistant). In this analysis, only
as
those infants who fell into one of the four cells B1 or B2. Similarly, for analysis 6, we ex-
amined the relation between classification as
of the 2 x 2 (A or C to mother/A or C to
C versus classification as either B3 or B4.
father) were included. Lack of independence
here would indicate that infants classified as Here again, if the dichotomy that Belsky pro-
avoidant and insecure to mother are more posed (one based on infant predisposition to
cry in response to mild stress) is correct, there
likely to also be classified as avoidant and in-
secure to father, or that infants classifiedshould
as not be significant dependence found
resistant and insecure to mother are more in this latter analysis. Infants should as likely
be classified as B3 or B4 as C.
likely to be classified as resistant and insecure
to father. Independence would signify that These six separate meta-analyses were
the two types of insecurity are, indeed, performed
as among the 11 studies, each of
many have argued, orthogonal and perhaps which was based on a series of 2 x 2 tables of
represent either different interactional his-
frequencies. The numbers of studies in the
six analyses varied from nine to 11 according
tories, different temperamental styles, or their
interaction. to whether data for the particular comparison
of interest were available. The chi-square
The third analysis compared infants in
significance level for each of the six meta-
the subcategories of the B classification. The
analyses was set at .0083 in order to control
underlying hypothesis is that the four sub-
the family-wise type I error rate at .05 over
categories of security may be dichotomized
the six analyses using overlapping series of
along a temperamental dimension (not unlike
studies.
Belsky's analysis; Belsky & Rovine, 1987).
Significant dependence in this analysis would The approach used for each meta-analy-
further support that perspective and may ar- sis is described by Fleiss (1981, pp. 165-168).
gue that within the category of security tem-The natural log of the odds ratio, after adding
peramental differences are evident in the ex-.5 to each cell frequency, was used as the ef-
pression of behavior in the Strange Situation.
fect size estimate for each study and weighted
by the reciprocal of its sampling variance. An
The second and third analyses describedoverall effect size was estimated as the
above are in a sense subsets of a grouping first
weighted average of the individual effect
proposed by Belsky (Al through B2 vs. B3
sizes. Two significance tests of interest are
through C2; Belsky & Rovine, 1987). Belsky
available: a test that the weighted average ef-
had argued that temperament played a role in
fect size is zero, indicating independence in a
the overt behaviors of the child in the Strange
Situation but did not influence classification common 2 x 2 table, and a test of homogene-
per se. Analysis 4 examined differences in ity, indicating that the studies share a com-
mon effect size. In addition to these results,
classification based on the division proposed
by Belsky. Lack of independence in this anal- we present, in a series of tables, the average
observed and average expected percentages
ysis would support Belsky's dichotomy and
for each 2 x 2 contingency table. These were
argue that styles of behavior in the Strange
computed by summing the observed marginal
Situation, rather than classification, may have
a common basis. frequencies across studies to obtain overall
marginal percentages and allocating these
Analyses 5 and 6 were a further attemptpercentages among the cells by the log odds
to examine the "Belsky dichotomy." Belsky
ratio. Cohen's kappa (Fleiss, 1981, p. 217) was
and others have argued that infants classifiedcomputed for each of these tables. Finally, we
Al through B2 are less likely to cry than in-present the 95% confidence interval for the

This content downloaded from

148.228.13.22 on Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:19:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
216 Child Development
TABLE 2

OBSERVED CELL SIZES SUMMED ACROSS STUDIES AND EXPECTED CELL SIZES
FOR A MODEL WITH No MOTHER-BY-FATHER ASSOCIATION

MOTHER

A B C

FATHER Obs Exp Obs Exp Obs Exp TOTAL

A:
N ............. 62 42.5 88 95.5 7 19.0 157
% ............. 9.2 6.3 13.1 14.2 1.0 2.8 23.4
B:
N ............. 65 83.3 308 292.2 67 64.5 440
% ........ ..... 9.7 12.4 45.8 43.5 10.0 9.6 65.5
C:
N.............. 10 11.2 42 50.3 23 13.5 75
% ........ ..... 1.5 1.7 6.3 7.5 3.4 2.0 11.2
Total:
N ............. 137 438 97 672
% ............. 20.4 65.2 14.4

average odds ratio for

interaction was not each
significant, analysis
and thus it was
not concluded presented
confidence intervals that the 3 x 3 tables differed allow
nation of the possible differences
across studies. The mother-by-father associa- in
ratios across analyses. To y2(4)
tion was significant, the extent
= 35.887, p < .001.
confidence intervals overlap,
Table 2 presents the
the observed frequencies for di
between the odds ratios
the nine cells summed across is
the 10 not
studies st
significant thealong.05
with thelevel. at
expected frequencies summed
across the studies for the model with no
The use of kappa in this
mother-by-father setThere
association. of are ana
two
as a measure of association
limitations for this analysisand not
that should be r
Thus, one wouldmentioned.
not First, interpret
there were 14 empty kapp
cells
value as in the latter type
in the data (15.6% of theof study.
90 cells). This may
ity estimate using
have had ankappa for
effect on the test for the thes
three-
would be computed on Second,
way interaction. classification
different sources of
a retest of the same
association child with the
for the mother-by-father effects s
ent. However, we were examining
cordance of infant
are grouped together in a 4 df test. This fact
classification to tw
provided our motivation to analyze single-
ent parents, and kappa,
degree-of-freedom in
tables this
throughout in
the re-
used as a measure ofofthe
mainder strength of
this study.
ciation. One can interpret the magn
The first 2 xby
kappa in each analysis 2 analysis compared secure-
examinati
differences insecure judgments
between the between fathers and
average
mothers. There percentages
and average expected were 11 studies available for in
this analysis.
the four cells of the relevant The average log odds ratio 2 wasx 2
.526, and the corresponding odds ratio is
Results 1.692. The 95% confidence interval for the av-
erage odds ratio was 1.218-2.351. The hy-
The first analysis we performed was a
pothesis of independence was rejected, ?2(1)
log-linear analysis of 10 of the 11 studies,1
= 9.861, p = .002. This result suggests that
comparing the A/B/C classification to mother
there is a significant relation between ratings
with the A/B/C classification to father. There
of security/insecurity between mothers and
were three dimensions for this analysis: clas-
fathers. The hypothesis of homogeneity was
sification to mother (A,B,C), classificationnot
to rejected, x2(10) = 14.412, p = .155. Thus
father (A,B,C) and study (for the 10 studiesthere is no indication in these data that the
that presented 3 x 3 tables). The three-way
degree of relation between fathers and

1 Interested researchers may contact the first author for copies of the raw data from each of the
11 studies.

This content downloaded from

148.228.13.22 on Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:19:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Fox, Kimmerly, and Schafer 217
ANALYSIS 1: SECURE vs. INSECURE

Father
Secure Insecure

3 49.8/42.8 15.4/22.4 65.2

?-

Q 15.8/22.8 19.0/12.0 34.8

65.6 34.4 100.0

Kappa = . 309
N = 11

FIG. 1.-Percentages for the average observed and average expected for secure versus i
judgments allocated for the margins according to total marginal frequencies for the studies and for
according to the average odds ratio.

resistant) between fathers and mothers. There

mothers ratings of security/insecurity differs
from study to study. were 10 studies available for this analysis.
The average log odds ratio was 2.053; the cor-
Figure 1 contains both the average ob-
responding odds ratio is 7.791. The 95%
served and average expected percentages confidence interval for the average odds ratio
across all studies for this analysis, showing an
was 4.121-23.104. The hypothesis of inde-
odds ratio of 1.692. The marginal percentages
pendence was rejected, X2(1) = 13.701, p =
were obtained by first summing the marginal
.0002, indicating that there was significant de-
and grand totals across all valid studies; com-
pendence between ratings of avoidant or re-
puting the marginal proportions based on classification to fathers and mothers.
sistant
these sums; computing cell proportions based
The hypothesis of homogeneity was not re-
on the overall odds ratio, maintaining the
jected, X2(9) = 5.823, p = .7575, suggesting
marginal proportions; computing kappa from
again that there was no indication that the de-
the proportions; and rounding the table pro-
gree of relation between fathers' and mothers'
portions to the nearest tenth of a percent and
ratings of avoidance or resistance differs from
kappa to the third decimal place. These data
study to study.
are presented in order to describe the relative
Figure 2 contains the average observed
proportions of subjects in each of the four
cells that would most likely appear in a and
newaverage expected percentages across all
studies showing an odds ratio of 7.791. The
study similar to those presented in this meta-
analysis. If the expected and observed percentages
per- were computed in an identical
centages were identical, kappa would manner
equal to Figure 1. They present the relative
zero. For this first analysis and for theseproportion
per- of subjects most likely to appear in
centages, Cohen's kappa is .309; according any
to new sample. For these percentages, Co-
the test for independence from the meta- hen's kappa is .734; according to the test for
independence from the meta-analysis, this is
analysis, this is significantly different from
zero. significantly different from zero.
The second 2 x 2 analysis compared The third 2 x 2 analysis was for the com-
judgments of type of insecurity (avoidant vs. parison B1 through B2 versus B3 through B4

This content downloaded from

148.228.13.22 on Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:19:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
218 Child Development
ANALYSIS 2: A vs. C

Father
A C

63.4/47.7 3.2/19.0 66.7

o 8.1/23.9 25.2/9.5 33.3

71.6 28.4 100.0

Kappa = .734
N = 10

FIG. 2.-Percentages for the average observed and average expected A versus C judgmen
for the margins according to total marginal frequencies for the studies and for the cells acc
average odds ratio.

1.330; the corresponding odds ratio is 3.781.

judgments between fathers and mothers.
There were nine studies available for this The 95% confidence interval for the average
analysis. The average log odds ratio was odds ratio was 2.675-5.344. The hypothesis of
1.526; the corresponding odds ratio is 4.600.independence was rejected, x2(1) = 56.823, p
The 95% confidence interval for the average< .0001, indicating a positive relation be-
tween classification of infants as either Al to
odds ratio is 2.782-7.606. The hypothesis of
independence was rejected, X2(1) = 35.394, p B2 or B3 to C2 between fathers and mothers.
= .0001, indicating a positive relation be- The hypothesis of homogeneity was not re-
tween ratings of B1 through B2 or B3 throughjected, X2(8) = 2.062, p = .9791, again sug-
B4 to mothers and fathers. The hypothesis of gesting that there was no evidence that there
homogeneity was not rejected, x2(8) = 4.021,was variability in the magnitude of the odds
p = .8552, suggesting again that there was noratio across studies.
evidence that there was variability in the
Figure 4 contains the average observed
magnitude of the odds ratio across studies.
and average expected percentages for this
Figure 3 contains the average observedcomparison across all studies showing an
odds ratio of 3.781. The percentages were
and average expected percentages across all
studies showing an odds ratio of 4.600. The
computed in an identical manner to Figure 1.
percentages were computed in an identicalThey present the relative proportion of sub-
manner to Figure 1. They present the relativejects most likely to appear in any new sample.
For these percentages, Cohen's kappa is .514;
proportion of subjects most likely to appear in
any new sample. For these percentages, Co- according to the test for independence from
the meta-analysis, this is significantly differ-
hen's kappa is .578; according to the test for
independence from the meta-analysis, this is ent from zero.
significantly different from zero.
The fifth analysis compared classification
between mother and father of A versus B1
The fourth 2 x 2 analysis was the com-
and B2. There were nine studies with data
parison Al through B2 versus B3 through C2
judgments between fathers and mothers.available for this analysis. The average log
There were nine studies available for this odds ratio was .729; the corresponding odds
analysis. The average log odds ratio was ratio is 2.073. The 95% confidence interval for

This content downloaded from

148.228.13.22 on Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:19:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ANALYSIS 3: B1-B2 vs. B3-B4

Father
B1-B2 B3-B4

O4

I135.1/20.7 8.4/22.8 43.5

12.5/26.9 44.0/29.6 56.5

47.6 52.4 100.0

Kappa = .578
N=9

FIG. 3.-Percentages for the average observed and average expected

allocated for the margins according to total marginal frequencies for the s
to the average odds ratio.

ANALYSIS 4: A1-82 vs. B3-C2

Father
Al -B2 B3-C2

39.7/26.7 8.3/21.3 48.0

- -

S16.0/29.0 36.0/23.0 52.0

56.7 44.3 100.0

Kappa = .514
N=9

FIG. 4.-Percentages for the average observed and average expected

allocated for the margins according to total marginal frequencies for the
to the average odds ratio.

This content downloaded from

148.228.13.22 on Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:19:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
220 Child Development

ANALYSIS 5: A vs. B1-B2

Father
A 81-82

1 24.6/17.6 14.8/21.9 39.4

rN

19.9/26.9 40.7/33.6 60.6

44.5 55.5 100.0

Kappa = .290
N=-9
FIG. 5.-Percentages for the average observed and average expected A versus B1B2 judgments
allocated for the margins according to total marginal frequencies for the studies and for the cells according
to the average odds ratio.

the average odds ratio is 1.125-3.819. The hy- pothesis of independence was not rejected,
pothesis of independence was not rejected, X2(1) = 3.921, p = .0477, at the alpha level set
X'(1) = 5.481, p = .0192, at the alpha level set (.0083), and so no significant relation between
(.0083), and so no significant relation between ratings of C or B3 and B4 to mothers and
ratings of A or Bi and B2 to mothers and fathers was found. The hypothesis of homoge-
fathers was found. The hypothesis of homo- neity was not rejected, X2(8) = 7.729, p =
geneity was not rejected, X2(8) = 10.844, .4604, suggesting again that there was no evi-
p = .2107, suggesting again that there was no dence that there was variability in the mag-
evidence that there was variability in the nitude of the odds ratio across studies.
magnitude of the odds ratio across studies.
Figure 6 contains the average observed
Figure 5 contains the average observed and average expected percentages across all
and average expected percentages across all studies showing an odds ratio of 1.970. The
studies showing an odds ratio of 2.073. The percentages were computed in an identical
percentages were computed in an identical manner to Figure 1. They present the relative
manner to Figure 1. They present the relative proportion of subjects most likely to appear in
proportion of subjects most likely to appear in any new sample. For these percentages, Co-
any new sample. For these percentages, Co- hen's kappa is .540; according to the test for
hen's kappa is .290; according to the test for independence from the meta-analysis, this is
independence from the meta-analysis, this is not significantly different from zero at the
not significantly different from zero at the .0083 level.
.0083 level.
Discussion
The sixth analysis compared classifica-
tion between mother and father of C versus The results of the meta-analyses clearly
B3 and B4. There were nine studies with data support a position that argues for dependenc
available for this analysis. The average logof attachment classification to mother and
odds ratio was .678; the corresponding oddsfather. They suggest that the assignment of
ratio is 1.970. The 95% confidence interval forsecurity/insecurity that the child receives as a
the average odds ratio is 1.006-3.857. The hy- result of behavior in the Strange Situation is

This content downloaded from

148.228.13.22 on Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:19:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Fox, Kimmerly, and Schafer 221
ANALYSIS 6: C vs. B3-B4

Father

1 1
C B3-B4

0 11.1/7.0 16.0/20.0 27.0

C'-

I 15.0/19.0 58.0/54.0 73.0

26.0 74.0 100.0

Kappa = .540
N=9

FIG. 6.-Percentages for average observed and average expected C v

for the margins according to total marginal frequencies for the studie
average odds ratio.

and B4The
similar to two different parents. to both father
data and mother. The fourth
also
analysis replicated
suggest that the type of insecurity that is findings
ob- of Belsky and
Rovine
served (avoidant or resistant) is (1987). Along
similar a continuum of individ-
to both
parents. And they indicate ual differences
that groups in reactivity,
of infants were
the subcategories of the securemoreclassification
likely to be categorized as Al through
B2 orclassification
may reflect distinct types since B3 through C2 to both parents.
within the secure infants was similar across
The fifth 2infants
mother and father. In addition, within x 2 comparison did not find
who are considered to exhibitthat if a childbehav-
similar was classified as A or as B1/B2
iors in the Strange Situation, to one parent reflect-
perhaps he or she was likely to be simi-
larly classified
ing common disposition (Belsky & Rovine, to the second parent. Similarly,
1987), there is some evidence the sixth
for meta-analytic
concor- 2 x 2 comparison did
dance based on classification. not find that if a child were classified as C or
B3/B4 he or she was likely to be similarly
The first comparison of the meta-analysis classified to the second parent. Within either
demonstrated that infants classified as secure continuum (Al through B2 or B3 through C)
to one parent were unlikely to be classified asthere was no evidence of dependence of
insecure to the other parent. The second com-classification between mother and father.
parison further clarified these relationships,
finding that there is dependence for the We performed the latter two comparisons
specific type of insecurity that is exhibited inas a check against the hypothesis that our first
the Strange Situation. Infants categorized as four analyses were illustrating differences be-
avoidant or resistant to one parent were likelytween those infants more or less likely to cry
to be similarly categorized to the other parent.in the Strange Situation (Al through B2 vs.
The third meta-analytic comparison found B3 through C2). The lack of significant depen-
that groups of the subcategories of the B dence of classification to mother and father
classification were distinct for individual in- found within either the "less likely to cry"
fants. Within the secure classification, the group (analysis 5) or the "more likely to cry"
style of behavior exhibited in the Strange group (analysis 6) does not rule out an inter-
Situation will be similar for BI and B2 or B3 pretation that a general tendency to cry to

This content downloaded from

148.228.13.22 on Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:19:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
222 Child Development
share similar views regarding caregiving.
mild stress may partially explain the pattern
of results. Similar patterns of interaction around respon-
There are a number of alternative expla-sivity and sensitivity to infant cues might re-
sult in similar patterns of attachment (Belsky,
nations for these data. First, it may be argued
that high degree of concordance found acrossRovine, & Taylor, 1984). Although this gen-
studies supports a position that the Strange eral explanation is a viable one for the data
Situation is assessing the working model the presented, there are few studies to support it.
infant developed as a result of its relationship There are many studies that have found
with its mother (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, dissimilarity in the manner in which fathers
1985). The essence of attachment for an infant
and mothers interact with their children
may be the expected pattern of parental be- (Parke, 1978; Parke & Sawin, 1980). For ex-
havior (and a psychological sense of securityample, Belsky, Gilstrap, and Rovine (1984)
or insecurity) during stressful situations such
conducted observations of mothers, fathers,
as separation episodes. A child developsand a infants when the infant was 1, 3, and 9
primary relationship with one parent and months
a old. Mothers were found to be more
primary expectation pattern and will act positively interactive and more responsive
securely (or insecurely) across individuals.
with their child at all times of measurement.
Hence one would expect to find parallels Other studies have found that mothers and
across caregivers in attachment classification.
fathers do not share the same values and
This explanation is supported by the pattern caregiving expectations regarding their child
of data but may not be totally consonant with(Lamb, Hwang, & Broberg, 1989). Along
attachment theory. A position of attachment these lines, Bridges, Connell, and Belsky
researchers has been that the Strange Situa- (1988) found that the organization of infant
tion reflects the relationship between an in-behavior in the Strange Situation varied as a
dividual and the infant and not simply the function of the interactive partner. There
infant's working model with the primary were differences in the degree to which in-
attachment figure (Ainsworth et al., 1978; fant behavior toward either father or mother
Sroufe, 1985; Sroufe & Waters, 1977). Classifi-
predicted responses to the stranger in the
cation of security or insecurity is thought Strange
to Situation paradigm. There are, in ad-
reflect the quality of the relationship with the
dition, a number of studies that have found
individual participating in the Strange Situa-
lack of agreement in mothers' and fathers' rat-
tion.
ing of their child's temperament. Mothers are
There are, in addition, data from a num- more likely to rate their child as difficult, par-
ber of sources that find little concordance ticularly if that child is a male, while fathers
when additional caregivers such as a day-care are less likely to rate the child as difficult in
center teacher (Goossens & van IJzendoorn, response to identical temperament question-
1988; Owen & Chase-Lansdale, 1982) or an naires (Frodi et al., 1982).
Israeli kibbutz metapelet (Sagi et al., 1985) There is one report of within-dyad corre-
are assessed. Were an individual child to be
lations of maternal and paternal behavior to-
secure in some basic sense, one would expect ward an infant. Belsky and Volling (1987)
a high degree of similarity of classification found significant intercorrelations of mother-
across caregivers. It is, of course, possible thatinfant and father-infant responsive behavior at
these studies of caregiver/parent concordance 1, 3, and 9 months of age. Both mothers and
have similar problems of small sample sizefathers seemed to be either highly involved or
that preclude finding these effects (see, e.g., not involved with their infant. While these
Fox, Kimmerly, & Schafer, 1990). within-dyad correlations begin to address the
A second alternative explanation of these issue of parental concordance on dimensions
data is that the Strange Situation assesses the important to developing secure attachment,
history of interaction, the family situation, and they do not allow a clear interpretation of the
environment. Parents may be similar in their direction of effects. Both mothers and fathers
caregiving behavior and value systems re- may be highly responsive to a highly expres-
garding issues important to secure attachmentsive and social child or low in responsivity to
such as responsivity and sensitivity to infant a quiet, low reactive infant. Thus, while we
cues. One parent (a sensitive and responsivecannot discount the explanation that the high
one) may serve as a model for the second par- degree of concordance in attachment classi-
ent. Or both might learn together to respond fication, found in our meta-analyses, is due
sensitively to their infant. The current data to concordant interactive behaviors of both
thus reflect the fact that mothers and fathers mother and father, the supporting and validat-
respond similarly to their infant and, perhaps, ing studies are yet to be presented.

This content downloaded from

148.228.13.22 on Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:19:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Fox, Kimmerly, and Schafer 223
A third and perhaps not exclusive expla-security of attachment. More of these studies
are clearly necessary. The goal of research
nation of these data is that the infant's temper-
ament may contribute to variations in clas- should no longer be to demonstrate the im-
sification. Given individual differences in portance of infant temperament in determin-
reactivity to novelty and stress (Fox, 1989)ing
or attachment classification. Rather, efforts
differences in play behavior early in life should be made to understand how the in-
(Lewis & Feiring, 1989), it is not surprising
teraction of temperament and caregiver be-
that infants will respond similarly in the iden-
havior produces the unique and interesting
tical situation to both mother and father. behavior observed over so many studies in
There is, in fact, good evidence for the exis-
the Strange Situation.
tence of stable individual differences in reac-
tivity during the first year of life.
References
Fox (1989; Stifter & Fox, 1990) has found
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M. V., & Stayton, D. J.
stability of infant reactivity to frustrating
(1971). Individual differences in Strange Situa-
stimulus situations across the first year of life.
tion behavior of one-year-olds. In H. R. Schaf-
Infants who cried to mild frustration at 2 days
fer (Ed.), The origins of human social relations
of age were more likely to cry to novel situa-
(pp. 17-58). New York: Academic Press.
tions at 5 months and were more likely to cry
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M. V., & Stayton, D. J.
to maternal separation at 14 months of age. In
(1974). Infant-mother attachment and social de-
addition, infants who have a predisposition to
velopment: Socialization as a product of recip-
cry to separation exhibit greater relative right
rocal responsiveness to signals. In M. P. M.
frontal activation in the resting EEG com-
Richards (Ed.), The integration of a child into
pared to those who do not get upset (David-
a social world (pp. 99-135). London: Cam-
son & Fox, 1989). And Lewis and Feiring
bridge University Press.
(1989) found that children who at 3 months of
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E.,
age were more likely to play with toys than
with people were more likely to show & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
avoidant behavior to their mother at 1 year.
Bates, J. E., Maslin, C. A., & Frankel, K. A. (1985).
It seems plausible, therefore, that infants Attachment security, mother-child interaction,
who are either more object and less person and temperament as predictors of behavior
oriented or who are highly reactive and irrita- problem ratings at three years. In I. Bretherton
ble would behave similarly to separation and & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attach-
reunion during the Strange Situation regard- ment theory and research (pp. 167-193). Mono-
less of which caregiver is present. This would graphs of the Society for Research in Child
lead to similar classifications to both mother Development, 50(1-2, Serial No. 209).
and father. Belsky, J., Garduque, L., & Hrncir, E. (1984). As-
sessing performance, competence, and execu-
Clearly, temperamental factors are not
tive capacity in infant play: Relations to home
the only influences on behavior in the Strange
environment and security of attachment. De-
Situation (see Goldsmith & Alansky, 1987).
velopmental Psychology, 20, 406-417.
The data from a number of sources suggest
Belsky, J., Gilstrap, B., & Rovine, M. (1984). The
that only a small but significant portion of the
Pennsylvania Infant and Family Development
variance in behavior during the Strange Situa-
Project: I. Stability and change in mother-
tion is the result of individual temperamental
infant and father-infant interaction in a family
differences among infants (Thompson et al.,
setting at one, three, and nine months. Child
1988; Vaughn et al., 1989). However, the cur-
Development, 55, 692-705.
rent meta-analysis indicates that these infant
Belsky, J., & Rovine, M. (1987). Temperament and
characteristics may be important in determin-
attachment security in the Strange Situation:
ing classification.
An empirical rapprochement. Child Develop-
In first attempting to describe dimen- ment, 58, 787-795.
sions of individual differences in infant tem- Belsky, J., Rovine, M., & Taylor, D. G. (1984). The
perament, Thomas and Chess (1977, 1980) Pennsylvania Infant and Family Development
underscored the need to examine the "good- Project: III. The origins of individual differ-
ness of fit" between infant temperament and ences in infant-mother attachment: Maternal
parent behavior. There are only a handful of and infant contributions. Child Development,
studies (Bates, Maslin, & Frankel, 1985; Croc- 55, 718-728.
kenberg, 1981) that have attempted to exam- Belsky, J., & Volling, B. L. (1987). Mothering,
ine directly the interaction of infant tempera- fathering, and marital interaction in the family
ment and maternal behavior in determining triad during infancy: Exploring family systems

This content downloaded from

148.228.13.22 on Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:19:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
224 Child Development
processes. In P. Berman & F. Pedersen (Eds.), caregivers: Relation to infant-parent attach-
Men's transition to parenthood (pp. 37-63). ment and day-care characteristics. Child Devel-
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. opment, 61, 832-837.
Bridges, L. J., Connell, J. P., & Belsky, J. (1988).
Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., Spangler, G.,
Similarities and differences in infant-mother Suess, G., & Unzer, L. (1985). Maternal sen-
and infant-father interaction in the Strange sitivity and newborns' orientation responses as
Situation: A component process analysis. De- related to quality of attachment in northern
velopmental Psychology, 24, 92-100. Germany. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.),
Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Growing points of attachment theory and re-
Early developing personality traits. Hillsdale, search (pp. 233-256). Monographs of the Soci-
NJ: Erlbaum. ety for Research in Child Development, 50
Chase-Lansdale, L., & Owen, M. T. (1981, April). (1-2, Serial No. 209).
Maternal employment in a family context: Ef- Grossmann, K. E., Grossmann, K., Huber, F., &
fects on infant-mother and infant-father at- Wartner, U. (1981). German children's behav-
tachments. Paper presented at the meetings of ior towards their mothers at 12 months and
the Society for Research in Child Develop- their fathers at 18 months in Ainsworth's
ment, Boston. Strange Situation. International Journal of Be-
Crockenberg, S. B. (1981). Infant irritability, mother havioral Development, 4, 157-181.
responsiveness, and social support influences
Gunnar, M. R., Mangelsdorf, S., Kestenbaum, R.,
on the security of infant-mother attachment. Lang, S., Larson, M., & Andreas, D. (in press).
Child Development, 52, 857-865. Temperament, attachment, and neuroendo-
Davidson, R. J., & Fox, N. A. (1989). Frontal brain crine reactivity: A systematic approach to the
asymmetry predicts infants' responses to ma- study of stress in normal infants. In D. Cic-
ternal separation. Journal of Abnormal Psy- chetti (Ed.), Process and psychopathology.
chology, 98, 127-131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Easterbrooks, M. A., & Lamb, M. E. (1979). The Isabella, R. A., Belsky, J., & von Eye, A. (1989).
relationship between quality of infant-mother Origins of infant-mother attachment: An exam-
attachment and infant competence in initial en- ination of interactional synchrony during the
counters with peers. Child Development, 50, infant's first year. Developmental Psychology,
380-387. 25, 12-21.
Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods forKagan,
rates J. (1982). Psychological research on the hu-
and proportions (2d ed.). New York: Wiley. man infant: An evaluative summary. New
Fox, N. A. (1989). The psychophysiological corre-York: W. T. Grant Foundation.
lates of emotional reactivity during theLamb,
first M. E. (1978). Qualitative aspects of mother-
year of life. Developmental Psychology, 25, and father-infant attachments. Infant Behavior
364-372. and Development, 1, 265-276.
Fox, N. A., Kimmerly, N., & Schafer, W. (1990,
Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C., & Broberg, A. (1989).
April). Attachment to parent/attachment to Associations between parental agreement re-
caregiver: A meta-analysis. Paper presented garding to child rearing and the characteristics of
the International Conference on Infant Stud- families and children in Sweden. International
ies, Montreal. Journal of Behavioral Development, 12, 115-
Frodi, A. M., Lamb, M. E., Frodi, M., Hwang, C., 129.
Forsstrom, B., & Corry, T. (1982). Stability and Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C. P., Frodi, A., & Frodi, M.
change in parental attitudes following an in- (1982). Security of mother- and father-infant at-
fant's birth into traditional and nontraditional tachment and its relation to sociability with
Swedish families. Scandinavian Journal of strangers in traditional and nontraditional
Psychology, 23, 53-62. Swedish families. Infant Behavior and Devel-
Goldsmith, H. H., & Alansky, J. A. (1987). Maternal opment, 5, 355-367.
and infant temperamental predictors of attach-Lewis, M., & Feiring, C. (1989). Infant, mother, and
ment: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Con- mother-infant interaction behavior and subse-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 805-816. quent attachment. Child Development, 60,
Goldsmith, H. H., Bradshaw, D., & Rieser-Danner, 831-837.
L. (1986). Temperament as a potential in- Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security
fluence on attachment. In J. V. Lerner & R. M. in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move
Lemrner (Eds.), Temperament and social in- to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton
teraction during infancy and childhood: New & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attach-
Directions for Child Development (Vol. 31, pp. ment theory and research (pp. 66-106). Mono-
5-34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. graphs of the Society for Research in Child
Goossens, F. A., & van IJzendoomrn, M. H. (1990). Development, 50(1-2, Serial No. 209).
Quality of infants' attachments to professionalMain, M., & Weston, D. R. (1981). The quality of

This content downloaded from

148.228.13.22 on Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:19:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Fox, Kimmerly, and Schafer 225

the toddlers' relationship to mother and toships and infant temperament. Child Develop-
father: Related to conflict behavior and the ment, 48, 1-14.
readiness to establish new relationships. Child Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an
Development, 52, 932-940. organizational construct. Child Development,
Owen, M. T., & Chase-Lansdale, L. (1982, April). 48, 1184-1199.
Similarity between infant-mother and infant- Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1982). Issues of temper-
father attachments. Paper presented at the ament and attachment. American Journal of
biennial meetings of the Southwestern Society Orthopsychiatry, 52, 743-746.
for Research in Human Development, Galves- Stifter, C. A., & Fox, N. A. (1990). Infant reactivity:
ton, TX. Physiological correlates of newborn and five
Parke, R. D. (1978). Parent-infant interaction: Prog- month temperament. Developmental Psychol-
ress, paradigms, problems. In G. P. Sackett ogy, 26, 582-588.
(Ed.), Observing behavior: Vol. 1. Theory and Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and
application in mental retardation (pp. 69-94). development. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Baltimore: University Park Press. Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1980). The dynamics of
Parke, R. D., & Sawin, D. B. (1980). The family in psychological development. New York: Brun-
early infancy: Social-interactional and attitu- ner/Mazel.
dinal analyses. In F. A. Pedersen (Ed.), The Thompson, R. A., Connell, J. P., & Bridges, L. J.
father-infant relationship (pp. 44-70). New (1988). Temperament, emotion, and social in-
York: Praeger Special Studies. teractive behavior in the Strange Situation: An
Rothbart, M. M., & Derryberry, D. (1981). Develop- analysis of attachment system functioning.
ment of individual differences in temperament. Child Development, 59, 1102-1110.
In M. E. Lamb & A. L. Brown (Eds.), Ad- Thompson, R. A., & Lamb, M. E. (1982). Stranger
vances in developmental psychology (Vol. 1, sociability and its relationship to temperament
pp. 37-86). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. and social experience during the second year.
Sagi, A., Lamb, M. E., Lewkowicz, K. S., Shoham, Infant Behavior and Development, 5, 277-287.
R., Dvir, R., & Estes, D. (1985). Security of Vaughn, B. E., Lefever, G. B., Seifer, R., & Barg-
infant-mother, father, metapelet attachments low, P. (1989). Attachment behavior, attach-
among kibbutz-reared Israeli children. In I. ment security, and temperament during in-
Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points fancy. Child Development, 60, 728-737.
of attachment theory and research (pp. 257- Weber, R. A., Levitt, M. J., & Clark, M. C. (1986).
275). Monographs of the Society for Research Individual variation in attachment security and
in Child Development, 50(1-2, Serial No. 209). Strange Situation behavior: The role of mater-
Sroufe, L. A. (1985). Attachment classification from nal and infant temperament. Child Develop-
the perspective of infant-caregiver relation- ment, 57, 56-65.

This content downloaded from

148.228.13.22 on Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:19:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms