printable pdf version of this webpage
Child Development Research to
The MISREPRESENTATIONS of
The below article, published by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, AFCC, and similar articles by these co-authors and disciples, seems to be cited these days just about every time some custody evaluator wants to throw a baby or toddler into joint custody as if speculative agenda-driven hypotheses constitute research findings. They don't. This -- as well as the numerous articles like it -- is an opinion piece. Its arguments are misleading, self-serving, unsupported political rhetoric. Its recommendations are merely ideas. And bad ones.
No research whatsoever has established benefits to accrue to any child from any of the custody recommendations set forth here under the pretext that they are based on child development research. The efficacy of the ideas themselves in implementation has not been researched.
Research findings such as Lamb's of such readily obvious facts such as that human beings can and do form multiple attachments are distorted and twisted into recommendations based on an unsupported assumption that children "should" form specific attachments to specific persons.
Findings that fathers "could" do this or that or become primary parents are distorted into recommendations based on other, unsupported and logically invalid conclusions from those premises, such as that both parents "are" or "should be" equal attachment figures to children.
Findings about fathers from studies of loving, mutually interactive couples in intact marriages are irrationally applied to nonresident fathers, including never-married fathers, with unknown different characteristics who do not have any positive -- or even any family -- relationships with mothers and children.
Broad demographic studies of the flexible and ill-defined "fatherless homes" populations, which indicate complex and multi-causated reasons for the (actually small) negative outcomes suffered by a minority of children in these "single mother home" groups are twisted, baselessly, into the political rhetoric that children "need" or "benefit" from having two parents. The notion is completely unsupported.
If, e.g., children are shown to benefit from being raised in homes with higher financial resources, then what children arguably "need" are those financial resources, not any particular method of achieving them.
Research indicating that children suffer from disrupted attachments is misrepresented as support for the unsupported notion that nonexistent or poor attachments "should" be developed, and in the assumptions that children are suffering from separation anxiety of broken secondary attachments when in the placement of their primary attachment figures. Completely unsupported.
They are fathers' rights arguments with wish lists of shoulds, sanctioned and promulgated by professionals who are, in my opinion, abusing their perceived statuses as "scientists" to move social policy for ulterior reasons. Applied in practice, the recommendations constitute treatment protocols designed to remedy a nonexistent psychological problem. When implemented based in whole or in part on the recommendations of a mental health practitioner, these become experimental psychological interventions challengable as such because they are designed to accomplish an unethical and inappropriate purpose -- what in actuality are political or legal demands unrelated to child well-being. These demands are psychologically justified by the pure speculation that a lack of nonresidential father primary parenting "equality" in turn "may" prevent possible future father "absence" that in turn "may" cause an increased future risk of some kind of unestablished psychological problems for the child. Such problems are, in any event, statistically unlikely to develop (but this is not mentioned). No research establishes any premise in the flawed reasoning. Also implied in the distortion of terminology of attachment research is that it is possible, oxymoronically, to create two primary attachments. Simultaneously, the proponents of this purported prophylactic speciously explain away or argue for ignoring tangible evidence of actual current harms being inflicted on the child as well as developing iatrogenic effects, and in a defiance of logic reminiscent of theological arguments, insist that the burden falls on the other side to counter their unsupported beliefs.
These recommendations misrepresent science, are grounded in hypothesis rather than sound theory, are supported by no efficacy studies, fly in the face of established biological, anthropological, psychological, and sociological knowledge, and ignore or distort established research and other evidence that points the other way. Unfortunately, the blinders of personal desires and personal situations have made even individuals who ought to be able to tell the difference when reviewing "the literature" also dumb and deaf to reason. [liznote]
There is a difference between statements of fact that are supported by research findings and statements that are merely unsupported rhetoric following ideas with an agenda. Where this is done deliberately, I consider it to be no less a misrepresentation of the research than the misrepresentations in any other con that succeeds because it dangerously mixes truth with lies.
reproduced Lamb and Kelly's entire essay on this webpage in blue.
Michael Lamb and Joan Kelly are prolific writers. Their opinion articles catering to the fatherhood promotion movement and to discussions of ostensible needs and solutions that advance the best interests of mental health professionals who seek opportunities to ply their trade in the justice system should not be confused with write-ups and analysis of actual findings of credible research. Unfortunately, too many persons just don't understand the difference, or the difference between a citation to research findings and a citation to yet another article with unsupported "ideas." Repeated often enough, ideas start to take on a life of their own until the citations are so far removed from any actual primary research or source of inquiry, that they achieve the status of presumptions upon which yet more faulty ideas are built. And so this article is being used to illustrate a problem that is all too common, particularly in the psychological "literature." [liznote]
Family and Conciliation Courts Review; Los Angeles; Jul 2000; Joan B Kelly; Michael E Lamb; Volume: 38 Issue: 3 : 297-311, Sage Publications. ISSN: 10475699
Decisions regarding custody and access are most often made without reference to the research on child development, although this literature can be useful in conceptualizing children's needs after separation and divorce. Research on attachment processes, separation from attachment figures, and the roles of mothers and fathers in promoting psychosocial adjustment are reviewed in this article. It concludes with a discussion of the implications for young children's parenting schedules.
Powerful influences shape decisions about custody and access arrangements when parents are separating or divorcing. Regardless of whether parents make their decisions independently or rely on therapists, custody evaluators, or judges for recommendations and decisions, statutory, historical, and cultural forces often determine which care arrangements are deemed to be in the children's best interests (Kelly, 1994). Unfortunately, however, decision makers in family law and mental health fields remain largely ignorant about several decades of research on child development. Child development researchers and child custody decision makers rarely cross paths, and most of the relevant publications intended for academic audiences are inaccessible to casual readers.
In this article, we discuss research that directly helps conceptualize custody and access issues that need to be addressed when parents separate. Because so many questions arise regarding appropriate postseparation arrangements for infants and young children, the focus will be on attachment processes, separation from attachment figures, and the roles of mothers and fathers in promoting children's development. To facilitate readability, we primarily cite review articles; readers can study the cited articles for references to the primary literature.
Lamb commences claiming that he is going to review the research on child development as it pertains to custody decisions. In fact, he does not cite to one single actual research finding in this entire un-footnoted article, although he has written variations of this article in which he has done so -- which is not to say that the custody recommendations and best interests of children conclusions made in those articles necessarily follow from the cited research either. (They don't.) While a number of references are cited below in this article, few are to research and none are to findings; for the most part, the research referred or alluded to within this article, or within the articles cited at the end as "references" actually does not support Lamb and Kelly's conclusions in this essay. Also note that, conveniently, many of the citations are to "literature" by the very same authors of this essay, Lamb and Kelly (kind of like supporting one's hypotheses with citations to prior essays making the same hypotheses.)
Lamb, a well-known and credible researcher (although he has written soft papers like this article all too often since, apparently, being given fatherhood promotion marching orders from the federal government), squirrels out of being called on his sleight of hand by setting up as his precursor alibi, that he did this in this article in this way (without citation to supportive research findings) in order to "facilitate readability" and that "readers can study the cited articles for references to the primary literature." This is an incredible statement given that it follows directly after the observation that custody decision-makers in fact don't usually read the actual research! Perhaps they remain unintentionally ignorant because articles like this one, which has no research support for its main ideas, in turn is cited in other "literature" as "Lamb" -- a name which implies there is an on-point research finding underlying a footnoted statement, not just another article with more unsupported hypothesizing and political drip.
RESEARCH ON ATTACHMENT PROCESSES
Over the past four decades, our understanding of early social and emotional development has improved enormously. In particular, psychologists have identified many of the factors that influence the formation of attachment relationships between infants and their parents, as well as the adverse effects on children of disrupted and distorted parent-child relationships (Lamb, Bornstein, & Teti, in press; Lamb, Thompson, Gardner, & Charnov, 1995; Thompson, 1998). The essence of our emergent understanding of this phenomena is briefly summarized in the following pages.
The development of attachments to parents and other important caregivers constitutes one of the most critical achievements of the Ist year of life. These enduring ties play essential formative roles in later social and emotional functioning.
Infant-parent attachments promote a sense of security, the beginnings of self-confidence, and the development of trust in other human beings. Concerned with the profoundly negative impact on children's development of prolonged separation from parents, Bowlby (1969) first proposed a theoretical explanation for the importance of continuity in relationships, drawing on psychoanalytic and ethological theory. Subsequent decades of research have focused on the phases and types of attachment: the security of attachments, the stability of attachments over time, the contributions of infants and caregivers to the quality or security of attachments, cultural differences in attachment outcomes, and later personality and cognitive characteristics associated with different types of attachment.
Researchers initially focused exclusively on infant-mother attachment, and that literature is best known in the mental health community. In the past 20 years, however, the meaning and importance of infant-father attachments and of attachments to nonfamily caregivers in day care and preschool settings have been studied extensively as well (for detailed reviews, see Lamb, 1997a, 1998; Thompson, 1998).
PHASES OF ATTACHMENT FORMATION
Attachment formation involves reciprocal interactive processes that foster the infant's growing discrimination of parents or caregivers, as well as the emotional investment in these caregivers. Infants who receive sensitive and responsive care from familiar adults in the course of feeding, holding, talking, playing, soothing, and general proximity become securely attached to them (Thompson, 1998). Even adequate levels of responsive parenting foster the formation of infant-parent attachments, although some of these relationships may be insecure. Children are nonetheless better off with insecure attachments than they are without attachment relationships at all.
Bowlby (1969) described four phases of the attachment process, and subsequent research has largely confirmed this delineation: (a) indiscriminate social responsiveness, (b) discriminating sociability, (c) attachment, and (d) goal-corrected partnerships.
Indiscriminate Social Responsiveness
During this phase, which occurs between birth and 2 months, the infant uses an innate repertoire of signals to bring caregivers to him or her, including crying and smiling. The child begins to associate the caregivers with relief of distress (from hunger or pain). Furthermore, adults' vocalizations and animated facial expressions create additional opportunities for social interaction. Although infants are able to recognize their parents by voice or smell within the first weeks of life, they accept care from any caregiver during this phase without distress or anxiety (Lamb et al., in press).
Discriminating sociability occurs between 2 and 7 months of age. Here the infants begin to recognize certain caregivers and prefer interaction with them. Infants thus coo and soothe more readily in response to these familiar figures, orient their posture toward them, and show more pleasure when interacting with them. This attachment-in-the-making indicates that the caregivers' responses are sufficiently prompt and appropriate. During this phase, infants begin to learn reciprocity, a sense of effectiveness ("I can make things happen"), and trust. They generally do not protest when separated from their parents during this phase, but they become anxious if separated from humans for too long.
In the attachment phase, which occurs between 7 and 24 months of age, the child, by actively seeking to remain near to preferred caregivers, gives increasingly clear evidence that attachments have been formed. Behaviors demonstrating attachment include differential following and clinging to parents, especially when tired or sick, and preferences for specific caretakers as secure bases for exploration of the environment.
Somewhere around the middle of the Ist year of life, infants begin to cry or protest when separated from their attachment figures.
This transition marks the initial attainment of the ability to recognize that parents continue to exist when they are not present, an ability referred to by Piaget as object constancy. Of course, the understanding of this fundamental concept is quite rudimentary at first and continues to mature in the next year and a half of the child's life. As this comprehension matures, the child's ability to tolerate separation from humans grows, although separation does remain stressful for young children.
Infants clearly cope better with separation from one attachment figure when they are with another attachment figure. Nevertheless, it is important to minimize the length of time that infants are separated from their attachment figures; extended separations unduly stress developing attachment relationships. If they are attached to both parents, as most infants are, this means that the length of time with each parent needs to be adjusted to minimize the length of time away from the other parent.
Considerable evidence now exists (for a review, see Lamb, 1997a) that documents that most infants form meaningful attachments to both of their parents at roughly the same age (b to 7 months).
This is true even though many fathers in our culture spend less time with their infants than mothers do. This indicates that time spent interacting is not the only factor in the development of attachments, although some threshold of interaction is crucial.
Most infants come to "prefer" the parent who takes primary responsibility for their care (typically their mothers), but this does not mean that relationships with the other parent are unimportant. The preference for the primary caretaker appears to diminish with age, and by 18 months, this preference often has disappeared.
In general, the ways in which mothers and fathers establish relationships with and influence their children's development is quite similar. Although much has been made of research showing that mothers and fathers have distinctive styles of interaction with their infants, the differences are actually quite small and do not appear to be formatively significant (Lamb, 1997a). The benefits of maintaining contact with both parents exceed any special need for relationships with male or female parents.
The empirical literature also shows that infants and toddlers need regular interaction with both of their parents to foster and maintain their attachments (Lamb et al., in press).
Extended separations from either parent are undesirable because they unduly stress developing attachment relationships.
In addition, it is necessary for the interactions with both parents to occur in a variety of contexts (feeding, playing, diapering, soothing, putting to bed, etc.) to ensure that the relationships are consolidated and strengthened. In the absence of such opportunities for regular interaction across a broad range of contexts, infant-parent relationships fail to develop and may instead weaken.
It is extremely difficult to reestablish relationships between infants or young children and their parents when the relationships have been disrupted. Instead, it is considerably better for all concerned to avoid such disruptions in the first place.
During this phase, children become more mobile, increase their explorations of the world, initiate more social interactions, and develop more extensive and sophisticated linguistic and cognitive abilities. These achievements increase the child's anxiety about separation from important caregivers, and this anxiety is reflected in vigorous vocal and behavioral displays of resistance to separation, especially until approximately 18 months. Thus, it is common for children between 15 and 24 months of age to resist transitions from their mothers' houses to their fathers' after marital separation, even when children have good attachment relationships with both parents.
However, once removed from their mothers' environments, these youngsters function well with their fathers, and vice versa.
If planned separations are announced shortly in advance in a calm, matter-of-fact way, with reassurance that the parent (or child) will return, anxiety can be reduced. By 24 months, the majority of children no longer experience severe separation anxiety, although children with very insecure attachments and those whose primary attachment figures have their own separation difficulties may continue to express anxiety.
Finally, the goal-corrected partnership phase occurs between 24 and 36 months of age. It involves children's and parents' beginning to plan jointly; children are increasingly able to compromise and to take their parents' needs into some account. Children can now understand to some extent why parents come and go, and they can predict their return. However, children's primitive sense of time continues to make it difficult for 2-year-olds to comprehend much beyond today or tomorrow, and this has implications for the tolerable duration of separation from important attachment figures.
In sum, when given the opportunity, infants form multiple attachments, each with unique emotional meaning and importance. Physical caregiving is critical to survival and health, but social and emotional input from diverse attachment figures is important as well.
Children with multiple attachments appear to create a hierarchy of caregivers, seeking out the particular caregivers that suit their needs and moods, although they tend to accept any important attachment figure for comfort and soothing when distressed or anxious in the absence of more preferred caregivers.
There is no evidence, however, that having multiple attachments diminishes the strength of attachments to the primary attachment figure or figures in the first 2 years of life.
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN THE SECURITY OF ATTACHMENT
Extensive research into controlled separations from and reunions with parents (using the Strange Situation procedure) has supported the classification of attachment into secure and insecure types. Insecure attachments are further classified into avoidant, resistant, and disorganized types (Ainsworth, Belhar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Lamb et al., 1985, in press; Thompson, 1998). Babies with secure attachments prefer parents over strangers, may cry at separation, and immediately seek interaction or contact with and reassurance from parents when they return. About two thirds of middle-class American infants are securely attached, presumably because their parents are responsive to infant cries and distress and are psychologically available.
About 20% of infant-parent attachments in middle-class American homes are insecure avoidant. These babies seem not to notice when separated, avoid greeting the returning parents in the assessment procedure, but do not resist physical contact. Babies with insecure resistant attachments (10% to 12%) show angry, aggressive behaviors upon reunion and are not easily comforted by their parents after separation. A small number (about 5%) of babies display confused behaviors after separation and have been classified as disorganized/disoriented. Their contradictory behaviors upon reunion include gazing away while being held, odd postures, and dazed facial expressions.
Although secure and insecure attachments were once thought to be fixed and stable over time, this appears to be true only when the infants experience reasonably stable family conditions over the course of the first 2 years (Lamb et al., in press; Thompson,1998). Factors known to influence the security and stability of attachments include poverty; marital violence and high conflict between parents; and major life changes such as divorce, death, or the birth of a sibling, which in each instance are associated with more insecure attachments. Insecure attachments are significantly linked to poor styles of parenting that affect the quality of the child's attachment, such as disturbed family interactions, parental rejection, inattentive or disorganized parenting, neglect, and abuse.
It should be noted that infant-parent attachments often become insecure in response to the parents' separation or divorce, at least for a period of time, and infants who experience a reduction in parental discord become more securely attached over time (Cummings & Davies, 1994).
Thus, although infants from very high conflict parental relationships may initially have insecure attachments, their relationships with both parents may become more secure if the level of conflict between the parents declines. It is also clear that crosscultural differences in parenting styles and expectations are associated with different patterns of attachment.
Individual differences in the security of attachment are important. Compared to children who were initially insecure, securely attached children later are more independent, socially competent, inquisitive, and cooperative and empathic with peers; have higher self esteem; and demonstrate more persistence and flexibility on problem-solving tasks. These differences seem to reflect not only the initial differences in attachment security but also continued differences in the quality of parenting experienced (for reviews and analyses of these issues, see Lamb et al., 1985, in press; Thompson, 1998).
IMPLICATIONS OF ATTACHMENT RESEARCH FOR CUSTODY AND ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS
MAINTAINING CHILDREN'S ATTACHMENTS AFTER SEPARATION OR DIVORCE
If the parents lived together prior to separation, and the relationships with both parents were at least of adequate quality and supportiveness, the central challenge is to maintain both infant-parent attachments after separation.
When there are concerns about child maltreatment, substance abuse, mental illness, or interparental violence, of course, evaluations of parental adequacy are essential, and supervised or restricted visiting may be required to avoid compromising the child's safety or development. Furthermore, when parents have never lived together, and the infant has had no opportunity to become attached to one of the parents, as is common while paternity is being established legally, special efforts are needed to foster the development of attachment relationships. These issues are beyond the scope of this article, however.
In general, relationships with parents play a crucial role in shaping children's social, emotional, personal, and cognitive development, and there is a substantial literature documenting the adverse effects of disrupted parent-child relationships on children's development and adjustment (Lamb, 1999; Lamb, Hwang, Ketterlinus, & Fracasso, 1999). The evidence further shows that children who are deprived of meaningful relationships with one of their parents are at greater risk psychosocially, even when they are able to maintain relationships with the other of their parents.
Stated differently, there is substantial evidence that children are more likely to attain their psychological potential when they are able to develop and maintain meaningful relationships with both of their parents, whether the two parents live together or not.
The most common practice in custody and access decisions has been to emphasize and preserve continuity in the infant-mother relationship, with children living with their mothers and having limited contact with their fathers. Thus, the infant or toddler who was accustomed to seeing both parents each day abruptly began seeing one parent, usually the father, only once a week (or once every 2 weeks) for a few hours. This arrangement was often represented by professionals as being in the best interests of the child due to the mistaken understanding, based on Bowlby's earliest speculations, that infants had only one significant or primary attachment.
As a result, early child development research followed untested psychoanalytic theory in focusing exclusively on mothers and infants, presuming fathers to be quite peripheral and unnecessary to children's development and psychological adjustment.
The resulting custody arrangements sacrificed continuity in infant-father relationships, with long-term socioemotional and economic consequences for children. Very large research literatures now document the adverse effects of severed father-child relationships as well as the positive contributions that fathers make to their children's development (for reviews, see Lamb, 1997b).
The research reviewed by Bowlby (1973) indicated that the loss or attenuation of significant relationships in childhood can cause anxiety and a profound sense of loss, particularly in the first 2 years, when children have limited cognitive and communicative resources to help cope with loss. Both marital conflict and the abrupt departure of one parent from the child's daily life may foster insecurity in the child's attachments and should thus be avoided.
To be responsive to the infant's psychological needs, the parenting schedules adopted for children younger than 2 or 3 must involve more transitions, rather than fewer, to ensure the continuity of both relationships and the child's security and comfort during a time of great change.
The ideal situation is one in which infants and toddlers have opportunities to interact with both parents every day or every other day in a variety of functional contexts (feeding, play, discipline, basic care, limit setting, putting to bed, etc.).
To minimize the deleterious impact of extended separations from either parent,
there should be more frequent transitions than would perhaps be desirable with older children. As children reach age 2, their ability to tolerate longer separations increases,
so most toddlers can manage 2 consecutive overnights with each parent without stress. Schedules involving alternating longer blocks of time, such as 5 to 7 days, should be avoided, as children this age still become fretful and uncomfortable when separated from either parent too long.
There is ample evidence that infants and toddlers get used to regular transitions,
such as those associated with enrollment in alternative care facilities, without there being adverse effects on the quality of the attachments to their parents (Lamb, 1998).
The same should be true of separations in the context of parental separation or divorce.
Infants and toddlers should thus have multiple contacts each week with both parents to minimize separation anxiety and maintain continuity in the children's attachments.
Unfortunately, the concept of location-engendered stability (one home, one bed)
has been incorrectly overemphasized
for infants and toddlers, without due consideration for the greater significance to the child of the emotional, social, and cognitive contributions of both parent-child relationships.
Living in one location (geographic stability) ensures only one type of stability.
Stability is also created for infants (and older children) by the predictable comings and goings of both parents, regular feeding and sleeping schedules, consistent and appropriate care, and affection and acceptance (Kelly, 1997).
Furthermore, postseparation access or contact schedules that are predictable and that can be managed without stress or distress by infants or toddlers provide stability after separation.
OVERNIGHTS WITH THE NONRESIDENTIAL PARENT
With the historic focus on preserving the mother-infant attachment while establishing an exclusive home, overnights or extended visits with the other parent (mostly the father) were long forbidden or strongly discouraged by judges, custody evaluators, therapists, mental health professionals, family law attorneys, and not surprisingly, many mothers (e.g., Garrity & Baris, 1992; Goldstein, Freud, & Solnit, 1973; Goldstein, Freud, Solnit, & Goldstein, 1986; Hodges, 1991).
Hodges (1991), for example, stated that for infants younger than 6 months, "overnight visits are not likely to be in the child's best interests, because infants' eating and sleeping arrangements should be as stable as possible" (p. 175). For infants 6 to 18 months of age, overnight visits "should be considered less than desirable" (p. 176). Although Hodges noted the importance of several visits per week for older infants who were attached to fathers, he recommends that these be limited to several hours. Hodges stated that children might be able to spend overnights "without harm" only after reaching 3 years of age (p. 177).
Such unnecessarily restrictive and prescriptive guidelines were not based on child development research
and, thus, reflected an outdated view of parent-child relationships. Furthermore, such recommendations did not take into account the quality of the father-child or mother-child relationship,
the nature of both parents' involvement, or the child's need to maintain and strengthen relationships with both parents after separation (Lamb, Sternberg, & Thompson, 1997).
Research and experience with infant day care, early preschool, and other stable caretaking arrangements indicate that infants and toddlers readily adapt to such transitions
and also sleep well, once familiarized. Indeed, a child also thrives socially, emotionally, and cognitively if the caretaking arrangements are predictable and if parents are both sensitive to the child's physical and developmental needs and emotionally available (Homer & Guyer, 1993; Lamb, 1998).
The evening and overnight periods (like extended days with nap times) with nonresidential parents are especially important psychologically not only for infants but for toddlers and young children as well.
Evening and overnight periods provide opportunities for crucial social interactions and nurturing activities, including bathing, soothing hurts and anxieties, bedtime rituals, comforting in the middle of the night, and the reassurance and security of snuggling in the morning after awakening, that 1- to 2-hour visits cannot provide. These everyday activities promote and maintain trust and confidence in the parents while deepening and strengthening child-parent attachments.
There is absolutely no evidence that children's psychological adjustment or the relationships between children and their parents are harmed when children spend overnight periods with their other parents. An often mis-cited study by Solomon (1997) reported high levels of insecure infant-mother and infant-father attachment when parents lived apart, although toddlers who spent overnights with both their fathers and mothers were not significantly more likely to have insecure relationships than those children who did not have overnight visits with both parents.
Indeed, as articulated above, there is substantial evidence regarding the benefits of these regular experiences. Aside from maintaining and deepening attachments, overnights provide children with a diversity of social, emotional, and cognitively stimulating experiences that promote adaptability and healthy development.
In addition, meaningful father-child relationships may encourage fathers to remain involved in their children's lives by making them feel enfranchised as parents.
Other advantages of overnights are the normal combination of leisure and "real" time that extended parenting affords, the ability to stay abreast of the constant and complex changes in the child's development, opportunities for effective discipline and teaching that are central to good parenting, and opportunities to reconnect with the child in a meaningful way. In contrast, brief, 2-hour visits remind infants that the visiting parents exist but do not provide the broad array of parenting activities that anchor the relationships in their minds.
When mothers are breast-feeding, there is considerable hesitation, indecision, and perhaps strong maternal resistance regarding extended overnight or full-day separations. Breast-feeding is obviously one of the important contexts in which attachments are promoted, although it is by no means an essential context. Indeed, there is no evidence that breast-fed babies form closer or more secure relationships to their parents than do bottle-fed babies.
A father can feed an infant with the mother's expressed milk, particularly after nursing routines are well established.
When there are overnights, it is not crucial that the two residential beds or environments be the same, as infants adapt quickly to these differences.
It may be more important that feeding and sleep routines be similar in each household to ensure stability. Thus, parents should share information about bed times and rituals, night awakenings, food preferences and feeding schedules, effective practices for soothing, illnesses, and changes in routine as the child matures. Parents should be encouraged by attorneys or mediators to communicate directly, either verbally or in writing. If this is not possible due to the intransigence of either or both parents, then the court should order the involvement of co-parenting consultants, special masters, or custody mediators until the normal angers of divorce subside (Emery, 1994, 1999; Kelly, 1991, 1994). It is important as well to recognize that protracted litigation and the specter of winning or losing delay the decline of conflict (Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992), and thus, such disputes should be resolved with speed. Furthermore, communication quality should not be judged from the level of conflict surrounding and encouraged by the litigation.
The challenges of child-focused communication require commitment on the parents' part to their children's well-being but will have long-term positive consequences for children and for each of the parent-child relationships. Although it is clear that a cooperative relationship between parents is beneficial, parenting schedules that promote meaningful child-parent relationships should not be restricted after separation if one or both parents are not able to cooperate. Disengaged parents may function effectively in their parallel domains and, in so doing, enhance their children's adjustment (Lamb et al., 1997; Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992; Whiteside, 1998).
Because high conflict is associated with poorer child outcomes following divorce (Johnston, 1994; Kelly, in press; Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992), it is preferable that transitions be accomplished without overt conflict.
However, it is important to understand how high conflict is conceptualized in the relevant research, as the findings are often misunderstood. Almost by definition, of course, custody and access disputes involve conflict, but it is clear that such conflict in and of itself is not necessarily harmful. The high conflict found harmful by researchers such as Johnston (1994) typically involved repeated incidents of spousal violence and verbal aggression continued at intense levels for extended periods of time and often in front of the children. Johnston emphasized the importance of continued relationships with both parents except in those relatively uncommon circumstances in which intense, protracted conflict occurs.
High conflict at the time of transition may heighten children's anxiety about separation. Even without conflict, transitions can cause unsettled behavior, fretting, and crying as children move from one set of routines or one parental style to another. As noted above, this is especially true of children 15 to 24 months of age, when it is quite normal. If conflict is difficult to avoid because of one or both parents' hostility, then transitions should be implemented by babysitters or should take place at neutral places such as day care centers, special visiting centers set up for this purpose, or supportive grandparents' homes.
Occasionally, mothers are very hostile to fathers after separation as part of a legal strategy to prevent or diminish the fathers' participation in child rearing and co-parenting.
In such instances, fathers should not be denied adequate contact with their children because conflict between the parents exists.
Similarly, when fathers berate mothers at transitions or refuse to communicate about the infants' behaviors when with them, they will need to demonstrate more cooperative attitudes to warrant more extended contact.
It should be assumed that parents would have somewhat different parenting styles, which are related to their own upbringing and personalities. Regardless of these differences, children (and parents) benefit from discussions of disciplinary techniques and approaches as well as about the achievement of major developmental tasks such as toilet training. Furthermore, children will typically have different social experiences (and holiday rituals) with each parent and with extended families and friends.
HOW MUCH SEPARATION FROM PRIMARY ATTACHMENT FIGURES IS APPROPRIATE?
The extent to which infants and toddlers can tolerate
separation from significant attachment figures is related to their age, temperament, cognitive development, social experience, and the presence of older siblings. Aside from their very immature cognitive capacities, infants have no sense of time to help them understand separations, although their ability to tolerate longer separations from attachment figures increases with age.
The goal of any access schedule should be to avoid long separations from both parents
to minimize separation anxiety
and to have sufficiently frequent and broad contact with each parent to keep the infant secure, trusting, and comfortable in each relationship.
Preschool children can tolerate lengthier separations than toddlers can, and many are comfortable with extended weekends in each parent's home as well as overnights during the week. In general, however, most preschool children become stressed and unnecessarily overburdened by separations from either parent that last more than 3 or 4 days.
The exception might be planned vacations, in which parents and siblings are fully available to engage preschool children in novel, stimulating, and pleasurable activities. Even so, most parents would be advised to limit vacations at this age to 7 days and to schedule several vacations rather than one single lengthy vacation.
When children reach school age, they have significantly more autonomy and greatly increased cognitive, emotional, and time-keeping abilities, so the duration of separations from both parents becomes less critical. Even so, before the age of 7, and often thereafter, most youngsters still enjoy reunions during the week with each parent rather than extended periods without contact.
By 7 or 8 years of age, most youngsters can manage 5- to 7-day separations from parents as part of their regular schedules and 2-week vacations with each parent. Court orders for young children that reflect children's increasing ability to tolerate lengthier separations by building age-based and stepwise increases into vacation schedules are most responsive to children's best interests.
Many discussions of custody decisions have emphasized the need to identify a primary caretaker when attempting to determine where children should spend most of their residential time (for a review, see Kelly, 1994). The expanded world of young school-age children, the greater richness of children's emotional and cognitive abilities, and the increasing importance of children's social and recreational life outside the home lead many to conclude that the concept of the primary caretaker should play little role in determining custody, however, particularly after the age of 5 (Chambers, 1984. As noted throughout this article, children are enriched by regular, diverse, and appropriate interactions with two involved and emotionally supportive parents, and this is no less true of school-age children as they journey toward adolescence. Regardless of who has been the primary caretaker, therefore, children benefit from the extensive contact with both parents that fosters meaningful father-child and mother-child relationships.
Ainsworth, M.D., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (research on mother-infant attachment.)
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: VoL 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. (research on mother-infant attachment.)
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books. (research on mother-infant attachment.)
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York: BasicBooks. (research on mother-infant attachment.)
Chambers, D. L. (1984). Rethinking the substantive rules for custody disputes in divorce. Michigan Law Review, 83, 477-569. (anti-joint custody ; does not support the ideas in this paper.)
Cummings, E., & Davies, P (1994). Children and marital conflict: The impact of family dispute and resolution. New York: Guilford. (does not support the custody ideas set forth in this paper.)
Emery, R. E. (1994). Renegotiating family relationships: Divorce, child custody, and mediation. New York: Guilford. (does not support the custody ideas set forth in this paper.)
Emery, R. E. (1999). Marriage, divorce, and children's adjustment (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (does not support the custody ideas set forth in this paper.)
Garrity, C. B., & Boris, M. A. (1992). Caught in the middle: Protecting the children of high conflict divorce. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (does not support the custody ideas set forth in this paper.)
Goldstein, J., Freud, A., & Solnit, A. J. (1973). Beyond the best interests of the child. New York: Free Press. (anti-joint custody and does not support the ideas in this paper.)
Goldstein, J., Freud, A., Solnit, A.1., & Goldstein, S. (1986). In the best interests of the child. New York: Free Press. (anti-joint custody and does not support the ideas in this paper.)
Hodges, W. (1991). Interventions for children of divorce: Custody, access, and psychotherapy. New York: John Wiley. (way over-cited speculative therapy and intervention ideas.)
Homer, T. M., & Guyer, M. J. (1993). Infant placement and custody. In C. Zeanah (Ed.), Handbook of infant mental health (pp. 462-479). New York: Guilford. (does not support the custody ideas set forth in this paper.)
Johnston, J. (1994). High conflict divorce. The Future of Children: Children and Divorce, 4(l), 165-182. (does not support the custody ideas set forth in this paper.)
Kelly, J. B. (1991). Parent interaction after divorce: Comparison of mediated and adversarial divorce processes. Behavioral Sciences and Law, 9, 387-398. (citing to self.)
Kelly, J. B. (1994). The determination of child custody. The Future of Children: Children and Divorce,4(1), 121-142. (citing to self.)
Kelly, J. B. (1997). The best interests of the child: A concept in search of meaning. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 35(4), 377-387. (citing to self.)
Kelly, J. B. (in press). Children's adjustment in conflicted marriage and divorce: A decade review of research. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (citing to self.)
Lamb, M. E. ( 1997a). The development of infant-father attachments. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed., pp. 104-120, 332-342). New York: John Wiley. (citing to self.)
Lamb, M. E. (Ed.) (19976). The role of the father in child development (3rd. ed.). New York: John Wiley. (citing to self.)
Lamb, M. E. (1998). Nonparental childcare: Context, quality, correlates, and consequences. In W. Damon, I. E. Sigel, & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child development: Vol. 4. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp, 73-133). New York: John Wiley. (citing to self.)
Lamb, M. E. (1999). Non-custodial fathers and their impact on the children of divorce. In R. A. Thompson & P. Amato (Eds.), The post-divorce family: Research and policy issues (pp.105125). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (citing to self.)
Lamb, M. E., Bornstein, M. H., & Teti, D. M. (in press). Development in infancy (4th ed.). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (citing to self.)
Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C. P" Ketterlinus, R., & Fracasso, M. P ( 1999). Parent-child relationships. In M. H. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook (4th ed., pp. 411-450). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (citing to self.)
Lamb, M. E. Sternberg, K., & Thompson, R. A. (1997). The effects of divorce and custody arrangements on children's behavior, development, and adjustment. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 35, 393-404. (citing to self.)
Lamb, M. E., Thompson, R. A., Gardner, W. P, & Chamov, E. L. (1985). Infant-mother attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (citing to self.)
Maccoby, E., & Mnookin, R. (1992). Dividing the child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University ' Press. (does not support the custody ideas set forth in this paper.)
Solomon, J. (1997). Parenting schedules for the very young child: Summary of a longitudinal study on the development of attachment in separated and divorced families. Unpublished manuscript, Wallerstein Center for the Family in Transition, Corte Madera, CA. (does not support the custody ideas set forth in this paper.)
Thompson, R. A. (1998). Early sociopersonality development. In W, Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child development: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 25-104). New York: John Wiley. (does not support the custody ideas set forth in this paper.)
Whiteside, M. F ( 1998), The parental alliance following divorce: An overview. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 24(1), 3-24. (does not support the custody ideas set forth in this paper.)
Joan B. Kelly, Ph.D., is a clinical and research psychologist, assistant clinical professor at the University of California at San Francisco, and was previously director of the Northern California Mediation Center. She has published extensively in the area of divorce and children's adjustment, custody and access, and custody and divorce mediation. She is on the board of the AFCC, an organization devoted to supporting theories that make work for mental health professionals in the family court systems.
Michael E. Lamb, Ph.D.. is head of the Section on Social and Emotional Development at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. He has published extensively in the child development literature, with a focus on parent-child relationships, nonparental child care, and forensic interview processes. He works for a research arm of the federal government that in recent years has been particularly interested in anti-welfare, fatherhood promotion policies.
the text in blue on
this page is that of the authors and publisher of Using Child Development
Research to Make Appropriate Custody and Access Decisions for Young Children,
and Conciliation Courts Review; Los Angeles; Jul 2000; Joan B Kelly; Michael
E Lamb; Volume: 38 Issue: 3 : 297-311, Sage Publications. ISSN: 10475699.
NOTE: Part of the problem is that when it's about families, and most persons have them, the tendency is too great to personalize. Personal experiences, disappointments, and the tendency of some to want to "fix" what happened in their own pasts affects judgement. Gender bias contributes to skewed thinking as well.
Professional men especially tend to relate as "fathers" more to utterly dissimilar persons carrying the same label, and think "What if it were me" than they can (and should) to a being a single primary caregiving parent of children. The latter, ironically requires only one possible data change, the death of a spouse, to put them into very similar positions as those held by unwed single mothers, with the only -- and significant -- difference then being that under such circumstances, no strange man they had a transient previous relationship with ever will be coming out of the woodwork to claim the right to dictate what their schedules will be like, where they reside, or how they "should" rear their children.
Professional women who are in good marriages, or otherwise have emotionally positive and supportive relationships with the fathers of their children, or their own fathers, also may assign the label of fatherhood first, and define the person so labelled as sharing the characteristics that label calls up, emotionally, in their personal experiences. Another personal situation factor that distorts the thinking of many professional women is that most did not get to be professional women by prioritizing the care and well-being of their children; now, they suffer guilt and the desire to prove that what they did (or didn't do) for their own children did not harm them, or helped them (whether that was joint custody, or extensive third party care.) And still another factor is that a lot of these women are childless or are second wives married to divorced men.
NOTE: I considered trying to do this a little more gently, or a little more respectfully of the academic standing of Lamb, especially, as a giant in the research field, or with a lighter touch, perhaps with a parody article by a Ross Lamb and Min Jelly, but my heart just wasn't in it. Children are being harmed while these psychological researchers and others like them sell out their integrity to promote father's rights, playing on the ignorance of their legal audience, the self-interest rampant in the mental health audience, and the misogyny and gullibility of everyone else.
A lot of false ideas can be presented in a way that makes it appear as if they have been established by following technically correct statements and summaries of research with conclusions and opinions that do not logically follow from that research and which are not supported by findings in the cited research.
NOTE: Children's relationships with their mothers are far more complex than their relationships with their fathers. Both negatives and positives are felt more strongly (as is the case with interactions with other persons of relatively different attachments, e.g. the higher level of anger felt upon a wrong or betrayal of trust committed by a lover versus a casual friend.) Consequently, it is true that many times (especially in our cultures of overly prolonged legal "childhood" and which also denigrate adult women's worths and social status) older children and adult children sometimes come to prefer and enjoy their fathers over their mothers (just as at some point in their lives they also come to prefer their spouses to both of their parents.) This phenomenon is not inconsistent with primary attachment theory, and should not be viewed as such. (I have observed that it does, however, color the perceptions of a number of custody evaluators, lawyers, and activists who have experienced difficult relationships with their own mothers and/or with their own children, or simply have identified more with men in this male-standard world. See liznotes generally on this issue.)
ADDITIONAL NOTE: Consider: what would differentiate the second-parent caregiver from anyone else who loves the child as well and resides in the child's household? That he once had sex with the mother? Obviously not. That there's a DNA tie? Obviously not, since other relatives, grandparents, siblings, etc. also share DNA. So what, then? De facto parent status? (This latter would seem to be an argument to abolish the rights of nonresident biological parents in favor of resident stepparents and paramours functioning in a parenting capacity.) The answer is: nothing. The notion of automatic biological paternal ties is irrational, and the claim to its importance is political. Our preferences for biological fathers as second parents hail from the happenstance of cultural ideas. This structure of "family" is not a given in human society, and not indicative of any "need" for human child wellbeing. The only reason children usually have strong ties to biological fathers in our society is that in most nuclear intact households, our cultural ideal, there are two full-time resident adults, and the father happens to be one of them. This is politics. Not "children's best interests." See the research. And more research.
NOTE: I have a difficult time believing that this was just the unfortunate accidental result of overzealous political correctness, given that so much of Lamb's research actually has involved looking at and comparing the differences in infants' relationships with fathers and mothers; one would think that Lamb, in particular, would be attuned to this.
See, e.g., from earlier and arguably less agenda'd research: Ann M. Frodi, Michael E. Lamb, et al., Father-mother infant interaction in traditional and nontraditional Swedish families: A longtitudinal study, 5 J of Fam & Econ Issues 3 (1983): "Regardless of relative involvement in child care, infants directed more affiliative and attachment behaviors to their mothers than to their fathers."
NOTE: Reproduction is not gender neutral. Females' bodies, from gestation through breastfeeding, including their hormones (which regulate behavior and emotions) are geared to childbearing and rearing in ways that males' bodies simply are not. In the absence of research indicating otherwise, and in the context of human history and anthropological observations of societies over eons, the position which stretches credulity is the one which presumes that there are no other differences in any other ways than physically between mothers and fathers. Even recognizing that not all mothers are nurturing of their own offspring, and that many women are not nurturing in general toward non-offspring others, is not tantamount to support for the claim that therefore there are no differences between fathers and mothers vis a vis their own children. Exceptions always exist of course, and it is fallacious to refuse to recognize that possibility or readily to recognize and acknowledge such exceptions when they present themselves. However, it is equally fallacious to presume that observable differences in children's relationships with their fathers and mothers are all merely attributable to some lack of paternal opportunity, or maternal gatekeeping, or social inducements -- and not at least as likely to be the result of real sex-based differences between the parents.
The gender "essentialists" approach the agenda of achieving parental rights for fathers in a way that is precisely the opposite of gender neutralists such as Lamb and Kelly -- by purporting to find a special "need" of children for male parenting or role modeling. They then struggle with the problem of how to establish this as a need for the particular biological sire. Their approach is just as scientifically unsupportable, but politically is somewhat more honest and more centered on children's interests. For example, Blankenhorn would condemn divorce but in the post-divorce circumstances, would prioritize children's welfare by emphasizing continuity and stability in the maternal home rather than just seeking to perpetuate male parenting rights in the absence of marriage via joint custody and a no-fault "normalization" of divorce as a viable pretense of "family" or the idiotic notion of children's having a "bi-buclear family." See the research, and see "Deconstructing the Deconstructing: a critique of Silverstein and Auerbach."
Also see, for research on what happens when mammal infants repeatedly are removed from their mothers (and other abuse): Cicchetti D. "An Odyssey of Discovery: Lessons Learned through Three Decades of Research on Child Maltreatment", American Psychologist (Nov. 2004): Vol. 59, No. 8, pp. 73141. Glaser D. "Child Abuse and Neglect and the Brain A Review," Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines (Jan.Feb. 2000): Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 97116. Luecken LJ, et al. "Early Caregiving and Physiological Stress Responses," Clinical Psychology Review (May 2004): Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 17191. Nemeroff CB, et al. "Differential Responses to Psychotherapy versus Pharmacotherapy in Patients with Chronic Forms of Major Depression in Childhood Trauma," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Nov. 25, 2003): Vol. 100, No. 24, pp.14,29396. Sapolsky RM. Why Zebras Don¹t Get Ulcers: A Guide to Stress, Stress Related Diseases, and Coping. W.H. Freeman, 1994.
"Despite appearances to the contrary (fostered by anthropocentric nursery stories), a distinct role for male parents does not exist in nature. Fatherhood was invented by humans during the agricultural revolution about six thousand years ago. Symbolized by the new god-king, it incorporated the mother's originally superior role in primate families -- the control or ownership of children. The male deity could even make his own offspring without female help. This inflated political figure was designed to compensate for the male's modest role in procreation, once the facts of life were known. Patriarchy was born out of an envious attack on mothers." SEBASTIAN KRAEMER B.A., M.R.C.P., F.R.C.Psych (1991) The Origins of Fatherhood: An Ancient Family Process Family Process 30 (4), 377-392.
NOTE: While the constant "management" of it as some kind of meaningless noise implies otherwise, the reality is that babies and young children just don't fret and cry for no reason at all, as if these were defective responses to some kind of stimulus that "should" provide a different kind of response. The need to mold human children as if they were blank slates, or some kind of clay, has resulted in all kinds of now-discredited childrearing ideas over the eons, everything from the ostensible dangers of breastfeeding, to those of sparing the rod; from genital and other physical mutilations thought to be necessary for health or spiritual salvation, to the very mutilation of minds and emotions. One would think, at the least, that if we've learned nothing else, it would be to slow down, especially in circumstances in which there is not even a modicum of research to support the cherished religious, social and political notions du jour.
(Find annotated Research on Fatherhood, Motherhood, Joint Custody and related topics at http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz)
Abidin, R. (1995). Parenting Stress Index, Third Edition: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1973). The development of infant-mother attachment. In B. M. Caldwell & H. Ricciuti (Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol. 3). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Bell, S. M. (1974). Mother-infant interaction and the development of competence. In K. J. Connolly & J. S. Bruner (Eds.), The growth of competence (pp. 97-118). New York: Academic.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C, Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Arrendondo & Edwards (2000). Attachment, Bonding and Reciprocal Connectedness; limitations of Attachment theory in the Juvenile and Family Court; Journal of the Center for Families, Children & the Courts, 109-127.
Belsky, J. (2001). Emanuel Miller Lecture Developmental Risks (Still) Associated with Early Child Care. J. Child Psycho). Psychiat. Vol. 42, No. 7, pp. 845-859. ("Evidence indicating that early, extensive, and continuous nonmaternal care is associated with less harmonious parent-child relations and elevated levels of aggression and noncompliance suggests that concerns raised about early and extensive child care 15 years ago remain valid and that alternative explanations of Belsky's originally controversial conclusion do not account for seemingly adverse effects of routine nonmaternal care that continue to be reported in the literature... No longer is it tenable for developmental scholars and child-care advocates to deride the notion that early and extensive nonmaternal care of the kind available in most communities poses risks for young children and perhaps the larger society as well. Importantly, even some one-time critics of this proposition have come to acknowledge that there is something about lots of time in nonmaternal care beginning in the first year of life that poses risks for children that may not be entirely attributable to the quality of care they receive.")
Belsky, J. (1999). Interactional and contextual determinants of attachment security. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications (pp. 249-264). New York: Guildford Press.
Belsky, J. (1996). Parent, infant, and social-contextual antecedents of father-son attachment security. Developmental Psychology, 5, 905-913.
Belsky, J., Fish, M., & Isabella, R. (1991). Continuity and discontinuity in infant negative and positive emotionality: Family antecedent and attachment consequences. Developmental Psychology, 27, 421-431.
Belsky, J., & Isabella, R. A. (1988). Maternal, infant, and social-contextual determinants of attachment security. In J. Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment (pp. 41-94). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Belsky, J., Rosenberger, K., & Crnic, K. (1995). Maternal personality, marital quality, social support, and infant temperament: Their significance for infant-mother attachment in human families. In C. Pryce, R. Martin, & D. Skuse (Eds.), Motherhood in human and nonhuman primates (pp. 115-124). Basel: Karger.
Belsky, J., Lerner, R.M., & Spanier, B.G. (1984). The Child in the Family. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing, pp. 37-58.
Berlin, L., & Cassidy, J. (1999). Relations among relationships: Contributions from attachment theory and research. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 688-712). New York: Guilford Press.
Berlin, Lisa J. et al., Loneliness in Young Children and Infant-Mother Attachment: A Longitudinal Study, 41 Merrill-Palmer Q. 1, 91-103 (1995) (Examined the relationship between childhood loneliness and insecure-ambivalent attachment in infancy. As predicted, the most loneliness in early childhood was reported by children classified insecure-ambivalent in infancy. Possible explanations center on the contribution of attachment to peer relationships, internal working models, and child temperament.)
Berrick, J., Needell, B., Barth, R., & Jonson-Reid, M. (1998). The Tender Years. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blehar, M. C., Lieberman, A. F., & Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1977). Early face-to-face interaction and its relation to later mother-infant attachment. Child Development, 48, 182-194.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and Loss. Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic.
Bradley, R. H., Caldwell, B. M., Rock, S. L., Ramey, C. T., Barnard, K. E., Gray, C., et al. (1989). Home environment and cognitive development in the first three years of life: A collaborative study involving six sites and three ethnic groups in North America. Developmental Psychology, 25, 17-235.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development. Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues (pp. 187-249). London: JAI Press.
Burchinal, M., Roberts, J., Nabors, L., & Bryant, D. (1996). Quality of center child care and infant cognitive and language development. Child Development, 67(2), 606-620.
Bus, A. G., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1988). Mother-child interactions, attachment and emergent literacy: A cross-sectional study. Child Development, 59(5), 1262-1272.
Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (1984). The Home Observation for the Measurement of the Environment. Little Rock: University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
Carlson, E. (1998). A prospective longitudinal study of attachment disorganization/disorientation. Child Development, 69, 1107-1128.
Cicchetti, D., Rogosch, F. A., & Toth, S. L. (1998). Maternal depressive disorder and contextual risk: Contributions to the development of attachment insecurity and behavior problems in toddlerhood. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 283-300.
Cicchetti D. "An Odyssey of Discovery: Lessons Learned through Three Decades of Research on Child Maltreatment", American Psychologist (Nov. 2004): Vol. 59, No. 8, pp. 73141.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
Crnic, K. A., Greenberg, M. T., & Slough, N. M. (1986). Early stress and social support influences on mothers' and high-risk infants' functioning in late infancy. Infant Mental Health Journal, 7, 19-33.
Cryer, D., Hurwitz, S., & Wolery, M. (2000). Continuity of caregiver for infants and toddlers in center-based child care: Report on a survey of center practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(4), 497-514.
Cummings, E. M. (1980). Caregiver stability and day care. Developmental Psychology, 16(1), 31-37.
DeMulder, E. K., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1991). Attachment with affectively ill and well mothers: Current behavioral correlates. Developmental Psychopathology, 3, 227-242.
De Wolff, M., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment. Child Development, 68, 571-591.
Ehrle, J., Adams, G., & Tout, K. (2001). Who's Caring for Our Youngest Children?
Erdman Caffery, An Interview with Robert Marvin: Linking Systems and Attachment Theory; The Family Journal Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families Vol 8 No3 2000 309-316
Erickson, M., Sroufe, A., & Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship between quality of attachment and behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. In I. Bretherton and E. Waters (Eds.). Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 147-166.
Essa, E. L., Favre, K., Thweatt, G., & Waugh, S. (1999). Continuity of care for infants and toddlers. Early Development and Care, 148, 11-19.
Farran, D.C., & Ramey, C.T. (1977). Infant day care and attachment behaviors toward mothers and teachers. Child Development, 48, 1112-1116.
Fown, N. (1977). Attachment of kibbutz infants to mother and metapelet. Child Development, 48, 1228-1239.
Freud, A., & Burlingham, D. (1944). Infants without families. New York: International Universities Press.
Frodi, A., Keller, B., Foye, H., Liptak, G., Bridges, L., Grolnick, W., et al. (1984). Determinants of attachment and master motivation in infants born to adolescent mothers. Infant Mental Health Journal, 5, 15-23.
Frosch, C., Mangelsdorf, S., & McHale, J. (2000). Marital behavior and the security of preschooler-parent attachment relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 144-161.
Garmezy, N., Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and competence in children: A building block for developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55, 97-111.
Gean, M., Gillmore, J., & Dowler, J. (1985). Infants and toddlers in supervised custody: A pilot study for visitation. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24, 5, 608-612.
Gelfand, D., & Teti, D. (1990). The effects of maternal depression on children. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 329-353.
Glaser D. "Child Abuse and Neglect and the Brain A Review," Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines (Jan.Feb. 2000): Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 97116
Goerge, R., & Wulczyn, F. (1998). Placement experiences of the youngest foster care population: Findings from the multistate foster care data archive. Zero to Three, 19(3), 8-13.
Goldberg, W. A., & Easterbrooks, M. A. (1984). The role of marital quality in toddler development. Developmental Psychology, 20, 504-514.
Goldsmith, H. H., & Alansky, J. A. (1987). Maternal and infant temperamental predictors of attachment: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 805-816.
Goldsmith, H. H., & Harmon, C. (1994).Temperament and attachment; Individuals and relationships. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 53-57.
Goossens, F. A., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1990). Quality of infants' attachments to professional caregivers: Relation to infant-parent and day-care characteristics. Child Development, 61(3), 832-837.
Hadadian, A., & Merbler, J. (1996). Mother's stress: Implications for attachment relationships. Early Child Development and Care, 125, 59-66.
Harris, J. (1992). Babies in prison. Zero to Three, 13, 17-21.
Helburn, S. W. (Ed.). (1995). Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers. Technical report. Denver: University of Colorado at Denver.
Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1992). Children's relationships with caregivers: Mothers and child care teachers. Child Development, 63(4), 859-866.
Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1993). The changing experience of child care: Changes in teachers and in teacher-child relationships and children's social competence with peers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8(1), 15-32.
Jacobson, J. L., & Wille, D. E. (1986). The influence of attachment pattern on developmental changes in peer interaction from the toddler to the preschool period. Child Development, 57(2), 338-347.
Jarvis, P. A., & Creasey, G. L. (1991). Parental stress, coping, and attachment in families with an 18-month-old infant. Infant Behavior and Development, 14, 383-395.
Kagan, J. (1982). Psychological research on the human infant: An evaluative summary. New York: W. T. Grant Foundation.
Klann-Delius, G., & Hofmeister, C. (1997). The development of communicative competence of securely and insecurely attached children in interactions with their mothers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26(1), 69-88.
Kurdek, Lawrence A. (2008). Pet dogs as attachment figures. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol. 25, No. 2, 247-266.
Laible, D. J., & Thompson, R. A. (1998). Attachment and emotional understanding in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1038-1045.
Laible, D. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2000). Mother-child discourse, attachment security, shared positive affect, and early conscience development. Child Development, 71, 1424-1440.
Lieberman, M., Doyle, A., & Markiewicz, D. (1999). Developmental patterns in security of attachment to mother and father in late childhood and early adolescence: Associations with peer relations. Child Development, 70, 202-213.
Luecken LJ, et al. "Early Caregiving and Physiological Stress Responses," Clinical Psychology Review (May 2004): Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 17191.
Luster, T, & Rhoades, K. (1989). The relation between child-rearing beliefs and the home environment in a sample of adolescent mothers. Family Relations, 38, 317-322.
Lyons (1996). "Attachment relationships among children with aggressive behavior problems. The role of disorganized early attachment patterns." Journ of Con and Clin Psych, 64(1), 64-73.
Lyons-Ruth, K., Alpern, L., & Repacholi, B. (1993). Disorganized infant attachment classification and maternal psychosocial problems as predictors of hostile-aggressive behavior in the preschool classroom. Child Development, 64, 572-585.
Matas, L., Arend, R., & Sroufe, L. (1978). Continuity of adaptation in the second year: The relationship between quality of attachment and later competence. Child Development, 49(3), 547-556.
Murray, L., Fiori-Cowley, A., Hooper, R., & Cooper, P. (1996). The impact of postnatal depression and associated adversity on early mother-infant interactions and later infant outcome. Child Development, 67, 2512-2526.
Nemeroff CB, et al. "Differential Responses to Psychotherapy versus Pharmacotherapy in Patients with Chronic Forms of Major Depression in Childhood Trauma," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Nov. 25, 2003): Vol. 100, No. 24, pp.14,29396
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1996). Characteristics of infant child care: Factors contributing to positive caregiving. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11(3), 269-306.
Parke, R. D. (1996). Fatherhood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pp. 48-60 (75% of married fathers have no regular infant-care responsibilities; 43% report never changing a diaper; Euro-American fathers on average spend only 20- 25% the time mothers do in direct child care, 33% when both parents work.)
Pederson, D. R., Gleason, K. E., Moran, G, & Bento, S. (1998). Maternal attachment representations, maternal sensitivity, and the infant-mother attachment relationship. Developmental Psychology, 5, 925-933.
Pederson, D. R., & Moran, G. (1995). A categorical description of infant-mother relationships in the home and its relation to Q-sort measures of infant-mother interaction. In E. Waters, B. Vaughn, G. Posada, & K. Kondo-Ikemura (Eds.), Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60 (2-3, Serial No. 244), 247-254.
Pederson, D., Moran, G., Sitko, C., Campbell, K., Ghesquire, K., & Acton, H. (1990). Maternal sensitivity and the security of infant-mother attachment: A Q-sort study. Child Development, 61, 1974-1983.
Pilowsky, D., & Kate, W. (1996). Foster children in acute crisis: Assessing critical aspects of attachment. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 1095-1097.
Posada, G., Gao, Y., Wu, F., Posada, R., Tascon, M., Schoelmerich, A., et al. (1995). The secure-base phenomenon across cultures: Children's behavior, mothers' preferences, and experts' concepts. In E. Waters, B. Vaughn, G. Posada, & K. Kondo-Ikemura (Eds.), Caregiving, cultural, and cognitive perspectives on secure-base behavior and working models: New growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60 (2-3, Serial No. 244, pp. 27-48).
Posada, & K. Kondo-Ikemura (Eds.), Caregiving, cultural, and cognitive perspectives on secure-base behavior and working models: New growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60 (2-3, Serial No. 244, pp. 234-246).
Pruett, M.K., Ebling, R & Insabella, G. (2004). Critical aspects of parenting plans for young children. FCR, 42 (1), 39-59. Children's ages: birth to 6 years. Findings inconsistent in some ways with Solomon & George - some outcomes other than attachment were better for kids with overnights.
Raikes, H. (1993). Relationship duration in infant care: Time with a high-ability teacher and infant-teacher attachment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8(3), 309-325.
Sapolsky RM. Why Zebras Don¹t Get Ulcers: A Guide to Stress, Stress Related Diseases, and Coping. W.H. Freeman, 1994.
Seifer, R. (1995). Perils and pitfalls of high-risk research. Developmental Psychology, 31, 420-424.
Seifer, R., Schiller, M., Sameroff, A. J., Resnick, S., & Riordan, K. (1996). Attachment, maternal sensitivity, and infant temperament during the first year of life. Developmental Psychology, 32, 12-25.
Shaw, D. S., & Vondra, J. I. (1993). Chronic family adversity and infant attachment security. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34, 1205-1215.
Simms, M. (1991). Foster children and the foster care system, part II: Impact on the child. Current Problems in Pediatrics, 21, 345-369.
Smith, P. B., & Pederson, D. R. (1988). Maternal sensitivity and patterns of infant-mother attachment. Child Development, 59(4), 1097-1101.
Solis, M. L., & Abidin, R. R. (1991). The Spanish version Parenting Stress Index: A Psychometric Study. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 20, 372-378.
Solomon, J., & George, C. (1999). The development of attachment in separated and divorced families: Effects of overnight visitation, parent and couple variables. Attachment and Human Development, 1, 2 - 33.
Spieker, S. J., & Booth, C. L. (1988). Maternal antecedents of attachment quality: What makes social risk risky? In J. Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical Implications of Attachment (pp. 95-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spitz, R. (1945). Hospitalism: An inquiry into the genesis of psychiatric conditions in early childhood. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1, 53-74.
Sroufe, L. A. (1985). Attachment classification from the perspective of infant-caregiver relationships and infant temperament. Child Development, 56, 1-14.
Stormshak, Bellanti, Bierman; The quality of sibling relationships and the development of social competence and behavior control in Aggressive children; 1996; Developmental psychology vol 32; no 1 79-89
Stovall, K., & Dozier, M. (1998). Infants in foster care: An attachment theory perspective. Adoption Quarterly, 2, 55-88.
Susman-Stillman, A., Kalkoske, M., Egeland, B., & Waldman, I. (1996). Infant temperament and maternal sensitivity as predictors of attachment security. Infant Behavior and Development, 19, 33-47.
Teti, D. M., & Gelfand, D. M. (1991). Behavioral competence among mothers of infants in the first year: The mediational role of maternal self-efficacy. Child Development, 62, 918-929.
Teti, D. M., Gelfand, D. M., Messinger, D. S. & Isabella, R. (1995). Maternal depression and the quality of early attachment: An examination of infants, preschoolers, and their mothers. Developmental Psychology, 31, 364-376.
Teti, D. M., & McGourty, S. (1996). Using mothers versus trained observers in assessing children's secure base behavior: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Child Development, 67, 597-605.
Teti, D. M., Nakagawa, M., Das, R., & Wirth, O. (1991). Security of attachment between preschoolers and their mothers: Relations among social interaction, parenting stress, and mothers' sorts of the Attachment Q-Set. Developmental Psychology, 27, 440-447.
Tyler, R., Howard, J., Espinosa, M., & Doakes, S. (1997). Placement with substance-abusing mothers vs. placement with other relatives: Infant outcomes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21, 337-349.
Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Dijkstra, J., & Bus, A. G. (1995). Attachment, intelligence and language: A meta-analysis. Social Development, 4(2), 115-128.
Van IJzendoorn, M.H. (June 1994). Attachment in context. Kibbutz child-rearing as a historical experiment. Invited paper presented at the workshop on Human lives in time and place (Chair: G. Elder), at the Biennial Meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, June 27-July 2, 1994, Amsterdam. ("In the beginning of the eighties, Sagi, Lamb and others used the Strange Situation to study the relationships of 85 communally sleeping kibbutz infants with their parents and caregivers. They also examined the relationships with their mothers of 36 Israeli infants attending city day-care facilities. They found that only 59% of kibbutz infants were securely attached to their mothers, äs compared with 75% of Israeli day-care infants, and with 65%-70% found in most studies. Among children with insecure attachments in both Israeli samples, anxious-ambivalent relationships were overrepresented.")
Wachs, T. (1990). Must the physical environment be mediated by the social environment in order to influence development?: A further test. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 11, 163-178.
Wachs, T. D., & Camli, O. (1991). Do ecological or individual characteristics mediate the influence of the physical environment upon maternal behavior? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 249-264.
Walters, Wippman, Stroufe (1979). "Attachment, positive affect, and competence in the peer group: Two studies in construct validation." Child Development, 50, 821-829.
Wartner, Grossmann, Fremmer-Bombick, Suess. (1994). "Attachment patterns at age 6 in South Germany: Predictability from infance and implications for preschool behavior." Child Development, 65, 1014-1027.
Waters, E. (1995). Appendix A: The attachment Q-set (version 3.0). In E. Waters, B. Vaughn, G.
Weinfield, N. S., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2000). Attachment from infancy to early adulthood in a high-risk sample: Continuity, discontinuity, and their correlates. Child Development, 71, 695-702. Teti, D. M., & McGourty, S. (1996). Using mothers versus trained observers in assessing children's secure base behavior: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Child Development, 67, 597-605.
Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (1989). Who Cares? Child Care Teachers and the Quality of Care in America. Final Report of the National Child Care Staffing Study. Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project.
Wobie, K., Eyler, F. D., Conlan, M., Clarke, L., & Behnke, M. (1997). Women and treatment in residential treatment: Outcomes for mothers and their infants. Journal of Drug Issues, 27(3), 585-606.
Zeanah, C. H. et al. (2000). Disorganized attachment associated with partner violence: A research note. Infant Mental Health Journal,Volume 20, Issue 1 , Pages 77-86 (Seventy-two low-income mothers and their 15-month-old infants were evaluated at home and in the laboratory to determine whether mothers' reports of distress and partner violence were associated with infant-mother attachment and infant mastery motivation. As predicted, mothers who experienced more serious partner violence were more likely to have infants with disorganized attachments to them. There was no association between mothers' experiences of partner violence and infant mastery motivation.)
S., & DePanfilis, J. (1997). Factors affecting foster care placement
of children receiving child protective services. Social Work Research,
MAIN PAGE | COLLECTIONS
HISTORY LIBRARY | RESEARCH ROOMS
| THE READING ROOM
FATHERLESS CHILDREN STORIES | THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE | WOMAN SUFFRAGE TIMELINE | THE LIZ LIBRARY ENTRANCE
as otherwise noted, all contents in this collection are copyright 1996-2013
the liz library. All rights
This site is hosted and maintained by argate.net Send queries to: sarah-at-thelizlibrary.org