Second-Generation Effectsof Unresolved

Trauma in Nonmaltreating Parenls:

Dissociated,Frightened,andThreatening
ParentalBehavior

E R I K H E S S E ,P h . D ,
MARY MAIN, Ph.D.

... it is certainthat theprcblen aí fear is íhe me.itinqpoint oí

manjlinponant questions, an eniSna\rhasecompletesolution
woAlà castaÍload of li]ht uponpsychic|ífe
-S. Frend,1920.P 340

À T r a . H \ r - v l H o R \ o R l c \ Á l l - D u i t h iIlh " d o m r i n
otp')cho
Aanrl}i..:rnd lrkemlcl'of p.),\o"nJlytrcrl-eorlexJírune'he
influenceof early developmenl upon both healthyand pathological
formsof psychological functioning(Bowlby,1969).Both attachment
theoryand its accompanying reserJchparadigmsdiffer lrom lradi
iional psychoanalytic peÍspectives, however.in (à) focusingon the
evolutionaÍy originsor theadapiive(biological)functionofthe child's
DÍ Hese i\ dnc.br or rhc socill D*eLopmm!Pdjed in óê D.PaíD
rh. Univ.sity olcalilomjr I Berkd.y.arJ k ai AdjumtS.icdi d rheceDbr lorChild id

Dr. Mrin is r prcresorin dclcldp eital .nd biolosicrlpsvchologv

id rheDèprfrmentoI
Psycholoey xr rheUiivq\iiy orcilifomÈ ri D.ikd.y
"$lcrv
SandkÍ,vbos
Thil prpèÍisd.dicÍcd to rhcdei,ory oforÍ rÍièid Joseph Prir!iPLc'
i\ closly Elarcd to rhe cetrÍrl thcmès*ithin .his $óà. w. rhink SvJocvBliÍ, Dirtrx
Dhnoíd. samh Hcssc.Jo\ephLichrcrb.q, rM Nhnnls vri Uzendoomlor rcmÍks xnd
sugsèÍjoNqhich kd ro subírntialinPÍovenenGin thi\ prc\eÍrii
Amcncxí Psychornalytic Fouidíioí, thc Hris Foundationor chLcrgo,and rhc tuhlc.
slirurs rbuiddioiorMunichforrhc;nrarciÀlarsnbncèinsuPpoíorthnPÍoied

481
.llJl E R I KI L E \ ! E \ N D T ] \ ] ? Y M \ I N

tie to iii mother rnd relrtcdl), (b) encoutaginga simultirneouslv

ethologicalmd experimental approachto researchEarlv rescarchin
rtmchDrenl hadpcrhaps.ighl]ybeencriticizedfo|.placingtoo greatrn
emphnsis on theobseNationof behsviorx! the expenseof ln examF
nation of intemÀlproccsses. ln rccent yeaÍs howevcÍ significant
pfogresshasbeenmrde within the field of attachnentard wavsoi
systemiticallydpploaching the Íudy of rcpÍesentationalprocesses in
childÍen and jn itdults hxve been developed(Main, Kaplan and
Crssidy.l9E5).
As à result,Íesearch]n attachmcnt hasgainedlhe increasiDg atten-
tion ot' adultand child cliniciansThls is no doubtduein parl 1othe
creationof language-based nethodologies foÍ example,the Aduh
AuachmentInterview.with i1semphrsisuponindividualdiffèrences
in languagcusageduÍingthe discussion of prÍ experiences-which
hasadvanced the potentirifor designinsandLesting clinicrl hvpolhe
sesin aduhs,àndmo.cÍecentlyin htency-aged childrenaswell' (AAI'
George.Knplan.and Main, 198'1.1985,199ólMain rnd Goldwyn.
1984-1998:see Hesse,1999a,for oveNiew) Concurendv' fine
gminedresearch intothebehaviorof parenlsandiífrnts hascontinred
to be corducte.lagainsithebackdropof the Ainswo(h strxngesiiua
tion procedure(AinswoÍh et xl., i978) and its middle-childhood
equivalents (Mrin andCrssidy,1988),ln additionto olher laborrtorv
andhone obse.vation(s) of pàrentoffspÍinginleractionsBv combin
ing thcse nrethodologies. researchers ffe beginning|o investigate
relations beiween represeDtational pÍocessesin cregivers and
beharioÍrl and(later)repfesentational lrocessesin thei offspÍing.lt

I\ HesÈ\ (l9eeu)o!àvc!! iidi

Nírure.Í 6ÍíDcY d TnnnYCoILE
inlcRir{r coiducrcdwnh ll }caÍ old child.cDin Dtrblii (N = 2l) hrv. r ??9 \t.trrê Ís.
mdch b rho:. oI thc; írrlt^, a ljidii-q v ually idcnri.
i,r\êctrre
ol mothd'nih \rdpks (rn lrcnddófr. 1995)
Amnrnki ríd liis colLcllEs I rlr Uil!.'\iry of Romc
rrichni.d íÍ8 Írblc Iiom r0ro 11rer6 oI.-iè. whih in ahLiDJ
Clini. ii Londonhrvd routrd
dnlnmiored ll fllnL) lbD\ed chikkcn (6.rlyeÍs) tionrthcnmÍ.hèd (20co,niNrnv and

cold')n(19311993)syÍemoli Tr{ÈlllpdsomlcommrricÍion,1999)
6nds rhrr rhe hll idcrlirs works *cll of rsc ro,1 older, bur
undqÍrDdjig quflÈs Egifdlo! pJ$ expea.rcc'\cèned dilhcuLr
Ío
\LLo\Dc,\t 1to.t-F. ,\o\.vdr o \TI\6 P\PrlT 481

is therefoÍegÍrduallybecomingpossibleto syslematjze theprecrÍsors

to a vadetyofclinicaloutcomes.
Using trrditlonalaltachment theory as well as son1eof its more
recentextensions, thii presentationfbcusesupontheconfusing,disoÊ
ganizinganddisorienting effectswhjc| repeatedexperiences involv
ing fearofthe prent arelikely to engender anongallachedinfants-h
somecases,ofcoufte,an infaDtwill be fearfulofthe paÍentasa res!'lt
of physicalabuse-Here, however.we addressÈe nnplcationsoí
interactingwnh a parentwho is in no way physicallymltrexting,
but-as a resuhof their own iraumaticexperiences or írightening
ideation sporadically alarmsthe infa.t via the exhibitionof fright-
ened,dissociated. or anomalous forms of threatening behavior.We
sugges! that spuriousbut ongoinginleractions of this kind canoccut
evenwhena parentis normallysensitiveandresponsive to the infanl,
andcanleadin tlrn to theinfanfs inabililyto remainorsanizedundel

Mmy clinicianswill no doub! have encounter€d càsesin which

they havedeieÍminedlhat traumaticexperiences on the paÍ of the
padent'spl1r€rrr havesomehow jndi.ecllybecomeassociáled wilh the
patienfsown symptomatology. a conclusion whichappears especially
intÍigningwhereit is otherwisedifficult !o convincinglyidentifymore
direc!experientiàl originsof the patient'smentalÍate. Findingsthat
ultimatelybearuponlhis laÍicular kind of secondgeneration effect
werefirst pÍovidedby theseaulhors(Main and Hesse,1990,1992),
md havebeenreplicatedin numerous invesiigations of otherlow-risk
samples (see especially Ainswonh and Eichberg. 1991; \'an
IJzendoom,1995; Hesse, 1999b).In these studies.lhe parenfs
uffesolved,/traumatized statehasbeenidentifiedvia markedlapr.r à
the monitaÍing oÍ reasohingor dilcoune d!Íing rhe altempteddiscus
sion of potentiallytÍaumaticeventswithin the Aduli Altachment
Irre.view.TheseLrlseshavefepeatedlybeenlouDdrssociàtedwith
an emergingmÀÍkerof the increased likeljhoodof lateÍnenlal d1ffi'
culiies. nameiy the infanfs disorganized./disoriented behavior in
Ainswofths strangesitDaiioDpÍocedure(Ainsworthe! al., 1978,
o , c . r , , e do e l o $ /P ' . " n r) . r h e . e . i p . - -i l J . \ o u . . (
hale beenfoundlssocialedwjth frighlenedand/orfrightenirginler-
actionswith the infantin the homeor laboratorysetting(hcobvitz,
HazenandRiggs,1997;Jacobvitz,1998iSchueD-sel, van lJzendoom
 ÈRIK HESSEÀND I{ARY MAIN

and B*ermans-Kranenburg, 1997,1999) In turn, frightened/fright-

field. or laborrlory
eningprrenlalbehaviofas identifiedin lhe hon1e,
settjnghrs beenfound predicliveof disorganiTed/disoriented infant
strangesituationbehavior(Schu€ngel e! al, 1997,1999;Tnie et al,
1998iAbramsandRifkin. 1999:Lyons-Ruth, Bronfmrn,andParsons'

We begin this presenlation with a review of relationsemerging

beiweendisorganized,/disoriented infantattachment slatusandvarying
kindsof later'develoPing psychological difficulty.Fof nany children
disorganized with thepfiÍnarycaregiverin infancy,theseunfavorable
sequelaeinclude role inveding (conlÍol1lng)behaviortoward the
prrent,represenlational and behavioralindicesof continuingexperi-
encesof fear and anxiety,and severalof the traditionalindicesof
psychopathology. We thenprovidean overviewof attachment lheory.
showinghow beingfrightened by theparentplacesthe aÍachedinfant
in an inesotvable.disoÍganizing and disorientingparadoxin which
"havenof safetv"will
inpulsesto approach thepffent asthe infrn!'s
inevitablyconflic!wilh impulses to fleefron theparentasa sourceof
alrrÍn. Here, we argnetha! conditionsof this kind placethe infánt in a
situationinvolvjng/rigát withautsolutian,Íesrtltingin r collapseof
behavioraland att€nlionalstrategies. In lhe succeeding sections,we
clarify rhe inter-connections among the central phenomena,and
describeerch of lhe lhenomenain greaterdetail.Theseinclude(1)
th€ natureof disorganized infani strangesiluationbehavior,(2) the
natureof pirenlal '\lipt' in reasoning anddiscourse surrounding the
discussionof pot€ntialtytraumaticexperiences rs observedin lhe
Adult AttachmentInteNiew,and (3) someof the êssociated moma-
lousforms of fÍightenedandfrighteningpaÍenlalbehavioÍnow being
observedin bolh the homeand laboratory.In conjunctionwith rhis
latter description,we elaborateupon someof lhe intricateways in
which, for examplc,a friShlenedoÍ dissocjated paÍentcan (like a
directlyttueatening larent) phce an attachedinfant in a pandoxical
conflict leading to disorganizrtion.The observàtionsdiscussed
oÍiginateprindily fÍom thestldy oflow risk sanples.
As impliedea.lier,our presentàdon maybe of slecialÍelevanceto
thoseworking wilh individuals(a) sufferinefÍoÍn clinical levelsof
dlstresswho (b) nonetheless evidenceno clear history of either
emotionalor physicalmaltreatment, or indeedaoy other noiable
S L C O \ DC t \ A p \ t t O ! t F I L . \ \ \O\.v \l
-Pt\
.\r Ó\cfvl( .+85

expeÍi€nces of trauma-We sugges!that in some such casesthe

parienfsdistressmay Íepresenta second-geneÍat;on effect of their
paren$' owtl unresolved Like their p.rents
frighteningexpefiences.
thesepatieniswill, however,alsohavebeenplacedin confusingand
fÍighlening(albeitperhrpsmoresubtle)situationsbeginnjrgin rn,nv
cêsesat a faryoungerrge.

DisorganizedAttachnent Statusin lnÍancy and Midàle Chidhood:

Relltions to Pslchopathalo$" Role'Inversion' and
CatuínuingIndicesof Fea'

The AinsworthsiÍangesilurtionis a stncturedobservational proce-

durein which one-yearold infantsare twice brieny separated from'
,nd twice reunitedwith, the parent in a pleàsantbut unfamiliÍ
laboraloryenvtonment(Ainswoíh et al. 1978) lniants are catego-
rized as disorgrnized/d'sodented dudng lhe strangesitualionwhen
they exhibilanyof a wide varietyof odd.i.explicable'conflictedor
apprehensive behaviorsin the parent'spresence,such as leanjng
sobbingwith headon wall andgazeaveíed,interruphngan approach
to theparentby fallinghuddled!o Èe floor, or frêezingall movenent
with a trancelikeexpression (Main and Solomon,1990).Despitethe
oveÍLy unusualnatureof manyol thesebehaviors,a meta-analvtic
overviewof sludiesof neuÍologicallynormalsánpleshas strongly
suggesied that,within suchsamples,researchers shouldlook to the
infant's experience with the parlicularparentwith whom the infant
hasbeenobserved to be disorganizedin oÍderto providean account
for the appeardc€of thesebehaviorsuDderstress Thus, across
siudieslhere is to dateno indicalionof the pÍesenceof a tenperà-
mentêlor conslitutional cotnponent in disorganlzedsrrege situarion
Íesponses (van Uzendoom,Schuengel, and Bakermms-Kranenburg.
1999).Relatedly,infanlsgeneÍallyexhibitdisorganized behavioÍin
thepresence of onlyoneof thelwo pdenls.
Unlikefie three'organized"slra.gesituationcategories originally
identificdby AinswoÍh (onesecureandlwo insecure), disorganized/
disorienÈdstrangesitualionbehavioÍhas beenfound pÍedictiveof
psychopathology fron middle childhoodto lire ddolescence. Dis
orgaDizedattachmentsirtus has repeatedlybeen found associaled
with unusuallevels of aggression(i.e.. disruptive/aggÍessiveof
186 ERIKHESSÊAND \Í\RY i\IÁIN

"externalizing" disordeÍs);n bothhigh-riskandlow-risksamples(see

LyonsRuth,1996,for a narativeoveÍviewiseevanlJzendoomel rl.,
in press,lor a metr-rnalysisof thesestudies).and with intemaUzing
disordersas well (for example.Mosset al.. 1996;Mosset al. 1998).
Additiomliy.using Sroufeand Egeland'slarge.high-risksampleof
Minnesotal7-yerr olds,Crlson (1998)foundo'e.dll psychopathol-
ogy as assessed by the K-SADS-Ediagnosticinterview(Orvaschel et
al., 1982)subsmntially predictable from disorganized slÍangesituation
behaviorwith lhe motherduringinfancy.In keepingwiih a proposal
advanced by Liotti (1992;seealsoMain andHesse,1992,Mdn and
Morgan.1996).Carlson(1998)also found infan! disorganizalion in
this sampleassociated with dissociative behavioras observedin ihe
eleÍnentaryschool and high-schoolsetting,and witb dissociative
experiences as assessed in the K SADS-E inierview ài 17 years.
Disorgrnizalionwilh the nother was also relat€dto self-reported
dissociative expeÍiences at age 19,especiallyir casesof intervening
trauma(Ogawaet d., 1997;the self-reportinventoryutilized was
deslgned by CarlsonandPutnam,1993).
Iníantdisorganized attachment has,then,recentlybeenlinkedw;th
specificchild andadolescent diagnosticcategories.In addition,in the
low-riskmiddle-class sampleof Bay Area familiesstudiedby Main
andher colleagues (Main.KaplanandCassidy,1985)disorgmized(as
opposed!o secure,avoidant,or ambivalent)attachmentstatusin
infancy had alreadybeen found to predictrole-inversionwith the
parentin manychildrenby age six. rs well as responseinhibition,
disorganized and dysfluentdiscourse. andcatastroPhic fantasies.For
exrnple, jn conjunctionwith this originalstudy.Main and Cassidy
(1988)reportedthar,whenreunitedwilh thcirparentsÍbllowinga one-
hour sepdarioí,childrenpreviouslydisorgaoized with a p.Íicular
parentwerenow controllingof (hence,role invertiDswith) thatsame
parent.Someof lhesechildrenharshlyorderedthe pdent about("Sit
downlI said,si! down!")or humiliatedthe parentby remaiÍingsileni
in thefaceof theparent'soveÍtures. comments or queries-behavloral
responses termedCantrrlli?ra-plt/rire. OlheÍsinvertedroleswith the
pdent by beingexcessively solicitousor ca.cgiving("Did you havea
nice time whileyou weregone?Wotrldyou like !o sit downandh.ve
ne bring you something?"). Theseresponses weÍe retÍne.lControL-
IinEcaresirinq (Main rnd Cassidy,1988).The development oí D
5L!O.DC o \tf_I.t \ jo\.\' I-D_\-\. r'Pr! 487

Crlrrrolll'rgbehavior at agesix in childÍenjudgeddisorgxnized uilh

the sameparenldurnrginfancyhasbecnÍepllcatedin threefuíher
studies (wllÍrnèÍet al., 1994iJacobsen ei rl., 1997lseealsoJacobsen
et xl.. 19921: endSteele, SleeleandFonagy,1996).Indeed.lhe devel-
opÍren!of a contÍolling.roLeinveriingresponccro Íeunionwith the
parcntwlth whomthe child had beendlsorganized du.ingint'ancyis
sufficientlylredictablcthal D-CoDtrollingbehaviorjs now uscd to
identiflr disorganizationin latef childhood(van lJzendoomet al-.
1999).
Viewcd ar the behariordllete1.then,early disorganizalioD could
seemto havedisappea.ed by niddle childhood,being replacedby
organizcd(albei!controlling)behaviortowardthe pnent However,
whe! :rskedto respondto imaginedchild-parentscprrationsstalesof
fear and meDtàloÍ linguiÍic disorganizationanddisodenlation hale
beerfoundto pedist(Krplan,1987iseealsoMain et rl , 1985).Using
rn adrptation of Hansburg's(1972) SepllJationAnxiety Tesl
(Klagsbrunxnd Bowlby. 1976).Kaplanrelorted thai the najoritv of
six yceJ-olds who hrd showndisorganjzed/disorientedbehaviorin the
ÍÍ:rnge silurtionwlth the nother in infmcy now demonstrated signs
of being "inerylicablyoJraiàanà unableto àa unrhtug dboLt it"
(Kaplan,1987,p. 109).As r seriesof six picluresinvoivings€para-
tionsrangingfrom a gooddghtkiss,to the prJenrsgoingout for the
evening,to i two-weekparentalleavetlting rvaspreserted, lhe child
was .tskedwhxt hc or shethoughtthe lictllrèd child world do. ànd
hos, the child might feel. Ove.all,Kaplanidertified the pfeviouslv
disorganized slx-yearolds zs Fedfrl'Disoryani.ed/disoriented
(h.rcatrèÍ,D íearjLl). The centràlpaite.nswhich KaplanconsideÍed
indicativeof continuirgstatesof fear,disofganization,anddisorien
tationarc p.esentedherein synopss:

t.a) Dircct descriptionsoí íeafin deiÍs. These includcd naÍkedly

suchas suggestions
fantasies,
catastÍophic thatfamily nembe$ might
cone to g.extbodilyhaÍm.of eve! tha!ihe ptrenlsor chlld woulddie
FoÍ example,rskedwhatthepichrredc!ild lvouldÊel onepfeviouslv
disorgsnizedchild(whohadhadno lossexlerienccs)said:

Shc'srfraid.
(Whr n 'he aírcid?)
.lEll E R I KH T S 5 E
A\D \Í\RY NIAIN

HeÍ dadmigh!dieandthenshe'ilbe by herself.

(WhJts the afni.l ofíhat!)
Because her mon diedandií her momdied.shelhinksfiat her
drd mightdie.

Askedwh:rtthe picturedchild woutddr, anotherpreviouslydisofga-

Dizedchildwith no personallossexperiences
responded:

Probablysonnalock himselfup.
(LockhinseAup?)
Yeah.probablyin hiscloset.
(Thenwhrt will he do?)
PÍobablykill hinself.
-Kaplan, 1987,pp.109 110.

Otherinvestigatorshavealsonotedthe chaotic,flooded,catasrrophic
quality seenin the responsesto doll-play separations
observedin
somedisorganized children(Solonon,George,andDeJong.1995).A
quotationfrom ore D Conlrollingsix-year-oldrespondingto a query
regardingwhat might hlppen dudng an overnight parentchild
sepamtionmay lunher claÍify the ffghrening fantasiesobservedin
somechildren(SolononandGeorge.1999,p. 17):
"And see,andthen.you knowwhathappeDs?
Theirwholehouse
blowsup.See... lheygetdestroyed andnot eventheirbonesêre
left. Nobodycanevenget their bones.Look. I'n jtrmpingon a
rock. This rock feels rocky. Aahh! cuess what?the hills are
alive, the hills are shakin ênd shakin'.Becausethe hills are
alive. Uh huh.The hills are alive.Ohhl I frll smackoff a hill.
And got blowednp in a! explosion. And thentherocksrumbled
downandsmshedeveryone. And iheyall died.'

(b) Voicelesnes and reiistance.Theseindicarionsof a conlinuing

stateof fear anddisorientation
wereobse.vedwhena child suddenly
fell silent. besm !hispering, relused the têsk. or appearedroo
distressedto completeir
(.) Disargani.ation ín lansudqeor behat'iar.This was observed
clrildren who responded1()rh€ pictured parent,childseptrationsby
SECOND EFFECTS
GENÉRATION PARE)TS
IN NON.MALTREATINC 489

usingnonsense
sLrddenly language("yes_no-yes no yes-no-yes-no
)'
makingovertly contradiclorystatemenlswithoutacknowledgingthe
or beconingbebaviorallydisorganizedFor example.
contradiction,
askedholvthepictllredchildwouldfeel,onechildresponded:

HUPPY
(What'she happraboutt)
'Caus€he likeshisgÍandfather coming (Childjumpson bàckoí
stuffed êninal in lhe plryÍoomandhits i!.) Bad lionl (Hits t!
more).Badlionl
KaPlan. 1987,PPl10 l1l

The àssociation betweenthe ,-F?dd,l Íesponses describedabove

and early disorganized altachmentstatuswas narked. and Kapl,n
suggested !hat,because manyof the disorganized childrenin the Bry
Area samplehad parents(tenned unresalved/disor+dni.r4 who still
sufferedfrom frighteningidealionwi$ r€spectto lheir own loss
experiences. queriesregardingseparation might haveturda parlicu-
larly disorganizing effect on their children.In essence, Kaplanwas
pÍoposingthal ihe children'sfearful fantasies. silencesand disorga
nized languageor b€haviorregardingpffent-childsepÍaiions Ínav
haveresultedfrom Íepeated inleractionswith pàrentswho werethem-
selvesstill fearfulandconfused regddinsan importan!loss
The associrtionbetweeninlant disorganized attachment stalusand
Kaplart'sD-Featul responses to separaiionpicturesat agessix or
sevenhasbeenÍeplicatedin Berlin (Jacobsen et al, 19971Jacobsen
and Hofmann,1997i see also Jacobsen, Edelslein,and Hofmann,
1994).Sinilarly, usingdoll-playseparalions rrtheÍ than separation
pichrÍes,Solomon,Georgeand DeJong(1995)foDndtbatD-ContÍol-
ling childrenfell in a responsecategorysiÍnilar to Kaplan's and
retm.dD-Frightened,which includedfrighteningstories(ábove)as
wcu asrespo.seinhibition.A Londonstudyemployingdoll plav witb
six-year'oldsalsoíbundthemesof violence.hu.t. andillnesssignifi
cantlyassociated with infrn! disorganizedattachment slatuswith the
motherduringinfancy(Sleeleet al., 1995).
FDrthc.indicationsof continuingfear specificto previouslvdisoÍ-
ganizedchildren in the Bay Afea sàmpieincludedfrighteningor
frightenedimagesmd scratched-oulÍiSures obseÍvedin fanilv
190 ERIK HÉ!SE ÁND ]\I/\R\ TIAJ\

d.awings(KaplanandMain, 1986),anddysfluentdiscoursewith the

parent on rcunion (Strageand Main, 1985; see Main, 1995 for
ovetview).In addition,Jacobsen(Jacobsen ct al.. 1994)found D
Fea,t'/./seven-yeff-oldsin a large Icelandicsampiehad negatit'e
feelinesaboutihemselves, and (peÍhrpsdue to anxiety)exhibitêd
ma.keddiffjculliesin dÍawingthe conectdeductions in responseto
veÍbaliyadninisrered rersoningtasksin adolescence. Finally.a post-
strtng€situationrisein salivaryadrenocoÍiisal (a physiological index
oístress)wasfoundin disorganized infantsin two indepeDdent studies
(Spanglcr andGrossmann, I 993;Herrssaard et à1.,I 995).
The relevanceof the abovefindingsto clinjciansworkin-swirh
infantsàndchildÍenis clear.Horvever, thispresentation mayaddition-
ally be of specialinterestto thosewofking with older individuals
whoseeariy experiences do not apperrto havebeennotablymalig-
nantor traumatic. Thusduing th€rrpythe offspringof a traumatized
but.on mahrealing caregivermightbe expected !o exhibitdifficulties
consonan! wirh thesequelae to earlydisorganization described above,
althoughthesedifficultiesGee the prologueto this volune) may be
lhe resultof cumulativetraumaas opposedio oveÍ abuse.As adult
prtienls,then,sone individralsdisorganized with o.e of both care,
-siversduringinlancyn1aysufferfron recurringcatastÍophic fxntrsies,
cognitiveconfusion,andblankspells;fall inexplicablysilentfor long
periods:or attemp!to controlthe clinician at times by becoming
lLrniriveor inJppÍopÍ.rLel) .olicirous.
Onehighly specificbut paniculrrlyintereslingpossiblesequela!o
earlydisorganized attachmen! status(dralvn!o ouÍ attentionby Blatt
and Diamond.personalcommunication, 1998)is a "fear oí break-
down as seenin individualswho haveno remembeÍed experience of
abfeakdownoíany kind (winnicott,1974).ln essence, winnico!! had
arguedthatsuchfearsrcgardinglhefuturemightin fac!unconsciously
represent fearsof the retum of an "originalagony (includingwhat
Winnicor had Èrmed an "uniniegratedsr^Íe"),|'hich had in f.tt:t
alread) ot:cuied. E)sewhere we havearguedthat .epeatedentrance
into disoÍganized/disoriemed slatesin infancycouldhrve represented
a kjnd ol breakdownfoÍ somepatients,particulaÍlyif extfemeand
arislngas a resuhof frighleningjntenctionswith lhe parent.Thus,
earlydisorganized rttachmentslnt s couldincrersetherisk for fearof
breakdown (HesseandMdn, in press).
rL \D.i.:rtD\ Or Ult t\ t! \o\-\"r p cTl\c I4Pf\Ír 491

The discoveÍy of disorganizedathchmenl is emb€ddedin a

conplex theorcticaland empi.icd background.To underslmdthc
categoÍy,ils correhtes,and hs inplicalions for psychopathology,
an orienlationto the field is a necessilyFor thisreason,we
theÍefore,
next provide m overview of allachmenttheory enphasizingthe
€volulionaryli*s belweenattachment behavior,fear. and survival.
we then discussreseaÍchinto parentinfant inteÍxctionwhich is
currentlybeingpioneered from within this context.We describethe
surprisingly alaming behaviors associatedwith languageand
Íeasoningslippxgessuffounding ihe altempteddiscussion oï traumatic
eventswithin the AAI, ànd observedin the pàrentsof disorganized

Theessential positiontakenhercis that,so longas the infàn1is not

directlyfrighlenedby the parenl,insensitivityto infant signalsand
con1municêiions will leadonly to an insecureorganized(avoidanior
reslsiant/ambivalen, atlachmentto lhatpàÍentGeeMain. 1990)-Feal
Df theparent,i^ cofitasr,is expectedto lead!o disorgmizcdattach-
ment, and under ceriajn coíditions to increasedvulnerabilityto
psychopathology (seealsoHesseandMain,in press).

EthoLogical
OwNiew ant back1tound: evoluti'Jn
try attachment
" oJattaLhnenl
theoryandthe oryaniz.d"categoties

hahiionary Linksta FearanàSLNiral

AttachnentTheory:

Thc infant's gràduallydevelopingtendencyto cry wben selected

personsdepart,to altemp!to fol1owthesepersonswhenpossible.and
to cling to them and oiherwiseshow pleasureupon their return
appens to be retrlively universállyrecognized,l]nd a nunber of
lheorieshavebeenpu! forwardto explainthesephenomena (for an
overview.seeAinsworth,1969).Initially,mostsrch fteoriesÍestedon
the rcasonablesupposiiionthat the iníïnt s focus upon specific
personswas acquiredonly as ihey becameassociatedwith the
satisfactionof more brsic instincis.Thus,it was assumedthrt the
i'fanCs often highly enotionalexpression of attachment to prrental
figuresis a secondryoLrtcome ofthe parents role in providingíoÍ the
iDfant'smorefundamental or "primary" drives.for exrmple,feeding
andÍelàledsensual gJlltifications-
19l ERIK HESSEAND MÀRY IVÍAIN

If i! wereactuallythe caseÈa! eaÍly affectionaltiesare secondaÍy

Íàrherlhanprin.r/, howeve.,youngchildrenshouldr€adilyadjustto
separationsfrom attachment figuresso longasfood andothersatisfy-
ingexperiences (AinswoÍh.
aÍeprovided 1969;Bowlby.
1969).
Early
observations se€med to indicateinsteadthrt caregivingfiguresarenol
Íeadily exchdgeableand that extended,Íressful separations from
primárycaregivers beiweenl8 monthsand3 yearscouldhavenotably
unfavorabl€consequences (RobeÍson and Bowlby. 1952; later,
Robertson andRobertson, 1971,.epoíed thal suchconsequences ,re
mostpronounced whenno consisl€nt alternalivecaregivingfigurehas
been !Íovided). Theseobservatjons lvere compatiblewith several
object relátionstheoriesthat stressedthe intrinsic import of the
infant's eaÍliestrelatiooships independent of lheir associalionwith
"ddves"
nore basic Gee Foragy. 1999, for overview). Object
relêtionstheoriescan,however.still be sharplydifferentiatedfrom
attrchmenttheory in that thesetheoriesdo nol place the infàífs
concemwiih mainlainingproximityto theparentwithin the paradign
ofnaturalselection.I!is only withinthislattercontextthatattachment
canbe understood to be direcdytiedto safetyandsurvival.andhence

Thecentralformulations of lhis new àpprorchto understmding the

natureof the ch;ld'stie to its mother ca11ed "eihological-evolution
ary allachmenttheory"-were developedover a periodof approxi-
mately30 yeds (e.g.,Bowlby.1958,1969,1988).In an earlyclinical
paperBowlbyrepoÍedthatmanypatientsseenin ajuvenileguidance
clinic were aff€ctionless,md that lhe "aííectionless charactel'was
associatedwith historiesof parentaldepdvalionand-/orrepeated
paÍent-childsepaÍations (Bowlby,1944).This suggested thatcontinu
ity in edly pdentingexperiences playeda speciticandcriticalrole in
theabilityto fonn affectionalties,a supposilion thaiwascorroborated
by the observalions of numerouscliniciansand socialworkersGee
especially Spitz,1946:Coldfdb, 19,13, 1945;sunnarizedin Bowlby,
l95l).
ThepropositioD thatto tkive enotionallychildrenneeda closeand
continuous caregivingreladonship calledíor a lheoreticalexplanatioD
apr from the lhen prevaillngviewsthet love of the mofier is either
derivedfrom or confoundedwith sensuous orat gratificrtion,or is
dependent on secondary reinfbrcemen! (Bretherton,1992).Addition
SECONDCENIRÀTIO\ EFFECTSIN J\iONMALTREATINCPARENTS .19l

ally, despiteihe fact thatmanyobjectrelaiionstheorislshadempba,

sizedthe importandprimacyof parenÈinfant interaction, a consistent
and wcll-aticulatedmotivationalmodelwas still neededro accouni
for this position.Perhrpsin paí seÍendipitously, it was at this time
tha!Bowlbywasalertedro recentdevelopments in the field of erhol,
ogy where it was reasonedthat species'behaviorpattems,like
species'morphology, de the ploductof selectionpr€ssures andassis!
in individualsu ival (Bretherton, 1992).The work of KonÍadLorenz
wasof pdicuhr impoÍ in demonstrating lhat socialbondfonurion
neednotbe tiedto feeding.
Following a review of evolutionarytheory and the nonhuman
primatellteralureguidedin large part by the b€hrvioralbiologist
RobeÍ Hinde (Bowlby. 1986;BretheÍon, 1992),Bowlby gradually
cam€to the conclusionfiat crying, clinging.following and other
behrviorsthatbecomefocusedon selected personsov€rthe fifft year
oí life areto be attributedto the workingof an attachment "behavioral
system'(formerly"instincf'.seeBowlby, 1969,Main, 1999,p. 847)
which had,rnong othersystems, beenincorporated into the behav-
ioral repeÍoireof ground-livingprimatesin response to evolutioDary
selectionpressures. It was1-uÍherproposed thatthe selectionpressure
responsible for altachÍnent behaviorwas specificallyprotectionfrom
predadon, makingtheattachmen! behavioralsystemequalin importto
feedingand nating in the inmediacy of its implicationsfor the
individual's sDrvivaland ultimate reproductivesuccess(Bowlby.
1969).Maintainingproximity to or contacl with protectiveolder
individuals(Àllachnentfigures)would.then,decrease the likelihood
that a particuld infántwould be tÍgeted for predation.In addition.
shouldan attackoccur.flight to an attachment figure as a hêvenof
safeiywould eÍeatly incrcasethe chanceof infant survival.MoÍe
recently,maintenance of proximityhasbeentrnderstood !o promole
survival by addidonally providiíg protection from starvation,
unfavorabletemperaturechanges.natural disasleÍs,attacks by
conspecifics. ard the risk of separationfrom the group(Main. 1979b,
L98l:Bowlby,1988).
ln sum.aitachment behaaioris now viewedas the centÍalmecha-
nisn regulatinginfant safety, and maintenanceof proximily to
aitachment figuresis understood to be the ri# q a non o'i pÍim te
infantsurvival(Hinde,1974tHrdy, 1999).in consequencc, attachment
.t9l ERIK H!sSE AND NIÁRYNÍAÍN

behavioÍis presumed to strnd first in the hierarchyof infantbehav-

ioral systems. This is becausewithin lhe environment(s) in whichthe
humanprimateevolvedevenbÍief sepaÍations from prolectiveaduhs
will oflen threareniníantsufvivelin a mrtterof minutes,andcertainly
with;n hours.ln conlrast,à considerable periodof time canbe spen!
without engagingin exploÍation.play. or even feeding For this
Íeason.whelheror no! attachment behavioris displayednt lr given
time, the youngattachedindividualmus! at somelevel continuallv
rttend ro the .ral.ryversustbreatimplicit in cuÍen! conditions(ci.
Sandler.1960),while simulianeously monitoringthe locatioDand
accessibilityof those attachmentfigures upon whom its survival

With the abovein mind it followsthat, in servingto protectthe

individxalfrorn danger.the atlachmentsyslemmus! necessaÍilvbe
"escape")system:Theactivatlon
closelyintertwinedwith thefeaÍ (or
of eitherof thêsebehavioralsystemsdoesnol. however.inevitablv
ieadto identicaloutcomes (Bowlby,1969).Forexanple,givencertain
conditions.fear-evokingsituationsmay leád to a wide variety of
behavioralresponses, suchas freezinS,cÍouching,trembling,attack-
ing, and iaking cover.ln addition,amongDurneÍous pldcd-d"cllt's
Ínanmalianspecies.a den, burrow,oÍ other fixed location-rather
lhanthe molheror anotherindividual-is com.nonlysoughtin times

Ground-livingprimatesaÍe, however,largely nomadic,and"asa

resuitof theircontinuous movenentdo not establisha fixed location
ês a sourceof protection.Unlikethosemammalsfor whomlr special
pldc. providesthe havenof safety.for the prinate iííaíÍ the Ittach
nent fgure is the single "location" which nust be sotshí under
conditionsof alam (Bo\"tlby,1958,1969) At suchtimes,feaÍ will
most often acdvateattachment behavior,and hencethe attachmenl
andfearsystems will oleratecohesivelyandin t.ndem
As this review indicales,then, the attachnlent.figure is the
.lereLopínïinliridual's prinary sol tion to exPeiencesoífea\ a d
this is of centralimporlto ouÍ undersmnding of lhe relalionbetween

puÍposs.hóh.vionlsys.msaE PÊ
in .ófrplex
ór óie triother BehavioÉlsyíems aE in hcl intctsconncdcd
l9ó6: Boslby, l9ó9).but di\cu5sio
 PÁRENTS
sECONDCENÉRA'IIONEFFECTSIN NON.MAI-TREÁTING J95

attachmen!.development rnd psychopathology.

This relationreÍs in
parrupon lhe fact thllt, undersomeconditions,attachment behaviof
andfear ( escape")behaviorare incompatible,andheÍeconflicl will
almoslinevitablyoccur.As is discussed below, this is paÍicularly
likely whenthe rtuchnent figure (who is the infan!'sbiologically
channeled havenofsafely)alsobeconesthesourceofits alarm.

The" Orsanized"Categatiesoí InÍant Strange

SituationBehariot:Pattensof AttachmentObseNed
withParcntsWhoare NotDirectlJFri|htening

With the aim of describingthe waysin which the infant comes!o

organizeits atiachnentbehaviorswith respectto select€d personsi!
normalcircumstances, Mary Ainsworlhundertooksystemalichome
observations of infant-motherintemcrionin the first year of life,
initially in Usanda(Ainsworth,1967) and later in Baltimore(26
dyads,Ainswoíh,Bell andSlayton,l97l; Ainsworthet al., 1978).In
conjuncrion wilh ihesestudies,Ainsworth(andotherresearchersi see
especiallySchafferand EneÍson, 1964)discovercdthat specificof
"focused"attachments can be observedin mostinfantsby the ihird
quaÍterofthefirs! yearof life,andaplearto be baseduponcontingenl
social inteÍnctions.Moreover,infants were observedio develop
atrachmerts to non-rclatedindividuals,and€vento lhosewho did not
paÍicipate in iheiÍ primary care. For uuny infants,two oÍ more
auachment figureswereeventuálly selected.
AinswoÍh, like Bowlby (1969)expectedthat dl infàn$ but those
raisedin extrcnelyanon ouscircumstances wouldhaveformedan
atachmentsometime nerÍ theendof thefirst yeafof life. This given.
theprimaryquestionto be askedregddinga 'omrlly ràisedtoddler's
parenting experience wrs not wÁet'rersheor he hadbecomeattached.
b,!Í hot the attachmentta the prímary caregivet(s)hdd becone
argani.ed.Ihe infantsof insensitiveand even mallreatingparents
were expectedto be as fuil] (oÍ 'ttÍongly ) attachedas weÍe the
infants of sensitiveand responsiveparents(see,e.g., Crillenden
and AinswoÍh, 1989).Ho'vever,the organizationol the infanfs
attachment10 a larticulaÍ pxÍent, and corespondingly, the
circumstmccsin which aiiachmen!behaviorwould be displayedor
elseinhibircdwasexpecled to differ acfossdyads.
196 E R I KH I S 9 EA N D N I } P YM , \ I \

Although initially relying exclusivelyupon home observations.

AinswoÍh had alreadyÍecognizeddifferencesin the organizrtionoí
infant-mother a$achment in Ugandall wasnoluntil shecombinedher
BaltimoÍehomeobservations with r stilctured expeÍimentalproce-
dure, however,tha! she emergedwitb h€r three final pattemsof
"o.grnizationsof infanÈmolher rttachmentln Baltimore,26 infant_
motherdyadswere visitedfor fouÍ hoursapproximalelv everythree
weeksacrossthe first yearof life, andinleractionswererecoÍdedirr
the form of extensivenaÍalive recordsA! the end ol the year.each
dyad wrs seen in a 15 to 20 minute structured.laboralory-based
seprrationandre nionprocedure in whichtheParenitwiceleàvesthe
iníant(oncein thecompanyoía stÍangeÍ, andonceentirelyalone)and
twice retums.This prccedure, now knownês the Ainsworthstrange
"naturalcluesto drngêÍ"
situalion,was designedto createseveral
(Bowlby,1973,1969),inclrding(a) an unfaniliarsetting(b) in which
the auachmentfigure depaÍs. In keeping wjih Bowlby's theory,
AinswoÍh anticipatedthat by the time of the secondsepÍalion all
home-reáred 12-month'old infantswouldexhibitattachment behavior
such as calling and crying fof the motheÍ (Ainsworth,Personal
comlnunication. 1998).Once the dyad was Íeunited,however,ihe
mother'spresencewas exp€ctedto provide sufficient securityto
p€rmit the infant to retum !o explorationandplay
While àe first Baltinore infant observedin the strangesituation
behavedas Ainswofthhad predictedàll homercded one-year-oids
would,ulriÍrareiyjust 13 of the 23r rcsponded as aniicipated.These
l3 infanisshowedsignsof missingthe p.rent on departure(usually,
by crying),soughtproximityorcontactupooreunion(usually,seeking
|o be held at least briefly), and then, appdenily reassured by the
mother'sconlinuingpresence, reiurnedto play.Infantswho responded
"securely altached"(patlernB), and this
in this mannerwereterm€d
'\ensitivity
behavioralpattemwasfoundstÍonglyrelatedto matemal
to inlant sigmls andcommun;calions"a as obs€rvedindependently in
the home(Ainswodhe! al, 1978rseeDewolff and van Uzendoorn.

rDuc ro illÉs and orhd f].ron

o.igii.l ínns. sitoarioÍs*èrc ultina'clyÉhiied
{Àinswodhsdsfinitionórhsiiiviiy Rascodplèx.mdinvolvcd(a)norinsrhÍ, \iÊ !hrd
occuned, (b)irtqrieriis tr rccunt.ly.xndtber (c)Í6pondirgPionprlvrM ld) rppÍopnacLl
5L!0! .'\ o\ o\ tFqrtr \ L o \ \ Í . \ .Í P r \ - \ G P \ P r \ c 491

1996foÍ a meta-analysis of exislingstudies;seealsoPcderson et al.

1998).ln essence, the Íesponseprttern dispLayed by secureinlànts
appeared relatedto a hisloryof interaclionwilh a motherwho tended
lo be lronpt and comfoÍtingin r€gard to infant expressions of
distress. Thus,infmts displayingthesecurestrangestturtronresponse
pauem were observed|o have repeatedlyexperiencedwhat B
"disÍess comlbrt
vaughn(personal commu.icrtion.1986)hastermed
sequences." in which the mother had prompily and competentiy
providedsolacewhenher infantexpressed fear,pain,distress, hunger
of Ioneliness. Not unexpecledly. theseinfanlsrafelycriedduringbrief
separationswithin the less stressful conditions of lhe home
(Ainsworth et a]..l97l).
Two diffcÍenttypesof strangesiiuationÍesponse werefoundin the
ten rernaining Baltino.einfants.one group(N = 6) showedtèw or no
signsof missingthe mothe. on separalion.often even when left
entiÍelyaLone. \\/henreunited.theyactivelyignoredandavoidedthe
nother,movingàway.turningaway,and,if pickedup, leaningout of
the mother'sárns, indicatinga wish to be put down.Theseinfants
were termedinsecurervoidant (PattemA), and despitea striking
absence of observable affectduringthe strangesiluation,laterÍudiês
would find indicátionsof consideràble disi.essat the physiological
level (Sroufeand WateÍs,1977i Spingler and Gfossmann,1993)
Avoidancewlrs êssociatedwith naternal rejectionoí attachment
behavior.asimpliedby remarksindicalingregretabouthavinghadthe
infant. and via direct observationof aversionto tnclual contact
(Ainsworthet a1.,l9?8i Main andStdtnan. l98li seeMain, 1995).
I n r Í r g r r n g ld)c. . p i l et h e t t . r I h r Ln e i r h e r . l { i e r }o r r r g e - s e ' e
displayedwithin the slrangesituation,avoidantinfantsexhibitedhigh
levelsof anxietyandangerin fie hone (Ainsworthet al, 197Eisee
alsoMain andStadtman, 1981.andPederson andMoran.1996).
The behaviorof AinswoÍh's íour remaininginfantsprovideda
mirrorimageto thoseÈrmedinsecure_avoidan!. ThroughoulmostoÍ
allofthe procedure. |heseinfantsweredistressed andapp rredhighly
preoccupied with the nother,*ilh manysholvinglinle or no interes!
in tbetoysor otheraspe.tsofthe environmeni. Oftenexhibitinganger
towlrd the morher.thesejnfantswefe unable!o settletrponreunion.
and were lermed insecure-Íesistant or, ahernatively,insecure
ambivalent(PatÈmC). Like avoidance. Íesistance wasfoundrelared
49E ERIKHE55EA\D ]\IÀR\ M^IN

to mrtemal insensitivlty!o inf:rnl signals and tpecilicallv to a

tendencyeitherto pervasivelyjgnorethe infan!.or io interferewith
the infanfs activities.However,nthcr than rejectinginlànt attach
m€nt behavioÍ,and hcnceseeminglyaltemptingto encouragethe
development of a precocious independence, tbe mothersof GroupC
lnfantswere observedto discourage the development of autonomy
(seeCassidyandBerlin, 1994;seealsoSolomon.George,and Ivins'
1987).Eachof the Íesistan/anbivalent infantsexhibitedconsidcÍable
anxietywithinthehome.
In surn.all of Èe infanls in AinswoÍh's BaltiÍIore study had
unquesrionably developedan attachment to the motherwhich wàs
readilyobservable withinthehome(Ainsworthet al.. 1978).However,
theorganization of thatattachnenthadbeenfoundto (a) differ among
infants(b) jn systematic accordance with Èe way in whichthemother
had responded to the infan!duringthe firsl yearof life (Ainsworth.
l99l; seealsoMain, 1995).For the majorityof infants,as expected,
the strangesituationelicited,rl) atlacbment and explo.alorybehav-
ior. Amoíg those placedunder the long-lermstràin imposedbv
varying forms of maternalinsensitivity,ho\r'ever.new response
patlems had appeared,jntedering either with thê expÍessionof
auacbnent(avoidance) or wilh Èe infanfs ability to fÍee iis attention
from the pareDtandengagewilh the environmen! (resistance). In our
view, nonetheless, simple insensitivity!o infanl signals-whether
djsplayedin persisteni rejectionof attachment behavioror in neglect,
interference.or a failure!o encourage thedevelopm€nt ofaulonomy
is unlikelyin itselfto be alarning(seealsoMain. 1990).
In latefyears,the world-widepropoÍionsof infantsjudgedsecure,
avoidantor resistm!in strangesituêlionstudieshavebeenfbund!o be
highly similar to thoseestablished in Ainswortbs ofiginal srrnple
(van IJzendoomand KroonenbeÍg,1988), and srÍ'nge sÍuat'on
response appearsto be independen! of sexandbirth-oÍder.Addition-
ally, in severalinvesiigations of low-risksamples. rttrchmentto the
nother hasbeenfoundstableto rt leastsix yeds of age(Main and
Cassidy,1988tJacobsenet al., 1992.1997iWartnerer xl-. 1994i
Ammaniti,Speranza 3ndCandelori,1996).
Sinple stabilityof response to ihe sameperson,e!e. il indicative
ofcontinuingemotionalsecuritywith respectlo thatperson.doesnot.
howeve!, tell us whether security of êttachmentro rhe mother
 ÉFFÊCTS
SFCO\DGENERATION PARENTS
IN NON.\IALTREATING 499

influencesemotioml well-beingin settingsin whicb she is abseni

Fortunatcly,this critical questionhas beenrddÍessedin a seriesof
studiesof a laÍge, high risk poveíy samplepioíeeredbv Srcule'
Egehnd and their coll$gues,which includeexlensivelongitudinàl
observations oï childrenin schoolrnd campsetlingsHere.children
who hadbeenjudgedsecuÍewith motherduringinfàncvwerejudged
more ego-resilient, nore pop lar witl peers,more competent,and
happierthxn formerlyinsecurechildren(Weinfieldet al.. 1999;sec
alsoMain. 1973,andTroy andSroufe.1987) In manysrmples the
individualinfant's altachments to ils motherand father were found
independent (i.e..the sameinfant wrs securewith one pêrent.but
insecurewith the other),and a seriesof critical invesligations have
pfovidedlittie supportlor the otherwisereasonable supposilionthat
geneticfactorsmight contÍibutesubstmtiallyto lhe organization of
rheinfmt's attachment 1()the parent(Sroufe,1985;vanUzendoornet
al., 1992;VaughnandBosl, 1999;Main, in press;van IJzendoomet
al.,in press).
Additiorurlly,each of the organizedcategoriesof inlhnt sirange
situationbehxvior has repeatedlybeen found predictablefrom
parentaldiscoursewithin ihe Aduh Atiachmen!Interview,a struc-
tuÍed,hourlongprocedure in which individualsareaskcdto describe
and evaluaiee3rly attachment'relaled experiences and their effects
pon personaliry andcurent funclionirg(Georgeet al , 1984 1985.
1996: Main, KÀplan and Csssidy, 1985: see Hesse, 1999a,for
ovcrview).The inteÍview is tnnscribedverbatimand. utilizing a
sysÈn developedby Main and Goldwyn(e.9, Main and Goldwyn,
1984,1998).mosttranscripisin low-risksanplescrn be êssignedto
oneof three"organized"caiegories or 'ttales of mindwith respectto
attachmenf secure-autonomous,insecuredismissing,andinsecure
preoccupied.j Theseadult attachment categoriesappearto pfovide

r'fruD\cript Íe aj\isrcd ro the s

coh.Ent..dnsnteír..nd .oll!ho riverhÍouehodrhèiíre8Èw. whcthcfcuLvlire erpènedc*
vÍe rxvorablcor unrrvodble.Dimisjig md prcolcuPjcd
flciibiliry rtrd cohÍcncc svidà,cedin \ccdÈ \perke6. eilh dismhsinsspeak{s b.jns
èspecially$Íiki'gfórthenrrilrrc t itivedcscriptiotrsofcrlv
èxperien.e, spèakes\c.mins so exce$ncly inró
and prcocctrpicJ
wnh r{coLs A !o rril io simulr!'róuslymonnoÍthcJisoutre conlcrl(Hc$, 1996)

500
T.ble 1 AAI classiiicdionsand codcspoídrng
ADULT STATEOFMIND
ATTACHMENT
WITHRESPECTTO
coLlaboEtrcdlscouBc
Cohcrent,
vàLuingofatachmcnt,but secms
obFctlle reg,rdiog.nYPa.r(ular.
è!en/rcladonshiPDescriPtorlnd
evaludionof atíàchnênrÉl,ted
expeÍic.cesis consi$ènr'whèthêÍ
experiencèsarèiavoraoreorun ..
rrvorablè.Discousèdoesnol notabrv
viohte ànyolCrice s naxrms'
DnftÀri,!íDr)
Not cohercrt.Dismi$'ng ol alhcn
neór relaÈdexFcÍiences addreLa_
tionships. NorÍ,lizing ( excellèdr,
verynormd nothci ), sith gcneÉxzed
ol hrstorYunsuP
rcpresc.tations
oorrèdor àctire!YcontadicrcdbY
;pisodesÍccolntedThus tiohringoi
cicc s raxim ofquàlitv TranscíPts
alsotetd to bècxcessivelY biei.
viohting themaxifr ofquannlY'
P t ? . t . u F . dt E l
N . t . ! h e c n r P r e d ! u n . d w t r no r D v
pasta(.chÍcnt rèlatronshrpvcxpê
rieíces,spe:tcr opPcas,nSrv.pass'vc
oÍ ierÍlir1.Se.tenccsoltenlong,
or lilled with
Íradm.ticrllv entansled
;!!ue usagcs( d.dadada.
ThLs.violarinsorGice's maxlnsor
màdnernndrelevanccTrunscripBolten
cxcessively long,violrtnC quà'tii)'
Unr.t o1r.& d^. | 8nni..tl I U/A
Duingdi\cussionsoiloss or $use.
individualshows$riking l.pse 'n the
nónii.ri.g of (.sonIóg o! d'scoNse'
ForcxlnPle, individull naY brienY
indiclic . deàdPe$onis bÈlleve'l
sensc,
still xlire in thePhysrcàl
or wtrskilledby achildho.dthought'
lndividu.l m.y lrFscr0toprorangco
ERIKHESSE ND IÍÁRY IIIÁIN
pancÍnsol inlàdt SlrangeSitu.lion
IN!ANTSTRANGE
BEI'IAVlOR
SITUATION
Explorcsloón.nd tovs*nh InterDsi
i. prèaepmrioncPhodèsShows
sisnsof rhsing Pmenton sFamu'n,
oilencryingby thc secondsepar.ton'
Obliouspreierence tor pirentoler
strlnger.GteetsPaEotacnrerY,
usuallyinitiaringPhyslc.lcont.ci.
Usuallysomêcontad_naintainrnC bv
sècondreunian,brrthense esàdd
iionpàrenl
fails to cry oo separàt'on
Acrivelyavoidsand'grore\ paEnÍ.on
EDnion,i.e,bYmolrngawàYtunrng
awry,or lè,ningout oÍ armswnen
pickeduP.Little or no p.ox'mÍv or
contàctseeking.nodisticss,aod!o
to Plrcntappcars
angcrRèsponse
unènotioó31. Focuses on toYsor
en!nondcntihroushoutPróccdure
Resitaft(c)
Mày bewaryórdNlrèssed €lon Pnor
to setdation,with little exploral'on
PEoccupicdsirh parentthírughort
troceduÍc,mtyseeÉànsr, or Passive'
Frils ro settlèandtakecóÍtoÍ rn
_xódlhrr')
Pr.nt on rcu on,lndusuaLrvcoÈ .
tinucsto tocuso. paÍenianddv fds
to retlrn to èxploEto. rfterreunion'
Dk otga izeUdk oI ientedI D )
Thc infrnt disPlaYs disorgon'z'd
lnd/or disorientêd behr!ios rn rhe
pxrenfspresence, \rg8esring. Èr'
!orary colllpscol beh!!ioralrraregv
For enmpl., the intnntma! Ireêzc
with a truncelikèexpression,hsDds
cruan'c
i. anr nay rne al F.renfs
thenfallttune andhuddlcdoo tho
 ÉFFECTS
SECOND-GDNERATION IN NONMALMEATINGPÀRENTS 50r

ADULTSTÁTEOFMIND INFANTSTRANCE
W]THRESPECT
TO ATTACI{MENT SITUÁTIONBEHÁVIOR

Uuz et I eAt! i! o qr.ni ? d I U/A (..nt.) D i nrN " ilt1lli wi.É el I D) l.anr )
sil.rcÈ,or eulo8nticrpeech.The floorror maycling whiLecÍ]ine hard
speaker*ill ordimily .rherwisc andleanins!w!y snh gazerveíed.
Ílt to D\. E or F c,tcgoriÈs. Inirot will oÍd,nr.ilt orhcÍRiselit

Two week tninine i0nndc5 in rhc hrlyril

caicgoncsofiihnt {nneè snuriotrbeha!io.re hught ),canl b} Ahn SrcuIcandElizxbdh
CàÍlron of rhe liÍnuÈ ol child D.vclopm.nt,UnivcNit) ot NÍlíiÈsot, Nlinncapolis.

Two.wÈèktriniís insiiutesir the anrlysirof rhè AduLratr.hfrèír Iitèivièw rrc hcLd

rcgulaÍlyby rèvèràl.editiedÍrines (NinoDrzzi.DcbonhJr.obvnz.Drv,d Pèd*\Di rndJunc
Smulc).A li\t ófrvrilrble aal instiruÈscanbêóbuinèdiÍo'n d'e nr

Nó... PemnsionroiepnniIhishb1c,rlkcn fÍor Hèse(19994hrsb

GuillordPrc$. D.scnptioísol $e Aduh AtÈ.hmcniClr\\ificÍio
ií.in. Krplànàíd Crsidy (193s)and lÍon Mrií .nd Cold*yi (193.1-1993). D$cnpriontot
infad ^BC .dègonesarcukei non Ain$oíh drl 11973). rrd d*ciplor orrhè 1trhfi D
cakgory is ukei ton Mrin and Solomoí (1990) InInmnion ÍcgaÍdinga filih, carnor
chs\ily'.àrèCorymrd*crib.d her br prómiientitr clinicrllydistr$sedind violcnl$mpLcs
iiivàil.ble i| Hesa (1996).

"organized"lntànt caregorie$oí
discourseparallelsto the ibree
srrangesituationresponse,and an ove icw is providedin Table 1.
Secure-autonomous parentshrve repeatedlybeenfoundhighly likely
!o have s€cureinfants,dismissingparents10 have avoidanlinfants,
and preoccupiedparentsto hxve ambivalent/resislant jnfanls (see
Hesse.1999aandMain, in press;seealsovan IJzendoorn, 1995).As
notedearlier,however,sone speakers-whileusuallyappearins to be
acceptablyorganizedelsewherewithin the interview nranifes!
disorganjzarionrnd/or disorieniationin Íeasoningof discourse
specificallyin responseto queriesregerdingpotentiallyi.rum.tlic
events.Renarkably,theselinguistlc"slippages"are predictiveof
infantallachmertstatus.
disorganized/diso.iented

6ln dnèd pr[lkl to unclrssifiabLc'inrht ]tr.hhedr ídu\ .s i

weíon (1931).. ld rons.ripLshrve iisullicÈnt ovÍil
icJcÍlsories ÏleseiEcutrcdly tÍmcd luod lrÀtity'
502 ERIK H€SSEa\D JvunY MAl)J

hfdnt StrungeSituatíonBeha'ít I
DitorglLnized

In 1986,Main andSolononfirs! publjshedtheirdircctionsfor identi

fying a fourth, disofgmized/disodenled categoryof infani stÍange
siru.riionbehavior(lvlainandSolonon.1986) This caregoryemerged
llroush themeetingoftwo branches ofinquiry whichinvolved(a) the
directobservalion of conflictbehavioÍsin infantsandloddleÍs(Mair.
1913,l9'79atMain andStadlman,1981)and (b) the recognidon!ha!
soÍneinfantsseeniD thestÍangesiluationweredifficult or impossible
to classify(e.g..Main andWeston.1981;EgelandandSroufè,1981:
Crittenden.1985;Radke-Yafrow et à1.,1985).
Drawing on descriptionsof what ethologistsret]trj conJlicí
berdl,iors-that is, behaviors believed1oresuhfrom thesimultaneous
activationof incompatible syslens(see,e.g..Hinde,1966rTinbergen.
1951)-rhe secondaulhorhadbegunto codeconflictbehaviorsin the
toddlersobsêrvedin her doctoralthesisby 1972,andby 1974under-
rook a secondinvestigÍrtion of conflictbehaviors, this tine focusing
pon lhe narative recordsfrom Ainsworth'sBaltimoresample(see
Màin. 1973;Màin and Stadtman, 1981).Finally,utilizingyet a third
(Bay Area)sample,r scrle assessins "disordered/disoriented" behav-
iors was deveioped(Main, l979ar see Main md SoloÍnon,1990,
pp. 154-155).This scalewasnsedappliedto a videotaped Procedure
in which oneyear-old infants are eÍposed to an initially silent,
unnoving masked"c]own" in the parent'spresence(Main. and
wesion. 1981; see Grossmann,1997. for a descriptionof some
unfavorable sequelae to "disorde.edldisoriented"behaviorobserv€d in
theClownSessionin a SouthGermansample)
In conjunctionwith Màin andWeston's(1981)study,it was also
repoÍed tha! approximalely137.of ilrfatls in their large Bay AJea
samplewcre u,.ldsrrtarle within Ai.sworth's raditionàI.tri-parrile
system.A comparison of infantÍesponse to |he "clown session"and
Írange situationbehavioÍ involving the same parent one week
following revealedthat conflict behaviorwas rlrJe .tmongsecure
infanN,andwasmostpronounced amongirfántsjudgedunclassifiable
(Main andWeston,L98l).Thusa notable:ribeitprelinnary associà-
lion betweentheexhibilionolconflict behaviorin a stÍessfulsilualion
and unclassifiabilitywith respectto the stmngesituatlonprocedure
hadbeenesrablished.
SÊCOND EÊFÊCTS
GENÉRÁTION PÁRENTS
IN NONNIALTREATÍNG 50J

With lhc ailn of betier understanding unclassifiableatlrchment

sutus,MrÍy Main ÀndJudilhSolomon(formeílya biologicalgÍaduate
studentspecializingin the study of animal behavior)undertooka
reviewof theseanomdousstrangesiluationvideotapes (Main and
Solonon, 1986, 1990).Rather lhD revealinganv new orgamzed
pattemingsacrossthe courseol the stÍrngesituation.unclassifi$le
infanlswere againfound !o displaya diversearravof inexplicable'
odd, oÍ oveÍtly conflictedbehrliors, this time within the slÍange
silualionprocedure itself.Oneunclassifiableinfan!.forexamplecried
loudly while aÍempiing!o gainher motheÍ'slap. thensuddenlvlell
silentandstopledmovingfor severalseconds. Otherswer€obseNed'
for example,approaching the parentwith headavenedirockingon
handsandkneesfollowingan aboniveapproach; movingawayfrom
Èe parentto the wall when apparentlyfrightenedby the skangerl
screaming lor thè paren!by the door upon separaiion, then moving
silentlyaway a! reunion;raisinghandio mouthin an apprehensive
gesture immediately uponseeingtheparentat thedoof whenreunitedi
andwhile in an apparently goodnood slowlyswipingat the p,rent's
facewith a trancelikêexpression.
The moststrikingtbemeÍunningthÍoughlhe behavio.sobseraed in
theseinfàniswas$at ofdiro/Sanirarior,or anobserved conlradiction
jn movementpàtteÍnconesponding to an infened conlradictjonin
inrentio.or plan(Main andSolomon,1990) The leÍm disorientatíon
wasalsousedto describebehaviorwhich.while not overtlvdisorga-
lized, nonetheless indicaÈd a lack of orientaton to the pfesent
environnentGuchas immobilizedbehavioraccompànied bv a dazed
expression)lSeventhematicheadings wefeidenlified,aspresenled in
Table2.
aouN oí disorganized,/djsoÍiented behaviorsuffici€ntfor sssign_
mentto lhe D (disorganized/disodented) cateeoryarc often suryris
nrglybrief (not infrequentlyconsislingin jusi oneepisodelasting10
10 30 seconds). For example,an infant who froz€ inexpli.ablvin a
postufewhichrequircdphysicaleffoí 10maintain(e.g..with onehand
paÍtiauyextended)for 20 secondsof morewould be placedin lhe

rDncdionsfDrjudsirgi.hn$ a5d fincdrhreugh tpetrtd

$udy ol 2OOiirrtrt Ínrge sieaiioí videorrpsdcisixred unclisifiable *nhin rhe onginal
hxll dnwn nom Lów'n\k 'nd hrlÍ iiod hish nsk .nd/o! mllftrtmcdr
501 ERIK H€SsEA)D II,\RI NIAIN

'l|ble2 Disorgióiz.d/disoÍient.d
bchlvi0robsÈr!.ddunnglhesÍrngèrluatron.

Shnso siruidonbchxvioÍis judgÈd.lisoÍgrnlTcd

{hcn it iitr to onê.r thc followng

l1) Sequ.nli.l liijrlur ofc.hr1 n..r l)èhdrit Panernt F.rexanplc.thcinlint

nÉy dashcrying b rhc door at PaÍentcdtaDce,thentull silcntdndruÍn àwlv to the

12) ,i,ruL.tu."! di!?I., af r.ntnAitht! h.harbr pdemr Far errrpij, rhc

inÍint may lppr.rch wilh hsrd àvcdcd,or lern sh!ryI! away whjlc clilgin8 lnd
rqing. Also shilè smilingnd in.n opPrÍeorg.odmoodthe inirnt \LddenLy$rik.
or.lxs rt thep.Énfs Lce.
(.3) Untlirett.d. n^dirett.tl, ih.onittetè dnlJ Intc/ntpt./.1 norenen^ lnd eÍPre:
rr,r Fof exrnpl., thc infant n.y ruÍó and briShtlysreet thè $ràngcr àt pafent
cnrxnce,or movcsobbingro lhê wàll ratheÍ$xn lhe pareniwhè.distcsscd
(4) Stere.rpie:, astnnetriqt note,l.nt !, hti! tine4,brene
,',rr,r.r. Fof examplè,dic inianLmay ro.k hardon hands.ndkneesimmediltclyon
Euniod.grcDrthe pareotwnh a one'sidedsmilè,or rcpearèdlymise am\ stràight
foNrardàt shoulderheishr,eyès.loscd
15) Ftuezing,eiUins,and !l.*el novmentr and eyressbn!. lor examPle,lhe
inlan!my rolc very slowly rdwardsthe paÍent,as rhóughmovingunderwaier or
!srins physicalresistance. Or, thc inlin! mly ireèzèàll 'norementfor 20 seconds.

\6) Dnd in,tit^ .J.ryrehen!bn tesd intt th. Parent !oÍ eÍrmpLe.the int3nt
'này placeh ds ro mouthat plEnt entidnccwnb a frishieiêd êxpÈssion,or nay
backasriní the wxll wnh a ferfulsnilè.
11)Dirct1 inlit6 óí /lisoryni..1ion d,.l lt!.rienhtun. F& exanplè,thc infant
maywandeÍóout thc foomi0 rdis.rganizèdiashion,ruminsin.ncles Or, immcdi_
atelyuponràrèítcntance theioihr mat turn.nd brishtlysrêerthè*ràngcr,Ínising

edn,rru Ím.
N.t: Therbov. dscnprióisor disorsxnizcd/disonc
:drpredlÍom llain rd Solonon (1990). bebrYioris ÍoÉd bv
Di{lqrnized/disoftnÈd
nírncc on . 9 poi,Í Írlc, and infldi rcofirg above a 5 Íc pl.cdd in th. diso€riizèd

disoÍgànized category. In addition, the disorganizedcategory is

ahvays assigned togetheÍ with a bcst-fi$ing, alternale avoidatt.
secure.or .csismni category(e.g.,disorganiTed/avoida.t o. disorga_
Thls is becausethe secondbest fitting cateSorymay
nized/secure).e,

rAl.o. iomc iihd\trr rlreoddy unclNifiabL!oi crrnor.lxsii]

'rA.!èprrblè
lev.lr olrcLjrbiirt rDJnrbiLn' e..c.rablnhcd roÍ th
snuiion !Í!sDrj ;r rhtr d Í'.cccdlis indèpeideÍ inv.risd'ons.
{udL!\ .o serili$nt bccn nud í!h
BxleÍn]N Krncnbq' iDPrcr'
 EFFECTS
GENERATION
SECOND PARENTS
tN NON.VALIRET\TING 505

ultimatelybe Íelarcdto differing sequelae-fiat is, disorgànized/

secureinfantsmaydiffer narkedlyfrom thosewho aredisorganized'/
insecure.as LyonsRulh in particulir hasdemonstrated (seeLvons-
Ruth,Alpem, and Repacholi,1993;Lyons-Ruth,1996isee Lyons-
RulhandJacobvitz. 1999for overview)-
Disorganized behaviorhasalsobeenobseÍve'lin iífanrs andolder
individualswho are neurologicailvalvpical (Main and Solomon'
1990;seeaLsoPipp-Siegel, Siegel,and Dern, in press)'isolated.or
simplyoverwhelnedoroveí stimularcd by repeated or extended sepa
rations(Heineckernd westheimer,1966iRobertonand Roberlson,
1971:Main and Solonon, 1990;Solomonand George 1999;see
Hesse, 1999b fot overview).ln addition.disorgaDized behavior'
(paÍicularly.st€reotypies and 'freezing")canresultfrom pharmoco
logicalint€rvenlions (seeHesse,1999b)
However,sincè-in keepingwith thetheorizingputfoÍw'rd within
this presentation-disoÍgánization can also arise as the productof
conflictingbehavioraitendencies (Hinde, 1966).ir is not surpÍising
thatdisorgànized behaviorhasbeenobserved in expedmental settings
in which toddlersaredeliberately givenconflictingsignals(Volknru
and Siegel.1979rVoikÍur. Hoder and Sieeel' 1980)'srbjectedto
abrupt and confusingchangesin inteÍactionàlbehavioÍ'or else
exposed1o"inescapable" situationsinvolving for exàmpleshameor
embáJÍassment Gee Main and Solomon,i990 and Hesse.1999b)
Disorganized behrviorin the prcsence of a particularparen!mavalso
resuhfrom circumstànces in theparcDt'slife whichleadto frightened
behavioronly GmporaÍily(a càseof ihis kind in which an othcrwise
securcparenlhadjust had a life-lhÍeatening experience is discussed
extensively by AinsworlhandEichberg,1991).Sincecootlictarising
is, howevef,eilherthe pÍoductof expenmen-
in lheselattersituations
ral procedures or presumed io be transient.a seaÍchfor ongoingand
potentiallydisorgànizingaspects of paÍentalbehavlorwasuDdeÍaken
As notedearlier,we hrve hypothesized that behavioraland atten'
iional organizationcan nornally be Inai ained within the slrange
siturtiononly so long as the altachmen! figure-wherhersensitlveor
insensitiveto infan! sigDalsand communications-has noi been a
diÍectsourceofftishi (Ma;nandHesse,1990,1992iHessexnd Main
in press).Thecapaciryto remainoÍganizcdshouLd, however'ordinar
ily break down in the face of repeaiedexposureto the inherendv
highly conflictinl situxrionin ivhich the atiachmentÍigure hasbecome
alannlng.
In kcepingwrth !his propos.rl.disoÍganizedbchilior has no been
iniantsstudiedin
in thegrextnajority(7?í.) of mrltreirted
observed
the strrnge situaiionin lwo relalively large independent smlples
(Cdlsonet aL.,1989:LyonsRurhet !l l99l: scc van llzendoom.
Schuengel, and Bake.mans Krnnenbu.g,1999.Table 5) l! is ncver-
rhelessstill necessary!o pÍovidean rccountlor the fact th:rt 15%of
infantsobservcdin low-.lsksamples (N = 2104rvanlJzcndoorn e! al .
in pfest aÍedisorganized. md thatin severalstudicsthe proponionof
middle-classroddlersjudged disorganizedhàs rangedabove 309ó
(e.g.,AinswoÍh rnd EichbeÍg,l99l). F rther.directnalireatmenlrs
unlikelyto p.ovidethe pÍedominant explsnationfor the fact that in a
studt'of childrenoí trolherssulïeringfron anxiervdisorders. 659' of
offspÍing werc íound disorganized(Manassis.Bradlev.GoldbeÍg
Hood.andswinso!. 1994).while of courseno onewouldffgue that
nahrertmentis absentin lo!'Íisk samples, oÍ that i! might not occur
in someparentswith anxietydisorders,it would be highlv unlikely
!hat.lbr example.65í. of motherssufferingfrom anxjetydisordeÍs
1louldalsobe maltreatrng.
Thesefindings.then.Ierve olen the queslionof whxt the parentai
corclates of disorganized rttachmen!might ordinafily be in non
naltreaiingpolnlations,and indeedbos disorganization can arise
under circumstances that do nol inlolve diÍeclly threateniogor
mrltÍeatingprental behavior.Ultinately. we theorizedthatlilSl]'
eneda tlissóciatedparent behaviorcould placethe infanl in a
paÍadoxsinilar !o dircctly lhferileningparentalbehavior,and lhat
behalior of this ki.d coold be expectedin nrdividuàlsin lou risk
sxnpleseho were slill ffightened,unresolved, and disorientcdwtth
c.pe. .rlc'r or,e\pericnce " ' l o ' o rr b u . e

ll nresoLred/Divn gdni..ed klu lI Attdchn ent SxtIus:

DIÀ.au^è/Reasangít1Lap sesO(uttittg Duing the Disrussion
jP,,!:att) f,4"\'" L. , '

Initial alben indifect sLrppo.!for the aboveline of rcàsoningwas

pfovidedby our early investigalion of ihe Bay Area upper-middle
classsanpLe(Main aDdHesse,1990).Herewe tounda strongrssoci
 EFIÈCTSIN NON\ÍÀLTRÈÁTINCPÁRENTS
CENERATION
SÉCOND 507

adonbetweenlhc infant'sdisoÍganized/ disorientedbehaviorduring

the strangesituationas conductedwith a given pafentand lirSlrirtic
rlippag?robservedin that samepaÍent'sdiscussionof Potentially
tr matic eventsslfficient to wrrrant placementin Íhe unt"solved/
disorganí.edAduh AttachmentIntcrview category (Main ànd
coldwyn, I984, 1998;seeHesse,19994aDdHesseandMain.in press,
for overview).In lhis Íudy, we repoÍed tht 91% of mothersidcnli-
fied as substDtiallyunresolvedon the basisof discoufse/rcasoning
lapsesduÍingdiscrssions of losswithin theAAI hàdhaddisorganized
infanlsfivc yeaÍsearlier,whileonly 167,of motherswho haderye.r
,rceda loss,bu! showedlittle or no indicationofdjsorganized mental
processes in discussing theloss,hadhaddisorganized infants.
The first replicationstudy was conductedby Ainswoíh and
Eichberg(1991),who estàbljshed thrt, in a sampleof 50 Charlottes-
ville mothers,thosewho had simplyeryeriehceààl
likely lhan olhermoihe|sto havedisorganized infants.HoweveÍ írl
?lgrr notherswhoseLapses in .ersonin-q or discourseidenlifiedthem
as unresolved/disorganized with r€spectlo loss had infantsjudged
di'orgrnr/ed ui \lh.mauÍ.ng \e rrdngenluir'^n
TheAinsworthandEichbergstudyprovid€da particulaÍlydramatic
exampleof a lapsein the monitoringof reasoning in a high'function
ing mother.Immediatelyupon being queriedregardingloss experi-
ences.sherespondedY€s.therewasa liltle man"andthenbeganto
cry. The personlos! wasrn elderlylnanwho had wofkedbÍieflv for
her pàrentswhenshewaseightyearsold. Jokingly,he hadaskedher
'No, you d be
!o mdry him whensbegÍew up. and shehad replied
dead."Not long rfter this exchange, he had died unexpectedly of r
brainhemoÍÍhage. Crying,lhis mothertold the i erviewerthatit was
she who had killed him "with one senterce (Ainsworlh and
Eichberg,1991,p. 175).Tlrislapsein reasoning waslelt unmonito'€d.
leadinglo placemen! ln the unresolved/disorgmized adultattachment
category,andas expectedthe infanfs strangesituationbehaviorwas
hlghlydisorganized. Thereadershouldnote

(a) the existenceol frishteningideation(haling killed someonc

with a thoughoin thismother,
(b) whoselossexperience wouldnot normallyotherwisehavebeen
considered raumahc.
508 ERIKHISSEÀND MÀRY \I,\IN

By 1994,unresolved/disoÍganized parentalattachmenlstatushad
beenfoundpredictiveof infantdisorganized attachmentin five fuÍher
samples(sumnarizedin van lJzendoom.1995).In four of these
sanples.the Adull AttechmentInteÍviewwas administ€ted priol to
the birth aÍ thefrrst child and comparedto infet strangesituation
response to thesamepdeni 15monthslater(BenoitandParker,19941
Fonagy,Steele,and Sleele,l99ll Radojevic,1992,1994;Vr'ffd and
CàÍ]son,1995;the latter is a high-Íisk sample).'oSince then. six
addirionalinvestigations of therelàtionsbelweenunÍesolved parental
atrachmcnt stalusanddisorganized infantattachnentstatushavebeen
condrcied,with highly significantlinkagesbeing reportedfor a
majorityofthesesludies(Hesse,1999b).
In sum,then.researche$ haverepeatedlyobserved that(l) isolated,
bÍ',efLinguisticindicesof disorganization and disoÍientrtionin ihe
parenr'sAAI occuningspecificallyin response to queriesregarding
loss or abxseexperiences(tne rntjority ol lr,"esdlvedAAI'S ate
otheÍwisegloballywell organized), predict(2) usuallybrief boutsof
behdvioral disoÍE nizaÍion and disorientation in the infant- An
overviewof thissysiemoflinguisticanalysisis providedinTable3.

Fi ghtened/Fn gtueninqBehariaI in Non-M alt rcatinq Paíe nts

The firsl slep loward deriving the conclusiontha! disorganized

behavioÍ could resuh no! only fÍom direct physicatabuse and
maltreatnent(i.e.,as a dtzd effectof traumá)but rlso as a second-
generutianeJïectaf moresubtleíormsof parenralbehaviormediated
by a frightenedmentalstate(Main andHesse,1990.1992)corsisied
in a closerexaminationof the "unÍesolved interviewpassages in
which linguisticslippages hadbeenidentified.Herewe notedthat in
mary cases the inleÍviewer'squestionsregardinga potentially
traumaticeventseemed!o havespdkedor induceda momentdybtrt
meDtalsta|e.L'Indeed,nany of $e
dramaticalterationin the speakers
'I'Íeaiitrgly, thc *rcnsó oÍ rhc
i$errclier lnre brd Ln.ssesi0gdi$Ísanizrd Íínge situariodb.hrvioÍ (vd Dzêidóoí,

rrSbr\ orrb$rprioí rnd ifinsions Íon scondaryryncmsaÍacompatibl.*ith Hil8ardt

amlrsn or hypnoticphenonenaand tmncdikc ía.cs (Hilgard.1977)and th Bowlbys
snl ( c
inaLy\il of a cascof MÍdsolvcdrouíiig in rí Àdolescent
 ctN'rP\T-o\ r-rt(Tt I\ \oN vA-T?FA-_G P\Pr\T(
sEco,{D 509

.(àchmentstatuswlhin the Adulr

Tlble 3 lde.rifyingunresolved,/disoreanizêd
in lhêfronnon.gofdiscourse
At,chncnt lntcÍvicw:Lapses andreasonins.
Lapsesin thc nonnonngol l[.,!^e maytàkethè inllowinelorms,afrongothcrs:

(à) Suddcnchmees in speechrêgilter (cg., shiliins liom normal speaking

pàttcrnsinto eulosistic/iuneErlspêè.h,as, Shevas youn3,5hewasIorely. andshe
w a s t o r n f r o m u s b y r h a i m o Í d r c a d c d o f d i s e . s e s , t u b e r) c; u l o s À
(b) fàlli.g silc.t for 100 secondsmid sentence,thcn .ontinuingon !n.clded

(c) Givi.g cxreme auentionto deuih sLqoundinga loss or othcr potenrià!],

traunaricexpenèncê inàppropnarcto the interviewcontext(e.s.,a l0 minutediscuv
sioninlolving minDrêdêtaihofa lossincludingtime ofda], furnishjnssof the roon,
andclothinCworntothe funeralbyeachfanil, nembe.)

Lapsesin the monilorinsofrearo,-s nay takcthc lollowingfolms,anong othc6:

(a) Subrleindicariorsrhara deceased individualis bèliê!èdsifrultanêóusly dead
od alivo in rhc physical(not relieiousor melaphysical) sense(è.g.. It wls àimosl
benerwhenshedied,bec.usethenshecauldEeton wnh heinsde,l, àodI couldset
on with óhing my hmily )i
íb) Placeheitof the timing of a dearhar severalwideiy sepamtedperiods(e.g.
ages9,ll,and L5sivenioi sanèlosscxpenence at di||erineplacesin lhe interviev)r
(c) Indicationsrhàt sèli wasicsponsiblefor the deathwhereno matenalcause
sdspresênr(ê.g.,dèaihcausedbynavingthoughtsomething nesaivelbout a persoD
oêd thètime ofrheirdeath)r
(d) Claimsrohavebeenabserratrhetime oflhedeath.juxhposedwith claimsto
havinebee. present(es., salina Esret at hrving beènar homewhenotherfrmily
membervere presen!ata drcwning.thêdlàterspeáki.gasthoDghthesellhàd bêên
presenr:àndwê triêd,bDrnoneofus couldswin to her").

NorcrThè lbovê èxrfrplesor lap

fómMrinrídGold*yi, 1993.

moremêrkedslippages suggested Èat the speakerwas exleriencing

either(a) highlevelsof absorptioninvolvingeventswhichhadas ye!
íailedto undergonormalprocessing ór (b) intnsionsfron Í secoDdary
(normallydissociated)ideationalsysteminvolvingthoseexperiences,
uhrc'rs.' incomparible wirh Jn oÍdinrÍilynore píominenr vieu
regardingthesesameevents(Main andHesse,1990.1992).As Table
3 indicates,examplesof absorllion includedunusualaftentionio
delai] suÍounding the discussionof a loss, o. a suddenshift to
eulogistjc(funereal)speech. Lapsesin reasoning suggestiveof intru
sions from a secondary.incompatiblebelief sysÈm weÍe also
found-for example,ln statements indicatingthrt a deceased person
wasbelievedstiil alive in thc physical(as opposedto metaphorical.
ir0 ERÍKHESSEAND NÍARY\ÍÀIN

meinlhysicalor religious)sense.lt appearedrcasonable to assume.

then,ftaf rirtLrf rríÍd-r,tiÍs cotu occlo in s ch índiridualsin íhe
hone as welLas the ihteNier r?Ítr8, b€ingtriggeÍêdby (r) spontx-
neousinlrusionsfrom alafming memoriesor ideationand/or (b)
somethingin the environmenl idiosyncratically
associatedwith those

As early as 1990,then, a theory was evolving which could in

princille explainhow a parenfs unintegrrtedor dissocirt€dstate,
includingany concomitanlíeals andfantásies, couldbecomeassoci
aledwith disorganized behaviorin the infant(Mrin ard Hesse.1990,
1992).Havingenteredsucha slate,$e parentmightbe expectedto
exhibit(l) anomalous formsofffighteningor threrteningbehavioÍi(2)
frightenedbehavior;or, simply(3) oveÍly dissociated behaviof.Fol
rersonswhich we delinealesho ly, emh of thesesubcategories of
pàÍentalbehavioris expectedto be imm€dialelyfrightening.In
addidon,d€pending on the nalureandi.tensityof theirown t.aumatic
experiences, someunresolved parentsmight also (4) exhibit sexual
izedb€havioÍ,(5) treatthe infantdeferentjally. timidly or as a protec-
tor, or (6) exhibitdisorganized/disor;ented behaviorof the kind more
conrmonlyobservedin infancy.TheselatteÍ behaviors,allhoughnot
necessffilyinnediately frighteningto the infan!.would nonetheless
be mostlikely to occufif theparenthd enteredan 'altered"or disso
ciatedstate-In thiscase,thepaÍentcouldwell be expected to become
directtyfrightening,frightened, ordissociative lrt otheriimes. -
The above consideralions, of course.would require empirical
tےing, andthisled to thedevelopment of a codingsystemfor identi-
fyjng thesekindsofparentalbehaviors (hereafter termedFR behavior.
Main andHesse,1992 1998).An oveNiewofthis systemis presented
in Table,l.
This codingsystenwasintendedto providea systematic meansfor
lnvestigrtingthe hypotbe sit Íh^ÍÍrightekeddndrl.rrocrdtedbehavior.
as well as ceÍain kiDdsof threateningbehrvior would appearin
unresoived/disorganized parenisin low-risksanples,and,like dircclly
abusiveor maltrcatingbchavior,would placea! infant in a behav
ioral/auentionalparadoxleadingto disorgmization anddisorientation.
Thc FR codingsystenhasevolvcdthroughseve.aleditionsacross
the paí eightyearsrnd, as of rhiswriting,a numberof iDdependent
investigators haveutilizedvaryingediiionsor portionsof this systêÍr
 " \:o\v1l 511
\., o\Di L\rD\lto\ LF+i Pr,lÍ\cÍÀP'\T\

ofrhèSvsrcnfotCodinsfRBeh'vrors
Tàble4 PrecisoltlESir CèótnlCnteSorics
Notc: Exclldc lrom consideralioó simplê disciplinrrv xct'ons evcn rr :omewhrt
or momeor&ilyftightening(e.g. shortinA or shFpingol hrod),or
harsh.inscnsitive,
accidcdtsrhal momentrnlylriShrenthc infunr (c.g, slipPrngand bumpiDgintants
headon wa11). so long rs prrenfs $rte d.cs not rPpcxLdi\s'ci'!v' or anomllÓus

Dire.1 indi.er oI entanrc iata . dirlacntiv vdr.. !oÍ exàmplc.prrent

suddenlyr.nplctelt licczeJ withcvesd.moving,hllí-lidded dèsPitcncarb!
dovementiparent.ddressesinlànt in à. alteÍed" tone sith sinultineous
voicins àód de-!or.ine ( haunrcd"sound.as is prcducÈdbv elonglti'g the
"dr" shil. pullingin on diaphnen)
soundsor "tr", dlll" or

Thrcu1èhiqheh.i.)r ineÍPti.dblein .'iqin an.t/$ &andlou in Ion' F'Í

e x a n p l c , i n n o ó - p l a y c o n t ê x t s , s t i f i l èl tgagl kc idn g ' o f i n r m r o n a l lt b u r s I n a
huntinApostuÍèicxposuÍeol caninetoorh acconpàniedbv hrssiier deep
srowk dnectedrt infant

111. Fri|htened b2hiarn)rpattems ineÍPlicublè in ot\in dnd/ar an.nuk'r ntÍam

Suddeninghrcnedlook (te3rmourh.èxposure orwhnesoietet in absence ol
environóc.talchaogc.Aho, à quick, stanoerirg alamèd rcrear indicrring
rhat rhc infarr mlst not follow. or approa.hing iniant àppÍchensivelvas i
potenlirllydxnserous oblecl

l\ r'ihiAnelerential(..te invrtin) hehavi.r For cxlmple.submhsiveto iniinr

rggression,hàndsfolded, hcad bowed,no efort to stoP prinrul slapping
bnringor hdir pulling.Also,rumine1orhcofsPing asahavenolsar'tv qheD

Se\rutize.!beharior kNa i])ti! FaÍ èxarpLe,deep klssinÊol ioftrnt.

caÍessing.
of sexLdlizcd
cxhibiriondr cncouEgemcnr

vI Dn.rgani.tudilorien ed hèhdriarr unpdtible \!'h tt'in 'nl Srl'n'n\

I l99O)inIu,l r-ren. Fnt cxample,nh{imed nolemenr, anomrlouspo$ufes,
rpproachinsinfànt wirh hêad alerted, or an! obser!àblc collapse or
bchÀlionl (càresiline)srrxtosy, suchàsbccomingmotio.lèssFhile inht is

Nor: Rcad* iírereícdiD! do.ecomPL€re desapriooórthiss)ncm

rtrd
irÍirdes h $c ldcnrificJlioi
.urhórÍ.ddrcss li\r.J rt rhecndorrhisaíi!lc fÓtrrirrE
s.o'in! orFR beh.yio.sÈ beLngpliiDod

in hone or làboÍalory observations Two large-scalesiudies have

invesrigatedthe relationbelweenunresolved/disorganized(naternal)
allachmenistatus and FR behalior as observedin molhcÍs in lhe
home. Workiog ai Leiden UDiveÍsity in thc Netherlands Schuengel
 IRIK ILF\-E \ND M]Rf \'{IN
ill

rnd his collclsuesvicleotrped35 Írothersand infantsfor appÍoxi

(Schuengel'
nntel! ibrí hotrrsxcrossthe courseof two homevilits
'"" rj,."a.o-. and Bakc.mansKJrnenbu'8,i997) Homebehrvio'
w€Íc
obs.r\rLionsuefe Ínedeirt i05 months.and no InslÍucllons
lireD to motheÍsto engagein anyprrticulafformr oí intefachonAn
rssocirrionbetuecaunresoLYed,/disorgrnized attrchmentandmaternal
FR beha\'iorwos found,bul only whcn the moiher.sallernativeor
-beÍ-duing" ÀAl classificrtion(assessed whenthe infanlswere l2
mon&t wr! insecure(Schuengel et rl., l99ll Schuengeie! al-' 1999).
This suggestedthe lossibility of x protectivefactor operatingto
inhibit the expression of FR behÀviorin unrcsolvcdmolhefswhose
undeflr-ingaduh att.rclmentcLassilication was secuÍe(a siudv of
couplcinleraction,and I studylinking the AAI ro assessmenis ol
psychotathologyappearto pro!ide further coroboÍation of this
proposal, seeHesse.1999a,fbrreview)
In a studyconductedal the Uni\eÍsityof Texas Jacobvitz'Hazen
and Riggs (1991: Jacobviiz.1998) adminisrered the AAt to ll3
mothersprenlully. HeÍe,motheÍswerereq ired to fecd their babies'
play with rhem,and changetheir clothingon cam€Ía In this more
strcssfirlproccdure,,o.l ulrresolved/secure md unresolved,/insecu
motlerswcÍe faÍ morc likely !o cxhibhFR behaviors, ascompared io
eithcr secue or insecuremoihercwho were Doi urresolved(similar
fesulrsa.e emcrgingin a íudy comprringparentalAAI alrachnient
Íath to iiightcni g/ffightenlngparertal behaviorin a Bav-Area
srudy,Abr.rms,1999).However,rherewasa tendency for unresolvedT
scc re mothcrsobservedin the hone in the Texasstudv!o exhibi!
somcwha!Iess FR beheviorthan did unÍesolved/insecrre mothers
(LyonsRuihlnd Jacobvilz.l9g9).
Two invcstigalofs hx\e alsoexxminedFR bchrviordirectlywÍhin
the strangesitration.A fnit siudy conductedwiih a middlc-class
rnple lrr the UnivcÍsity of Regensbuf-s in Germanyyielded no
-ignifican! alsocirlion behacenmatemtl FR behaliof and infant
disorglnizedattxchmcnt. However,thesemotherswcre describedas
doingvefy littLcrhÍoughout thc stÍan8esituirtionproceduÍe asa who1c,
,rn.l the codershad not hrd ihe bcn.fit of obseÍvingvideotaped
examplesol FR behavio.(Bullner,Hicber,andGrossma.n.iS97).A
sccondstÍangesituationstudy,ir conlr$t. rtilized r high risk saniplè.
ind 'vider variationin mrÈmal behavior\as obseÍved.Here, FR
-L(OiDul\.P\ÍlO!ll l. !\O\\lrLPr'.-!6 I PtlTr 5t3

behrvior (as well as disruptedmaternalcommunication and widr-

dÍawal) wàs Íbund associated with inlàn! disorgrnizxlion'and the
parentsof disorganized infantswhoseahem.rtive bes!filting ctassifi-
cationswere securedifferedin intriguingways from thosewhose
was insecure(Lyons-Ruth
altemativebesifitting classification el ê1,

Severalinvesligators havealsoexaminedthe relatjonbetweenFR

behaviorin the hoÍre. field oÍ laboratory,and inlant disorganjzed
auachment slatusas assessedin irdependeni strangcsituationsln the
Leidenstudyof 85 dyadsmentionedabov€,FR behavioras observed
in lhe hone at 10.5monthswas signiiicantlypredictiveof disorga
nizedatlachment in strmgesituationsconducted al 14!o 15 monthsof
age (schuengeler al, 1999).In dditjon. a studyof villageliving
m€mbers of theDoganethnicgroupconducted in lvlali,WestAfrica.
founda sinplifieóassessmeDt ofFR behavio..as Íecordedin the field
or hut setting.significantlyassociáted with disofganized attachnenl
statusi however,no associaiionwàs found in à secondsaÍnple
consistingof townliving Dogan(Trueel al., I 998; thevillagemothers
were generallybelicvedto be living in high-riskcircumstances, rs
compared to thetownmodrers).
Finally, a sludy of 50 infant-motheránd 25 infant'fatherdyads
(rotalN = 75) cond ctedby Abramsàt Berk€leywasthe first to use
the most Íecent(1998)veÍsionof the codingsysteÍn(Abramsand
Rifkin, 1999;thisstudyformsprrt oí Abrams'doctoralthesis,md the
full codingsystemis availableasan appendixto Hcsse,1999b).Here,
parentsand infantswerevideotapedin the laboratofyin l8 minules
offree-play,but-to crcatean opporlunityfor observinginfantobedi
ence prents weÍe instructedto keepthe infant awayfron vuious
locationsandobjects.Freeplayivasfollowedby the l2 minuteCLown
Session(Main andweston,1981),andcode6,scoringacrossthe full
30 miDutesof observation, wc̀ blind to stmnle situations conducted
one week previously-Thc resultscomparingparentalFR fÍeê play/
Clown Sessionclassifications to infant D stange situationclassi
ficàlionsassessed oneweekearlierwerevery strongfor bothmotheÍ-
infantdyads(82%agreemeír, Fisher'sexacttest= .0002)àndfrther
iníantdyads(889.agreement, Fisher'sexactlest= .002).Acrossthe
75 dyadsas a whole,therewrs 8,19,agreement betweenFR md D
classifications(phi = .61).Sixty five perccntof Èe (17) parenlsof
 ERIKHESIEÀND MARY MÀIN

infantsassigned to D asa primÍy classification werejudgedFR. and

137. oí the (6) pàrentsof infantsassignedto D as a secondaryor
''ahemate"chssificationwcreiudgedFR In contras!'onlv 4% of the
(52) paÍentsof non-Dinfenls.Of lhe i5 out of 75 parentsàssigned to
theFR classification, I I hÀdbeenassigncd io D asa pfimary.and2 lrs
a secoodey (e.g., secure/alternàte disorganized) strangesituation
classification.Thirteenout of thc 15 infantsof FR pffentshad.then.
shownsubstanlial indicesof disorganizalion anddisorientation
during
thestrangeslnlallon.
Considered as À whole,thesestudiesprovidepreliminffy (albeit
coÍelational) evidencefoÍ the hypothesistha! FR beh^vior frequently
mediat€sthe relationbetweenuffesolved(adult) and disorganized
(infant)attachment stalus.Itsbouldbe noted(a) thalFR behaviormay
be mosilikely to appearanongparenisin high-risksamples. or lvhen
puentsare observed in stÍesstulsettings.andconsequenlly that(b) it
may be undeÍlheseconditionsthal strongerrelationsto unfesolved
matemxlattachment statusanddisorganiz€d infantattachmentstalus
xÍe likely to be found.In addition,strongerÍesultsmaybe Íeporiedby
researchers trainedvia a reviewofFR behaviorexamples, andàbleto
utilizemorerecer!editionsofthe codingsystem

Below,we providêa generaldescription of frighteningand fright-

enedparenralbehaviorswhichde not expected !o producedisorgani
zrtion. The behaviorsfound in the six cat€gories oí the FR system
presented in Tablezlarethendiscussed, andillustrativecaseexamples
aregiven.In addition,we considerthewaysin whicheachtypeofFR
behaviorrÍny be directly(categories 1 to 3) oÍ indiÍectly(categories4
to 6) frighteniígand/ordisorganizing to the offspring.It shouldbe
remembered thatin all studies(otherthanthe originalstudyby Main
andHesse, whichfocusedupon non'blindanecdotal obseÍvations).
the
observersof parentalbehaviorhrve been blind to bolh the Adult
Attachment Interviewandinfantstmngesíuationbehavior.

F riq ht ene.l anà Threateni nI ParentaI Behar i ors

NoÍ Erpe cted tó P raduce Diso rg.nizatior

In contrastto maltreatingpÍental behavior.which musl invariably

aÍisefrom pathologicalco'ditions,thereare severalforms oi iright
 SECONDGÊNER.\TIONEFFECTSIN NON MALTREATINCPÁRENTS
it5

enedandihreatening parenralbehêviorthatoccurrelativelyfrequenrly
but wouldnot normallybe expected to leadto disofganjzarion and/or
disorientalion. For exampl€,Camposandhjs colleagues havedemon_
slrrtedthat infantsait youngas 11 monthsare highlyaleÍ to frighF
enedêxpressrons or rhe pllÍ of the parenrwhich indicaredanger.In
Campos'studiesiníanrshave.for example,beenooservedto momror
and.espondto parentalexpressions of apprehension or atarmas the
infant approaches m appffenrly dangeroussiturtion irvolving a
sin1ulated or "visual" cliff, andto inhibitmovemenlacrossthe cliff in
response to fearfulexpressions (seeKtinneÍ er at., 19831Kermoian
and Canpos, 1988).Fenful parenlrt expressions also. of course,
appearoulsideof thelaboratorysettjng,perhapsindicaringapproach_
ing danger(e.g.,theappearrnce ofa porentiallyagg.essive animal).or
thepossibilitythartheinfanr'sactionsmayhaveimmediately danger_
ous consequenced (e.g..rhe roddler'smovemenrtowardsoncoming
traffic).In circumstances suchas rhese.however,whatis atarming-
r.e.,the sourceof the alaÍrn is enrernalto the prÍent.Th€ alarrning
stimuluswill thereforeordinaritybe borhdiscemibieandcomprehen,
sible,as will be madeobviousin the parenr'sorientation,and the
inJantwill be free to appÍoachrhe parent.Moreover.it shoutdbe
noledthatwhenmoÍ pàrentslhemselves accidenraltydo something to
frightenthe infant,they are likely !o inmediatelyprovideconforr,
contact,or (in clinicaltermt "repair"(seeespecially Lyons-Rulhand
Jacob\i'r.lcoo Jl1d[ ]on\-RLrÍh e ar..inprF*'.
Considerin additionthe ordinarycontexlsin which rhreatening
parentalbehaviorarises.I!is not unusualfor a parenrro becomeangry
andor threatening in disciplinaryinteracrions-forexample. whenthe
child runsout inlo the street,o. louchesr forbiddenobject.Ar such
hmes,ihe parenrmayno! only sharplyraisetheirvoice,but alsospanl(
the child,or slapthechild's hand.Hereagain,however,the stimulus
for the puenfs behavioris exrcmaland readilycoÍnprehensible. In
addition,by changing its belaviorvia compljance. ttreoffsp.ingcanin
principlebring "írighreDing parentalbehaviorto an end.Finatjy,the
child is ofrenimmediatelyabteto (or evenencouraged ro) approàch
the paÍent,sincetheultimateaim of suchiDteracrions is oftenprotec_
tive, and t|is too providesan opporiuniryfor ..repair...Ordinarily.
then.harshoÍ angryparenialbehavioriÍ itself shouldno1clearean
approach'fl igh!paradox.
516 E R I ( } J I S S EÀ N D M \ P Y M \ I N

In sum,in thesituationsdesc.ibedabovetheconditions leadingto

parentalexpfessionsof frightor threatarediscemible êndcomprehen
sible,whiletheexpressions thêmselves arenor'íomalous-As a rule'
it wouldthereíoreseemthat circunstances of this kind shouldnot
interfeÍewith theconlinued organized funclioningof theattachmen

ParcntaL BehaviotLikelyto beDircctlt afldInmediatetv

Dissociative
F ri?hteningandDísorganizinS: Beharior,
Anonalous Thrcat,a d AnonalousEÍpressionsoÍ FÍiqht

Parentalbehaviorswhich are mediatedpÍirn,Íilv bv internalfactors

relatedto unÍesolvedexperiences of traumaandfeár will in general
not allow for the regulaiedfunctionirg of lhe child's attachmen
behavioralsystem.This will be likely becauselhe parents psycho-
"3heÍed' when thesebehavioÍs
IogicalstÀteshouldmost oflen be
occur-Thebehaviors thenselvescanbedetineated asfolows

ioI
Di ssacidted ParentalBeh,:tv

The phenomenaof dissociationhave íascin'red clinicians aÍd

acrdemicirnssincethe eaily writingsoí BreuerandFreud(1895)'as
well as James(1890).Jane!(1907),and Prince (190s) Especiallv
andconsiderations
carcfuldescriptions of thephenomena ofdissocia_
iion have recentlybeen made availablelia the work of Hilgard
(1977),Kihlstrom(1997).Liotti (1992.1993,1999),Putmn (1985)'
and Spiesel(1990).amonsothers,ahhoughEllenberser(19?0)has
poinÈdout that slatesof dissociationhavea long history in human

Somesspectsof dissociative expeÍiences de subiective,and ee

thereforedjfficulÍ to identify wiihout direct query' Theseinclude
depersonalization, andthe subjectivesenseof ihe existence
aÍnnesia,
of altcmaliveidentitys|ates-Otherarguablydissociative phenomen
are,in contrast,clearlyobservable, suchastra.ce states,and altered
anonalousfacial and vocrl expressions. As mostÍeadersde àware,
thc exlremesof dissociátivephenomena, identitv
such!s dissociative
disorderand fugue stÀles,have frequenllybeen associated with a
histoÍyoftrauma.andhencewithfear(Putnam.1985).
 PARÊ\'TS
IN NONMÁLTREATING
EFFECTS
SECOND.CENERÁTION 517

Dissociative parentalbehaviorswerefirst foundinformallyrelated

to disorganized infan! attachrnenl statusby Main ánd Hesse(1990)
who.for example,describedlhe simultaneous voicinganddevoicing
intonationused by some parentsin greetingtheir (disorganized)
"Halloween"
infants.This intonàtionmosr ofien has a hauntedoÍ
quality.not unlikethát commonto chaÍacters observedin "horroi'
"Hi...iiiii" is spokenwhile pulljng in on the
films (as when
diaphragn).Inacaseseemingly alsoinvolvinga dissocialive element'
a motherwbo hadsuffe.edabuseby her fatherwasobserr'ed greeting
heÍ disorganized male infant with a suddenmid sentencedrop in
intonationto a dee! pitch moreapproprirteto a nlale-Like the de
voiced"/l;. . . iii" describedabove,this vocalizationstrucklisteneÍs
"disconnected" frcm the mother's
as ma*edly frightening,seeming
regularvoice,andsuggestive of intÍusionfrom ihe voiceof a second
speaker.In morerecentobservations, one motherof r disoÍganized
infantuseda de'voicedwhispet("aaaaa.r' ahhh,gettheblockí') in
addressing her infant. This mother was also observedwhispering
instÍuctionsto h€rselfjusl prior to speakingthe samewords in a
normalconvemational tone(AbramsandRitkin. 1999) Remarkably'
"coached"herselfon
the voiceheffd as the nolher almostinaudibly
"haunted"qualitvdescribederJlier'
how to act had lhe de voicedor
AnotheÍmotherof a disorganized infant gruntedand growledin a
andrlmost 'inhunan" malevoicewhilesmilingand
deep,asgÍessive
appeentlypleasanily attempting to engageher infaniin plav Eachof
theseaocalizations wasd€scribed as chillingrnd/orfriehteningwhen
"possession" ro one
playedfor listeners, andsuggested
AnotherbehavioÍpallemindicaliveof entranceinto a dissociative
staieconsistsin "freezine"of all novementacconpaniedbv half
closed. unblinking eyes. In such instdces the pafent appeus
conpletelyutresponsive !o, or evenunawueoÍ. thelmmediaieexter-
nal environmen!including$e movements and vocalizatiorsof iheir
infànt. we have oursehes seen sev€ral unresolved,/disorganized
pdents íreeze all movementin the mannerjust described,while
recently Jacobvitz (see Lyons-Ruth and Jacobvitz. 1999) has
describedher obseÍvations of one unresolved/disoÍganized mother
who appered|o entera trancestatewhile beingfilmed i. a feeding
interactionin the home.Specifically,lhis Inothersat immobilizedin
an uncomfortable losition with handin air, bhnkly srding into sPace
5r8 ERIK I]ESSE \ND M\RY ÀIÀIi\J

for 50 consecutive seconds. ln total, sheenteredipparentlyalrered

statesfor 5 out oí the20 minulesoffeeding.
Dissociative or lrance'likebehaviorthispronounced is rare in low
risk samples,and wo0ldbe expectedto receivethe highestpossible
score(9 on the I to 9 pointscale).Ofcourse.moremoderate examples
of dissociariveoÍ dissociative like pbenomenade frequently
observed, andreceivemuchlowerscores. For example, a moihermay
simply sit comfortably.maintaininga blaÍl 'unseeing" starefor a
brief periodwhile her infantmovesaboutin front of her.vocalizing.
In addition,fleeting,Ínoderately "eerie"facialexprcssions
havebeen
notedin somemothers(seeíor exampleSchuengel et al., 1997).
It apperrsprobable. however,thatat high levelsof iniensityand,/or
in stressfuisituations, dissociatedparenialbehavioÍcan in itself be
sufficiêntlyalarolingto leavethe inírnt withouta Íràtegy for main
tainingbehavioralandattentional oÍganization. For exrmple,in rhree
separate instances in whicha parenluseddevoicing("haunted")rones
in addressing the infan!,the infanr'sbehÀviorimmediatêlybecame
disorganized. Similarly, two infants seen in rhe strangesiturtion
inmediately "froze" (Main andSolomon'su9901guidelinesidentify
freezingandstillingasformsof disorganized/disorienred behavior)as
soonas lhe parententeredinto á rrancelikestale.Whenmarked,ihen,
manytypesofdissociative behaviorare likely to befrighrening. At the
sametime, in leavinglhe infant with "nowhere to go (sincethe
parentis visibly "not there"),a stateof fright withoursolutionwill be

Theexistence ofa specificandsignificantassociation betneeDthis

(dissociative)
subtyleof FR behavio.and infanrdisorganization was
firs! uncoveredin the Leidensrudyof infanr,mother inreÍactionin the
homedescribed above(Schuengel et aL, 1997).A very slrongrelation
betweenFR scoresássigned specificallyfor dissociêrive
behaviorand
the degreeto which the infant had showndisorganizrtio!with the
samepuent was also found for both mother(N = 50. r = .49) and
fath€rs(N = 25, r = .48)in the Bay Area study(AbramsandRifkin,
1999).Becausefor Íeasonsnot yet knownmildly dissociativc behav
iors,suchastlancelikeÍilling, seemto occurnore frequentlyin low-
risk samplesthanthe aDomalous formsof theateningêíd frightened
behaviordescribeddirectly below, it is likely ihat this particutar
 PÀRENTS
IN NONMALTRÈATING
EFT€CTS
SECO\DCENERNTION 519

subtypeof FR behaviorwill conlinueto show a strongrelationto

infanta!!a'hmentÍalus
uffesolvedpaÍenlalrnd disorganized

Araqalau, I ann: ol ÍhrPateniS Pa'?ntalBchn\i'r

As effly as 1990,Main and Hessehad called àllennonto some

Musual parentalmovementpattemsobservedduing lhe slÍange
situationwith disorganized infants Theseincludedstartling'unPre-
"personalspace"-fo' example'while seated
dictableinvasionsol
behindthe iníant,someparentssilentlvandsuddenlyslid theirhênds
acrosslhe infant'sface oÍ throat.tn addition.we informàllynoted
non-gamelike movements or posiuresrhatresemhled a huntor chase-
puÍsuitsequence in the PaÍentsof somedisoÍganized inïants,rlmost
asthoughlhe infant were beingstalked.
SumÍi'ingly. r'nceour earl)non-blind obsel\dr on' o lhreJtening
:rnono1-game likà-hrnFour'Liasequence' il r le$ prenr' 'eenin
the strangesituation,seveÍalindependen! researcheÍs ulilizing home
or labo.atoryfÍee ptayobservations haverepoíedlhe suddenappear-
anceof predatoryand/oÍanimal-likeformsof tbÍeatening behaviorin
the parenlsoídisorganized infants ln somecases.theseparentshave
simplybeenobserved to abruptlybeginto stalkthêinfanton all tburs
"meta-signals" ofplay ln
silen!àndslifflegged,in the absence of all
the sludyconducted a! Leiden,for example'oneunresolved motherof
a disorganized infantsuddenlycrswledsileniandcàtliketowardsher
"nÀu1ing"behavior.tumedher over wilh
infantand$en. simutating
fingersexlendedllke chws GeeSchuenget et al., 1997) This mother
atsocoÍnbinedtickling with bffing her teethand loomingover the
baby's face, increasingand continujngthis displav as the babv
becamefrightened-Ano$er unresolvedmotherof r disorganized
infm! clawedrepealedly towardher infant'sface.while themotherof
an unclassifiable infantrrtossedher roddlerin the air while growling
rnd h.ing herteeih.
rA! norèdèrrlic. rhe LdentificnioroÍ disoÍsanizcd iíbnt rugè siruaion bchxv'or
evolvcdótrtol rn.$niidion oriífan6 'hot $nnee siruationhch
rxili'g
SchEnsclhd hncollcr:uesdsÍÍibe rhn inflnfsímnec situnionbchrviorÀ noioDlv
ro rully fir b thc hdirional a, B,r0d C imchmcntctrregodcs, but t
(schu.dgeler rl. 1997).ourosn lsrill inÍoÍnrl) onsoinsriilvsct or stnns' sitdrtioi behavjor
.lrsiiiablê iírxnt nÉdge situíio
niz.d idrchmcí raos'
520 ER]K HESSEAND MARY IÍAIN

Recen!observations in the free-playhboratorycontextmadeby

Abramsand RiÍ'ldn at Berkeley(1999),and homeobservations by
Jacobvitza! Texas (Jacobvitz.1998; see also LyonsRuth md
JÀcobvitz,1999) have conlinued to confirm the existenceoí
''predrtory"foÍms of tlrÍea!behaviorin paÍenlsindependently identi
fied as havingdisorganized infanls.Thesebehaviorshave included
nol only teeth-baringbut, in additioD.cat-likebissing,deepthreaten_
ing gfowls, and even one-sidedlip-raising(in essence,oDesided
canineexposure, a threatgesture notedby Darwinjn i872) havebeen
observed. Noneof thesepredatorybehaviorsandexpressions appear
"out of nowhere,"and then
to be playful. and mos! seemto arise
disappear.However, since the attachmenlbehavioÍalsystem is
b€lievedlo haveevolvedprimarilyto protecttheinfànlfrompredation
(Bolvlby.1969),behaviorsof rhiskind may be especiallylÍightening
andbe expectedto arousethe attachmen! systemat the highestlevel
ofintensity.
Th€ approach-fligh! conflictleadingio disorganization within the
context of (anonalous)tilrealeningparentalbehavior should. oí
course,eenerallybe the sameas that describedearlierfor casesof
bauering.Becausemost of the anomalousforms of lhreatening
behaviordescribedabove appearsuddenly,briefly, and without
appaÍentcontex!.w€ inferthatfleelingêffects includingffghiening,
paÍially dissociatedÍnemoriesor thoughtsassociatedwilh the
larent's own trauná or fearful ideation nlay drive the abrupl
appeaÍance anddisappearance of thesebehaviors. lt shouldbe noted
thatin theBay Areastudyof50 infant-mother dyadsdescribed eartier
(Abrans and Riftin, 1999).scoresfor theseanomalous(predalory)
forms of mrtemal behaviorwere found in thenNelves significantly
associated with infanl disorganized behavioras assessed one week

Anaa.lousIu,n oJt tiïhl.npd ParcatalB"ha\tar

We now tum to lhe moresubtleandinitially perplexingproblemof

why certainanonaLous expressions ofÍt8r, arc alsolikely to leadto
in the offspring.Ultimately,we believethat in this
disorganization
contextthe operrtivemechanisnalso involvesalterationsin nornal
consciousnessoriginatingfrom theparents lraumatized staleofmind.
sL!o\D.tÀEo \Íto\ Lf_I..c.\ No\.\'11 P-all\c FÀPENÍc 511

Here,however,ràtherlhanresultingin readilyobservable dissociative

statesor agonislicpropensities, tmumaàndfrighteningidextionseem
to havel€dto spo.ádicunintegrated expressions
of fright
Ualike anomalous threat,q,hichmay eventuallybe found associ-
ated with an underlyinginsecure(e.g., unresolved-/disnissing or
unresoived/preoccupied) stateof mind on the partof the parent,there
is no r€rsonto assume tharanomalous expressions ol lright mightnot
oftenoccurin otheÍwis€secure,andnormallysensitive, parents.It is
of specialimpo!1,then,that in heÍ studyof parentalbehaviorduring
the stmngesituationLyons-Ruth(see Lyons-Rulhand Jacobvitz,
1999,p. 531)foundthatnothersof disorganized infantsshowingan
undertyingor "altemrte" securedAI responsediffered fron the
nothers of disorganizedinfants showing an underlyinginsecure
patteming, in tha! the former exhlbited feafil'inhibned beh^\ioÍ.
Strikingty,Éen, the mothersof disorganized/secure infanis were
characterized as maniíesting svblle, fnghíened behavior in the
absenceof hlgh levels of frightening,dissociated or role-inverting
behavior;in addition.they werc sometimes describedas withd.awn,
withoutbeinghostile.
Belowwe identifyanddescribetwo rnomalousformsoffrightened
behaviorobservedin the parenisof disorgênized infan$: fiightened
behxviorwhich hasno evidentenvironmental source,and behavior
indicating that lhe prent is ínShkneà af the lnf^nt. Again. as noted
above,and asLyons-Ruth's findingswouldsuegest(Lyons-Ruthand
Jacobvitz,1999;LyonsRuthet a1.,in press),thesebehaviorsffe not
necessarily incompàtible with páÍenlingwhichis otherwiserelatively
sensitive andÍesponsive.

A o alots Fams oÍ FrishtenedBehariorPÍesunedtaOccur

inRespanse or Intemalbents Assacíate.l
to Environnent.lL
Stateaf Mind
'|iththe Parent'sUkresolred

Expressionsoffright sr€nnlingf.on theparen!s pastexperiences will

moÍ often ultimatelybe iniernalin origin.and drerefoÍefrequenlly
nnlocatablewithin the inlanfs irnmediateenvironmentThus-
wherhertrigger€dby an interml slimulus,or by someexternalstimu
associated
lns idiosyncratcially with theparenfs hisloÍyor ideation
"sense"
when such expÍessionsare perceivedthe infant will
522 ERJKHESSEAND NIÀR\ MAIN

impendingdanger,the souÍceof whichwill be eifier indiscemibleor

Providingonê exampleof behaviorof this type,Main and Hesse

(1990)described
theparent
of a disorganized
toddler
whoresponde
with an im,Íedirte,frightenedintakeof breathas he beganmovinga
toy car acrossthe room,and thencried out "Uh-oh! conna havean
a.ci./enrlEverybody'sgonnagetriredll" Atrhoughwe hadno ac.ess
to this p.renfs history.the panicimpliedby the frighlenedintakeof
breath combinedwith the paÍicular stateÍnentmade could well
suggest someconnection to earlierpefsonalorfamiljal experiences of
lossthroughautomobile or otheraccidents.
This is.ofcorÍse,only one
idiosyncratlc example,while a párentwho suddenlylooks abouror
reactsto an unchanged benignenviÍonnentwith alarm providesa
moregeneralillustration.As anotherexample,fof no causeappnenr
to the offspring,a parcntwho had lost a family memberrhrough
drowningcouldsuddenlytightenhis or her grip on the infanrwirh an
accompanying sharpintal€ of breathwhilefriendsdjscussed a rrip ro

Par€ntdbehaviorofthis kind wouldalmostinevitablybe alarming.

sinceit suggests an imnediate(albeitindiscernible) danger.However,
as in the caseofdissociativestalesdescribed earlier,a parentbehav-
ing i. a frightenednanner for theserersonsis unlikeiy ro rppear
sufficienllyexlemallyorientedto provideadequare prorection.Indeed,
a]lhougha prÍent ergagedin an anomalous disphy of fright may not
siÍultáneouslyappearto be in a dissocirtivesrate.the amusalof
unintegrated fear will no doubtnormallybetheproductofa somewhat
alteredstateof consciousness. In somecxses,the parentmay sinply
sporadically entergeneralstatesofalarm.whichstemfrom changes in
unconscious faclors that have no systematicrelarion|o p.nicutar
eventsor elements within the immediare environment. In orhercases,
the stimulusfor the parent'salarmcanbe tracedanddefioedbu! has
no obviousor imediate link to danger(e.g.,rhepreviousreactionto
discussionsof trips to the s€ashore). As when the prenr moÍe
obviouslyentersa dissociarive siate,then,rhe parenris likely to be
bothalÍming andsiÍ ltaneously unavailable, placingthe infrnt in a
situationinvolvinglright wilhoutsolution.
Fríshtenell behaiot in lícatin? that íhe infatu nseris the saurceof
theparcnt'salarm.FoÍ a parentwho remainsfrightenedby partially
 PÁRENTS
ÍN NON'NIÁLTREATINC
EFFECTS
SECOND.GÊNERATION
521

a numberof complex and confusing

experiences,
dissociated 'n'olve'i LJ_
r o n e o r u h ' c hq i l l
t e \ o o r \ e . . ol n e i 1 Í r n Ln r ) r ' r ' e
gl
r o n , s h c r e t f e i n l a n 'b e c o m e c( o n l u ' e do r r d e n L r l i cw' l r h l h e o r
nal expeÍienceor ils associaled ideation Main and Hesse(1990)
descrlb€done (unresolved/disorganized) parenibackingawav from
theiÍ infm! during the separalionepisodeof Èe strange sÍuatron
"D-don't lbllow
whiiestanineringin an unusualandfrightenedvoice:
me.d ílon'i." Duringthe sLrcceeding reunion,the infanrlav siilledand
fhuenedagainstthe parentwiih evesdazedfor over onefull minute'
and was judg€ddisorganizedThe motherof anotherdisoÍganized
infant was obseÍved jeÍking her headawaywith a fear griÍnaceand
eveswide.whenthe infantreachedout to pat her face in a calm and
exploratorymanner.Inaiguingly,frightenedparentalheadmovements
havenow beenobserved in severttsanrples as Èe parentresponcls to
the approrchof the infant's hmd. In addition,parentshave been
obse.vidsr"ppingca,rtiously from placero llace asthoughaÍempting
to kee! the offsPrirg at the gÍeateslpossibledistance or €ven
"escape"the infant by mo\ringout of reachas if the
ott".pring ,o
infantwas,for example,r pursuingandpotentiÀl]y dangerous animal
Finaily, the utÍesolved/disorganized mother describedearlier às
havingenler€dtrancestatesduringa f€edinginleraclionin the Texas
studywls also observedsuddenlymovingh€r hand awavfrom her
inlantasif feríul ofbeingtruÍ (seeLvons-Ruth andJÀcobvitz'1999)'
How cm we accountfor suchanomalous responses to infanls.who
in fact have no direct poweÍ !o h,nn? One amongmanv possible
explanalorypathwayscould involve experienceswhich' whelhef
inherentlytraumaticor simplyassociated with fÍighteningideation'
occurredwhenihe parentwas a child Conseqentlv' in somecases
the offspringmaybeconeunconsciouslv confusedwith theseexperi-
ences,leadingto the'\rnprocessed'conclusión that the child is a
sourceofalàÍm.HeÍethereadermavrecàllthatfie unresolved motheÍ
of á disorgrnizedinfantdiscussed bv AinswoÍh àndEichberg(1991
above),appeared to retainthe childhoodbelief tha!.at àgeeigh!.she
"with one sentencel"If at ccrlainmoments
hadkilled her caÍetaker
suchr speakerbelievesthat childrenhavethe powerlo kill through
thoughtsor sentences, theconelatedidear/lat,;r,'assibLeto be killed
"Anniversnrv"reactions
by ane'sownafsping cauldthenwell arise.
occuíing whenan offspÍingreachesfte ageat which ihe parentlost
 ERII. HESSEANÍI] ['ARY IIÀIN

an impoíant personmay thereforenot only be medialedby, for

example,the renewedonsetof depression,but alsoin somecasesby
Lhere-arousalof anxielymd frjght Fearo/ Íl€ ofsPrtrS in trauma-
perheps
tizedp.rentsis therefore asnught
notrs unlikelyanoutcome
be imagined.especiallysincesomemothersdescribetheir disorga
nizedchildÍenashavingsupematural powers,andspecialconnections
witb deceased persoís(seeSolomonandGeorge,1999).
It shouldadditionêllybe noted.however.that whenihe sourceof
dangeris though!by the prrentto emanatespecificallyfrom within
the infant, the infant's positionbecomesespeciallvperplexingand
disorganizing. Conceivably, it mry leadthe offspringto thefollowing
expeÍiences, observations or suppositions.howc!êÍ inaccessible to
consciousness and/oÍinfantilein íorm:

(1) Attempts!o increaseproximilyto tbe parentare,paÍadoxically,

likely !o trigger pa.enlal inclinations(however subile) to
lncrease parent-offspÍingdistance Mo.eover, Íather than
appearingsimply indifferentto (neglectingo0 the infan!. the
reireàtingparentwill oftenappearalamed
(2) Over and abovethe fact th3! the allachmentfigure cnnnotbe
app.oached as a havenof safety(poit't )), therc can be no
estapeftc,ma sourceoÍ àdnserwhichenanaíes Jton withinthe
ref. MoÍe specifically. if the ,Jr{ip.i,g is treatedÀs an apparent
sourceof danger,he or she is subjectedto the êddrJional
frightening,paradoxical anddisofganizing condilionor neecling
to klke flísht frcn the se\.t3 l"Iain and Hesse(1992) have
suggested thal underexiÍemeconditionsone \o1ution"to the
approach/flight paradoxcreatedby an rlarmingparentcouldbe
the "creation" of two selvesor execntors, one!o approrcn,and
'\olu!ion" to this even
oneto takeflight. SimilaÍty,the ultimate
morc perplexjngsitualion(in which the self comes ro be
perceivedas the sourceofdaÍgeÍ) couldinvolvethe creationof
segregated sysrcmsof multipieexecutors(selves,seeBowlbv.
1980,HilgaÍd,1977).H€.e.howevef,fatherthànsimplyneeding
two selvesto perfom conlradictoryactions,two selvesare
Dcededln order for oíe to retr€Àtfrom the second.While
''Thn.ondnioi ola scnscorsèlrríd cogniriveabilnic!which
nry r{rn thc,l.vèlopmem
rppetrshonlyaft! iarri.y.
SECOND
GE\€RÁTION
ÉFFÉCTS
IN NON.]VIAITR!ÁTINC
PARENTS 525

perhaps a rareoutcomeof suchexperiences. lhesecircumstances

providea pànicularlycompellingbackdropfor'\plitting" or
dissocialivesequelae in lheeventof fulureraumr.
(3) Finàlly. as is known from obseÍvationsoí anlmals,flight
behavioron the paÍ of one individual can be a slimulus
provokingatrackor lruntchasebehavioron the paí of ê second
(T. Johnson, personalcormunicalion,1994).Th€Íefore,like a
cat who only árouses chasebehaviorin a dog if it takesflight, a
p3ren!who exhibitsfeff or inclinalionsto takefligh! in response
!o inlant approachcouldpÍovokeaggressive o. chase/pursujt
lendencies.Such condilions might gràdually sdmulatethe
developnentof inclinationsto "atlack the parent,and con-
tdbuteto the iniensificationof bothfrighteningand aggressive
ideation.Ironically,the moresubdethenatureof theinieraction,
the more confusing and difficuh the outcomemight be for the
offspring.lndeed.identifyingthe origin of intrusive,aggressive
ideationresultrnt fÍom interactionswirh a sublly ftghtened
paÍentcouldbe difficult for patientand clinicianalike.unless
borhwerealeÍed ro investigare the patient'sresponses to fright-
enedbehaviorin otherpeÍsons.
parentalbehaviorin
In sunmary.wilhin the contexiof dissociated
general.and nore specificallyin circumstances wheÍe the paren!
exhibilsanondous foÍms of threateningor frightenedbehavior-
includingthe specialcasein which the paÍentappearsto be alarned
by lhe infant severaldiÍect pathways!o disorgmizationcan be
identified.
OthetFoms aÍBehaNiar Líkelyto beAssocknedwith
UnrcsobedMentalStat.sin theParent:Tintid/d+rential,
Sexualized.an.l D isorgani.ed,/disori ente.l BehavioI
The behavioÍswhich remainto be discussed comprisethe final three
delineated
of lhe six subcategories in the FR codingsystem.and ue
.ow briefly revicwed.Mrile theselatte.behaviorsr ry in lhemselves
be lesslikely lo leaddirecdyto an alproach-fligh!paradoxfor the
infint, they each imply the apledmce of an alterationin normal
consciousress on thepán offte paren!.whichmay increase lhe likeli-
hood that the ànonalousbehavio crpable of direclly pfoducine
disorganizarionmayappedat otherlimes.
 A\D \I\RY MIIN
ERII IJESSE

Beharior,antl(Roleinw nins) Tende

Tinid/.leJerentiat ncies
Fí7ureinTin(s af
to UtiLizithe)ííspring asan Attachment

In ouÍ originalobservations of the strangesitr'rion behàviorof the

orens oidr'ore:n'zedin-anr' se dÊ"flbed e\rr"ne linid'r)--in
'nf'nr. $h:re à 'ecord 'unr"'ul'ed'/
one morher"hinolineoi he-
drsorganized) rnotheÍappêaredtimidlv reslonsiveto indicationsol
inf; anger(MainandHesse,1990).The latterohseÍvatioD wasmade
chÍing a Íeunionepisode.in which the nlothersaterec! welcomrng
her appÍoachineinfant with extendedh,nds. However.when her
daughierma<te an irnpatientgesiure'the molheÍresponded bv siump
ing her shoulders.folding her hands,and assuning an hunble
"Àilng" potru.", accompanied bv a pleadinglook- similar timid-/
defeÍentialbehaviorwas observedin dre Dutchsludv(Schuengel et
al., 1997),in a motherassigned to theuruesolved AAI categoÍvon the
basis of lapsesin Íeasoningand discourseiq she describedher
mother'ssuicide.Severaltimes,in response to infantnoncompliance
this motherretractedher handsandfoldedthembefoÍeher chestwÍh
her shoulderslowered and her gaze càst downward às though
roolosizinq.Her infànl's strangesituationbehaviorwas momalous'
tut aá noi quit. meerttre criteriafor beingcalegorized as disorga
.ized.whiie theseinstances of timidTdeferentialpaÍentalbehavioÍàre
morteÍate, we havealsonotedmoreextremeexamples'suchas gefeÍ
entialsubnissionto obviouslypainfulslapPing, hittingor h Í-pulling
ln erch of thesemoÍeextremecases,tbe infani wasdisorganized. oÍ

wlrat the examplesdescribedabovehave in commonis thri the

parentappearsto reat the infantas supeÍiorand/ofas havrnggreater
po-".. it'i, olt"*"t;on o"cordswith Georgeand Solomon's(1996)
finding,notedeaflier,lhat fte parenlsof diso.ganiz€d childreDsome
timesconsiderthe child !o havesupernáluÍal andlhat (as
caplrbilities,
idenrifiedfion ê cdegivingintervie'v)theseparenlsfeelhelplesswilh
fespect10 thei. offspÍing who are, correspondinglv' peÍceivedas
powerful.Despitethe íact ihê! no diJectevidenceis as yet availabLc
;e can alsoinaginc Èat someparentswho exhibitiimid/deferentirl
behaviortolvard theiníantduringvideolaped interacironsmayat oner
timesexpeÍiencepropensi.ti.s to seekthe iníantds a hawn oJ tal'rr
r L L O ! 5C ' \ o\ O\ F t\.\ \O\ \'\t_oc r-\C D{pFN-" 521

Sincean inlantin facthasno capacityto prctecltheparcnt,we mÀy

well ask how behaviorof this type can arlse.It shouldbe recalied,
however,that in groundliving nomadic pnmrtes át lerst two
rclati!ely universal tendenciesare arousedin conjunctionwilh
heightenedstrles of alarm.'] The first is to take flight from lhe
perceived sourceof danger.andthe secondis to seeklhe proximityof
an aÍachmentfigurewho providesprotectionrt suchtimes-In conse-
quence,not only the infanrbut theparenías ||ell shouldexPenence a
volition to seeka havenof safetyif sufficientlyalrmed- In most
parents, of coufse,my pÍopensities to seekthe offspringasa havenof
saferyare eirher absentor oÍdinarily over ridde!, so that alám
stem,ningffoln m enviÍonmental sourcemostoften elicitsa protec-
tive,asopposed to r protection-seeking,
.esponse (Cassidy,1999).
SomepáÍentsin unresolved mentalstatesmayat limesnevenheless
experie.cer disoriented volitionto seekthe offspringwhendrrmed.
This anomalousinclinationwould no doubtbe involunrary,ênd in
someway inlendedto reduceparentalfear.If acledupon.howevel
even sinply as an observrblemomentaryinclinalion-the inlànfs
immediate confusionwouldalmostinevitablybe heighlened.
In thiscase,theinfan!is not facedwith lhe problenofa frightened,
retÍeatingparent,i.e., on€ who respondsto apProachbehaviorwith
propensniesto increasedistance.Nonetheless, ií the parent is
approaching the infant as a sourceof satètybecausethey are in m
alarmedslate,an approachflight paradoxwill still be created.since
the souÍceof the infant'sala.n (the frightened,àppÍoaching parent)
will still activatesinultaneousincljnationsto increaseproximity as

Se\rali.edBeharior

Overtlysexualized behaliorto!ards infantsis rarelyobservedin low

risk samplcs.However,n ld forms of resebehaviorsdo occur,as
Abr:tmsaíd Rifkin (1999)haverecentlyobserved iD oneparentof a
disofganizedinfam wbo suddenly,bui very briefly. gruntedand
twiÍed her bodysuggeslivelytowdds hcr infantwith a comehilhel'
expfession. overlyintimalekissingof the infanthas
In a lew samples,
beenobs€Nedand/orlhe infani has beeí encouraged to engagein
i:8 ERIK HESSEÁ\D i\IÀRY ]\I{IN

caresses Èat appeaÍÍomantlcin natureandelicjt a drexmyoÍ roman

tic look in theprrent.
In ali casesof s€xlalized/romanlicizedparcntalbehêviorno€d Lo
dde. the infrnCsÍÍenge siluationresponse hasbeeneitherdisoÍgr-
nizedoÍ unclassiflable. However,mostof the sexualized behaviorwe
haveobsenedon videotapeis engagedin by parentswhoseiÍrmedi-
ate appetranceis neilherfÍighteningoÍ frightened,nor (with some
exceptions) Instead.the parentnol infrequently
oveÍtly dissociated.
seemsgentle,affectionate, andpleasrnt,and the behaviorappearsto
haveno iÍunediatelyfrighteningeffect.However,it seemsdifficull 10
imaginethat membersof the paíicular westemized nationsobseÍved
in theses.udiescould(a) lacktheabilityto nonitor theiractionssuffi
ciendyto permitthemto observed behavingin a markedlysexualized
mannertowrrd their infmts without (b) having had experiences
renderingthen vulnerableto exhibitingovertlydissociated andeven
lrightenedor frighleningbehaviorat othertimes.
D \arEnatzPdllóonPnkdBPhn\nr'
Conpt ible wiíh the InÍant SJsten
F.om the first, the FR systemfor idenrifyingfrightened-frightenin
pffental behaviorhas includedbehavjorswhich had originallybeen
identifiedas disorganized./disorienled
in the iníanisorigimlly studied
by Main and Solomon(1986, 1990).However,following Liotti's
(1992)suggestion thê!disorganized inlantswouldbe moremlnerable
lhan othersto developdissociativedisordeÍsin later life, we had
earlier reviewed thc indices of disoÍganized,/ disorientedstrange
siturtionbehavior,findingihrt n ny suchbehaviors(e.9.,trancelike
sliltingandfreezing)appeared phenolypically dissociative (seeI'{ain
andMorgm, 199ó).Sone "disorgarized/disoriented" infantbehaviors
we.c therefore placed under t|e FR snbheadlng of directly
"dissocirtive"(parental)behavior.However,a sepÀrate sub-heading
for "êny
lorheÍ]disorganizedTdisoÍientcd behaviorfitting to lhe infanr
sysl€m was also included.and researchers working with the FR
systemwere encouragedto look, ÍbÍ example,for asymmetrical
expÍessions andmis timedmovements (MainandHesse.1992 1998)-
To our knowledgeit is only r€cenrly.howeveÍ,tha! disorgrnized
pdental behaviorsfilling to the principlesof thc D/an, systemhave
actuallybeennoted,andconnected to infanrdisorganization. In their
study observinginfant motherinteractionin the Main and Weston
 P^R6NTS
SECO:D CENERÁTIONEFFECTSIN NON'MALTRF'ÁTING
529

(1981)frecllay xnd Clown Sessionprocedres.AbÍms andRifkin

(1999)hxve loted two ittriguing forms of disorganized/disoÍienled
behavioÍin someparenlsof disorganized infants-For example'tn
keepinswith the infantdisorgrnizedcoding system,two molhetsof
'blind" (bothfaciallvandbv
dis;.e;ized infantssuddenlvappeared
chaniesin movemenr pattem).whereasPrevjouslvthe functioningof
rheir-eyesharlappeared normal.Anothersuddenlvmovedin a stiff'
rsymneirical,robot-likemannersuggestive of-someoncwith ndro-
losical impairmênlsor who was recovenngftom a severenlury'
AJsuming no momentary interference
neurological (themothermoved
normàllyat olhertiÍnes)her behaviorwas inexplicable'suggestinga
"collapseof behavioral
siÍalegv'
momentàry

Thesefindingstegardingthe varvingsublvpesof frightenedfright-

eningparentalbehavioÍ,as well as Ée brorder setsof findingsand
resultsdiscuxertearlier(e g., Jacobvilzl99S:Schuengel et al, 1997'
1999:Abramsand RiÍkin. 1999;LyonsRuth and Jacobvitz,1999i
Lyons-Ruthet al., in press)suggestthat observaiional researchusing
the FR syslemwill continueto yield new and inlriguinginformàtion
'lapses"in parentalection A lask lbr lhe
regardingthesesporadic
futurewill be to explorethe possibilitvof linlogesbetweenspecific
kinds of disco Íse/reasoninglapses in the 'A'AI, and p'Íticular
subrypes of FR behavior'For example,ii could be that the subject
maller involved in the linguistic lapses(eg. phvsicÀlabusel]s
opposedto Loss)is retared|o the subtvpesof FR hehaviorwhich are
displayedG-g.,anomalous formsof threatening behavioras opposed
behavioÍ)Additionallv.lapsesln reasonmgmav De
to dissociative
morecommonlyassociated with a diffeÍenlclusterof FR subtypes
lhan áÍe lapsesin discourseAny svstematicdifferencesuncoveÍed
fegardingthe precursors of or sequelae to djlïerentFR interactrons
wouldof coursebe of greatinteres!.but It investigation of lhis kind
will no doubthrve lo awaitthecollectionofdata from a largenumber

Sunnary.nà Conclusians
In this paper,we haveidentifieda numberof ciÍcunstances which
shoul.lleadto the aÍousalof fed in tbe infantandspecificàllviear of
tbepaÍenr.We haveproposed fÍightenedby
ftat the infaoirePeatedlv
its p eni .loes nol merely expe.iencenegativeand distuÍbing
il0

cmotion(s),but additionallyis subjectedto a biologicallychanneled

paradoxin which simultaneous propensitiesto approachand to iake
night lrom rheparentareactrvaled.
Màny theoriesfocusinguponea.ly development would of course
concurthatparentalbeháviorswhichfrightenthe offspringwill have
untowardeffects.It is specificallyaltachment lheory,howeve..which
losits thatthebiologicalfunctionof thechild'stie to its pnrnarycare-
givef(s) is proleclion,and tha! amonggroundliving primales,the
auÀchment figure provideslhe infant'sp mary solutionto situations
of fear (Bow1by.l9ó9). Auachnentlheory has. then. crealedlhe
lrameworkfor theproposaltha!parentalbehrviorwhichfÍightensthe
infantwill drive lhe infantrri'ards (àswell as dl'a)Jid'r) the parent.
It is via this pamdox!h a conflicl capableof oveMhelmingthe
younginfantis pÍoduced-a conflic!whichin tum frequentlyleadsto
disorganization anddisorientation. In àdditlon,we haveproposed that
the paradoxicalsituationcreatedby fear of the parentmay causea
loweringof attentional capacities andrelatedly,temporffilyreslrictor
alteÍ thechild'scapacityfor normalconscious processing.
Alteralions
in consciousness in the faceofan approach-flight paradoxmay.lhere
forc. be associated with difficultiesin naintainingthe capacityto.
normalinfornation'processing. This propositionremainsto bc fully
exploredbut may providex usefulpoini of entry for enhancingour
understanding of the psychologicalvulnerablliliespresentlybenlg
foundassociated with early disorganized attachment (seeMain and
Hesseu9921andHêssel1999blfor a discussion of sedalvs.prallel
infoÍmational processing in thiscontexo.
Within this presentation. we haveoutlineda paibwayfron certàin
anomalousforms of pdemal behaviorto a variety of unfavomble
outcomesfor the offspring which would otberwisehave otten
appeàÍeduniÍaceablewith respectto r direct experientixlsource.
El]ÍlieÍ. by srudyingt|e lapsesin the monitoringof discouÍseor
reasoningwhich occured as the parentsol disoÍganizedinfants
auemptedto disctrssloss oÍ abuseexpe.iences. we had dlscovered
"parapÍaxes"rr or rlips in t|e pdent'slararda. whichlvercpredictivc
of parapraxesin.he inÍahts acíions.We pEsumedthat theseslips

or rhe rnxi)Ii. cofrdDdty

ty actioi due to the interfeEnceolsome connic! ortmin ol
thought rrcdil (190r) uscd pÍrpÍ*d Gftd' bm d rlwrysslips of
pen)rodcnoNmte ihc existncc ofunconsciousncnhlprccc$cs jo h
SECONDGETGRATIO\ EFFECTSN NON NIÀLTRÉA'IINCPARENTS 5-l I

in languxge or Íeasoningstemmed from sourcesintemrl to lhe parent;

ftat they occuÍÍedas x resultof slatcsof mentaldisorganjzation and
conflicr sulroundingfrighteningexpefiencesland that thev would
eventuallybe foundassocixted wilh lhe sporadicappeaÍance of coÍre-
,oond,nr ffipl,lene,r,ftighrer,:ngt parpnnl d.roA {\ich woJU in
'um be pre,lriri'eo rniJnrdr'oÍgarr/Jr:on '\'l':nJrd He"e loqO'
Above.we haverevieweda numbe.of recentÍudies providingearlv
coroborationfoÍ eachofthesehypotheses
Herc. we hrve introducedI coding svstemfor identifvingand
scoringsevefalkindsof prrentalbehaviorwhich we expectto find
associatedwilh àn unresolved/disorganiTed mental slate. In one
subtype. theprrent'salrÍm. andwe proposethatthismayhavepaÍic
ulrrly malignan!consequences for the offspring Overall'however.
ÍeperiedexposuÍeto inteÍactionsinvolvinganv of lhe FR subrypes
describedmay incÍeasethe tikelihood that lhe offspring of an
unresolved-/disoÍganized (traumrtized)parentwill developà vulnera
bility to psychopathoLogY
In essence. we haveadvancedan extensionol aÉachment lheorv
which focusesupona previouslyunrecognized aspectof the role of
fear within the atiachnentrelationshipCorrespondingly. we have
suggested a nelv mechrnismby which the tmumaticexpetjences ot
one individuêlcan indirectlyeffect the developmenlof a second
FimLly,we ha'e exieDded Bowlby'senphasisupon the role which
directexperience playsin the development of psvchopalhologv in the
individual(Bowlby,1969,1980)by pointingio the porveÍfu]indirect
influenceof eventswhichoccunedin t|e previousgeneration andhad
beconeassocirled wiih rnomalousfears.fantasies andideaiion'
T|us, \!e havebroadencd the interpretation of what "real events
are to includeihe second-genefation efïectsof unresolvedtraumx,
andor frighteningid*lion assoc;ated wilh experiences which would
not neccssaÍlly havebeenconsidered inherentlvlraumaticFrom this
point of view. the traumrlicexperience itself is of corrsenot Ïeal
for the secondgeneration. what is real. however,is thè developing
child's inteírctionlvith lr parenlwhosebehaviorat timesrelleclshis
or herofiginrl tÍaumaticexperiences- feds, andfàntasies
In sum. we have locusedon the child's experiences as thev re
influencedby the !.aumatizedand/or fÍighlenedpaÍen!.and ha\re
pointedto specificwaysin whichthe secondgcÍerationeffeclsof the
parenr'sfeefs md experiences máy createrisk íactofsfor psycho
ill

pathology.ln keepingwith a developmenlal pathraysnodei (Sroulè

and Rurter,198.1), we have suggested borh (l) an immediatceffect
ol inreractionsrvith a trrunalized bul not necessa.iiyotherwise
inscnsitivecffegiver (disorgenizedinfrnt attachmentsntus) end
correspondingLy (2) an incteasedrisk for the larer development of
psychologicaldifficuhies.Thc developmentof clinical levels of
identifirbledisorderswill of coursenot no.mallydepcrd solely on
disorganized allachmentwith the primarycaregiverin infancy,and
will no doubtinvolveadditionÀl làctofs.includingexistingbiologic:rL
HeÍe,for exr]nple.Walsh(1978)hasÍeported!ha!loss
vulnerabilities.
on the pÍt of lhe prent within lwo yearsof lhe offtpring's birth
significantlyincreasesthechances rha!a prricular offspringwithin r
given írmily will develop schizophJenia (walsh, 1978; citing
orfanidis. p.461). ln other words.condilionswhich increaselhe
likelihoodlhat thepaÍentwêsin anmresolved./disorganized staienear
the rime of a panicularbjÍh have beenfoirnd associated with the
developmentof schizophrenirin biologic ly pÍedisposedfaniliês
(theseand similarstudiesarereviewedin Hesseandvan Uzendoorn,
1998,1999).Otherfactorslikely to increasethe risk oï unfavorable
outcomesin later years include intervêninglrauma (Liolli, 1992:
Ogawael al., 1997),rnd disofeanized attachment sutus "!ith respect
to thesecondparenl.
D ror\"s

AhÍrds. K Y. (1999).Unpublhheddata.Un,vèrsnyalCalilomir rl Berkeley

and R,flrin, A. \\999). Di\rrr.ii.ed infunr utu(h,Ienl ahtl Ji\hÍeneA
Jnsht.rins parentdl behdrbr: Eriden.e íar new h?hurii! tid nè\| ..ntet!
1,,,*i,.(rtlel Mmu\cript in prepiralion,Un,vcsÍy otCaliforniart Berkèley.
Àinsrodh, M. D s 11961), tnldr.) i, Usantta:Inlldt.are and the Er.wth .J br.
Baltimore:Th. Joh.sLtopkin\Press
-(1969). Objeclrelxtions, dependency rod drachmentrA the.Íeticd Eview of
tre iofrot nothcr felrrion\h,p ChildDer2loPnetu1A969 \015
-(1991). Amchncnts lnd.rheÍ àlÈdion.l bonds InP M!Í,s. J St.vcnson
H,ndc .nd C. Pr.kês íEds.),Atlt:ln?ni ( ^: th. ttíè t.1P ítP 3l 5l) Ncw

B e l l . S } I . . . n d S h y t o n .D . J ( 1 9 7 1 )I.n d i v i d u rdl i f l i i c n . . r i n S Í l n g e
n e l r r v n ro f o n c y e a r0 1 À . l n H R S c h . l l e íf È , 1 ) 7 h ê . r i ! i n \ . f h u n a h
S i N a r i ob
fiirt /.|ati.rt l.p? 1l 57) Lond.n: acadenicPrcsi
- Blchxr, M.C, wrteN, E., rnd wall. S (1973) P.tre,,r ol dnth",,t a
psjcholaiicat írrt,.J th.5tun3. Stlrrtu,. Hillsd0le, NJ Enbrm. lavNrock

andEichbÍg. c.C (1991).Errecs on infan!nrotheratachncot of roth.as

unr.solvcdlossol:n rtachmsntfieureor otheÍtaumà!. cxpcícnce.lo P Mrris,
-r.o\Dc \-P\ÍÍo\ rIIr_T t \o\\tuÍPÍ\T\. t\.rlT 5t l

J. Slevenson Hinde, lnd C. Pa er (Els.), Áí!.ln.,I a.rdrr r/'c lÊ.!rl? rpF

160 183) Ncw YoÍk Routledse.
amrnanni,M.. SpèÉnza,a M. andCandelon.C. (199ó).Stlbility Dfattachnr.órin
chlld.cnind intergener.tiódal kànsmissron of atrchmenl Srrbilit! d.ll rrtlcc!
mcoro inlantile e tnsmissionèinlergÈncrazionale dÈll trtacclnento Ài.rutrnr
teu lnlànciae AellA.Lte!.enzd,ót.3\3 332
Bc.oi!, D., rnd Prrker. K (1994),Stabilityand tnnsmi$ión .r $rchment rc.os\
rhRcgcncrationsChiltlDerelopnentó5.1141 1156.
BowLbt.J (194-,r), Fany-fourjurenilethieve\:Then.hd,.(.6 andhonc l,rc /,r.r
natioBl J.unal..f P\rthlanólrrtr 2j, l0? l2?.
----......._
(r958),ThÈnarureof the child'\ tiê to hÉ rothÍ. Int..hdtionatJorrn.t oI
Ps)"chodhabsi:. 3r, 350 373
t,l98}- Attachnenrunrll.s: Vol..l LJr. New YoÍk: ! a!L. Books.
(198a),A lecure h.p: Pareht-.hildaxachmentand heatlhr hrnan der?t
.?n?"r New Yor[: Basi. Books.
- ll95r), Mdtetnat.aíe andnenlal hcalthllvHO M.n.sraph N. 2).Gènera:
world HealthOrsanizatióo.
{1969).Attachnent unt l.*: lal l. Axachnent NèsYo.k BlsicBooks
-l]l91i),Ard.hntentdnt l,rrr v,r 2. Scrdrdrt., \e1v YóÍk: Bàn. Bóoks
lrga| Attachnlent unt! tt^!: val. 1. Ata.h,E,. (2nd èd). Ncw Y.rk: 3Nc

(1986),videotàp.dautobiosraphlsiven ar rhc Univesir] of vÍ3inia ar

CharLotcsvillè(MMain.).
Brc$erton-L (1992),The ongins of ltlachmenrtbèort: lohn Bo$lbr and NÍarI
Ainswo h De'plr?renr, PrycholaS'28. 159 175
B fcuer.1.,& FELd, S.(1960/1895), Studieri, H]!?.i, Boston:Beacon
Burncr, A.. llieber, P., and Gro$nmn, K. (199?).Un1è^.hi.det lth Mrtct ron
letureahketten utu nicht .t*.tgdhketen Knldem in ihtèn vèrhdLehih tLl
Frenden5i1tu1bnaP.std bei der 13. TàgungEnteicklunEaspslchologre. wièo,

carlson,E. A.. (1998),a prospcdirelongnudin,lstud! ofdisofsinized/disoienlcd

at^chmenr. Chil.l Dewlapnent, ti9, 1970 1919.
C,rlson,E.8., andPltrum. r w (l99ll, Anupdaieón rheDissociati!èExpeiences
Scale.Dirvti.lion, 7, 16 2J.
carlson, V., Cicchetri.D. Bmctt, D., and Brrnwald, K. (1989) Disofsinized/
disonented ata.hnent relationships i. daltrcàtcdinlants.D.r.l.tn2"1dl P\rth.l
,gr:J.525-531
Casidy,.l.(1999).Thènatureofthechildsties.lnJCàssidlandP.RShav.rÍEdsr.
Hàndh.ok.í Atachnení: Therr, ft:earh ahd ctinicat.rP1i.,tn,l (pt 3 20)
Netr York:Thc Guilfo.dPress
ard !erlin, L. (1994),The insècureresirtan' patrern.r rÍ&hment Theorl
tnÀksènrh. ChildDereLopnent ó5.971 991.
Crnrenden. P. M (1985).Malhcarèdinlànb: vulnerabilirraodresilienceJ,a,,zr d
ChiltlP\cha|.!r & PstchiaÍry26,85 96
- aod Ai niwodh. M. D S ( 1989),Child mrlterhcn' ànd à!..hmcit th..r_
ln D. Cicched:nd V Ctnsor lEds.),ChiLlnalrtentnent:Ihè.\ antl resear.h.n
th..arset dn,]..n:e'Tuente:oJchilr!abts. ant1n4l.t! lpp.132 161) Nes Yo.l
CambridsèUni\efsilyPre$
Drreio. C (|812),Ih..-Wcr:i.n.íen ti,n: in nlun anl.nin.lr Londod Johd
5ll E R r KH E S S a
I \ D r \ Í\ R y N l Á t \

Dewolfi M S.,& vxn Uzèódooh.M H (1997)-S.o\irivityiod aÍlchden{ A md!

annlysison prrenrrlanre.eden$olintunt r(rchmcnt ChilttDerelt)ptncnr
óti.51l

Fgcladd,8.. & Stuun. L. A í1981).Developmeotal requelreol malLretrtment

in
iniincy. In R Rilley andD Cicchcui(Eds.).Ddrcl,r,,'cnrdlP sr.hrer i^ Chill
Matltudlnènt\pp 11 92),SanFrancisco: Jo$ey Brss.
Errenbefser, H. F l\914), The Dnt.r?r^ .f the Unconsciau::The Hi\bry antt
Er.lrni.n 4 Dtnuni Ps)"chiat ry New York: !:sic Books.
Fonas!,P. (1999),Psych.à.ilytc rhcoryhor th. ricwp.int of aÍàchmenrtheory
md rcsc.rch.rn J Casidy and P R Sia\er lEdt). Hahdbaokol At..hnenl:
'I
heory,rclearchahd.Lini.al appli.ari,,r (pp 595-62.1).
Ne* York: Thc Cuiltord

- Steele,H and S'eele,M. (1991).MarernalEpresen'aLrons ot anactunent

dundgFrègnan.yprsdictthc organizàtion.liíti.t nother àtt..hmentat oneyear
ol aec.chiU Dèret.pne"l, ó2,49], 905
Freud,S Í1920),Á GeherallhtoAnction to Psrchdnallrr. Ncw Y.rk: Boo, and
LiveÍi8hl.(Aulhoizedtnnslationwith aprèiaceby G. Sta.lel Hall.)

Hog,íh PÉss,Loodon,1960.
Cèoee. C., & Solonon,J. (1996),Represent.tiónal nodels of relarionships:
Ljnks
belweencxregi!ingand attachme ln|ahÍMentalHealth,17. t98 2\6.
& (1989),Intrn.l working nodch of caregiling rn{l secunt} of
attachnentat àgesix.Lrt,i,Venral Heahh,lO,222 231
& (1996),Rcprcscnrational nodcls .l rèl,tonrhips Linlis belween
caEgivingandattmhmcnt.1rfa,r MenLrlHe.t1hJauna!,t7,198-216
Kapl.n, N., and NÍàin,M. (r981, \944, t996),Adtlt ^tathn)ent lnlenitw.
UnpublishedpnlocoL, DepaÍtmentof Psrchology.Uni!Ís4 or Cal,fo.oia.

Coldfarb.W (19.11),TIre el|ech of etulyiniitulon.l.a.c on rdolescenrpersonility

Jorn.l oJErpetintenidl Etht.tion, 12, 106 129
(19.r5),Eilec6 ol psychologicaldepri!ation in intin.y dnd subsequent
$ihulatio. ineri.,, "I,,m/l.rf P\!".hidtrr,I 02. 18-3r.
Ofosmlnn. K E. ( r 997),7/r, ,ev.lopnèntal tr&hnent tntt r\\.:halqical adapta-
tiu.fnn the tndte t. ttE srdy". lovired le..ure.Vlll EuropcaocoóiiÍèoceon
DcvcloFnent.lPsy.hológy.Rennês, Frhce Seprember
Hrnrbtrre.H. C. (1912).Ád,/.!..kt s.rantn,t d*i.tr: A nahrà.fD rtc sn.lr .J
.. / I.a.sp r i. l.Í \on
Iteinicke,C. .nd WcÍheircr, I 11966). Brief :e?dnti.n t. Nès Yofk lnt.rnxrion.l

Heí:srrrd, L. Cuonr.,Nl.. Efick\oo.M. F & \-a.hnias,M (1995),Adrenocofricxl

Esponsesto thè SknngcSitnrtionin intuns wirh di\.Íg!nized/dhoricnrcdarach
m..r rclationships.Crill Dry€l.pntnt, 6ó. 1I A0-| \ Aó.
Hcsse,E (1s99:).The Adulr Attachmentlnle'v,cwi Hnroncrl andcurrèntpc*pc.
tive\ ln J Cassidyind P. R. Shaver(Eds), ,g,,dh.ok .I AnoLhnenl: Theoa,
t.\.rv:h &t1 tlinn al appiiuli,, ' {pp 395-.13i).New York:ThecuilfoÍd P'ess
(1996),Dncou$e,menar] rnd (heAdulr AsachmcntIntcrvieLv: A notewirh
emphasjs on th. cn..sing CannolChssirycateeoLl.lrliu,,tÍrntul Healh Joka.t,

( t999h).UnttasiJiable andDkanani.et re:p.rret in theAtluL Ara.hnenl

Interri.tr an.l ir tht lnfuntStdngeStwi.n Pt.tètht.: lh?arcriu1 Pnp.lalt and
Euriri../ Frnràtr. Unpublishèd docrorxtdrssènarion.
LeidenUnivesirv.
 - \^\vtt ' _ . T t 6 f . P -T 535
\r!o..nc !o.ro\..r,,t

- aod \jrin, lU (in pres$,Disorginization,n intunl iód adulriftachmeót

corèhtÈ\ rnd rnplicltions
Desc.iprioós, ior dc!.lofnièntal psychopxthalogl
Jd a ndI |í t h!,\ "le rt can P v: h.aha llt it A$ot lun. n
- and v',n llzendoornjM. H (in prest, PropeositÈsrosardsrbsorylnh are
rèlàrodro lopsesió ihe noditoring ól rexsoningor discourseduring thc Adult
^ttachmenrIntcrÍcsr A prelinlnary inve{igàtion Atachnent trul Hrtn n

Hesse.E. àndvm Uzèndo.m.M. U. (1t98). Pàrcntrllossol cl.se inm,ly ncnbcÍs

io otliprirg Devl.P,nentdlSci.n c 1,299
lnd propensitlè\tówtds absorPtion

6gLsrrd.E. R {197?/1986)Diríled c.nttbu:Nts MulliPtc ..nh.t\ in hrn.i

th.u,NtuanAklbn Ncw Yofk WileY
Hinde.R Á (1966).Anin,1 ,eh.viou: A Dnlhesx .J cthol.8t and hnPaaiir!
pr)./ol.g) New York M.Grae.llill.
|1911),Riola|i.alhdÍèsoIhundn r,.i,l b?l.t,,r' Nes York lvlccraw Hill
IIrdy, S (r999),r,lot'€r,at,.e: A histon óJna1heB,niantt unttnutttul selè.tiot

hc.bsen. T., and H.thàín, V. (1997), Clildren r .rachnent represenlat'oh:

LongitudinalÍelÍions ro schoolbehàlior and ac.dèhi. comPetencv in middlê
chirdho.dind adoles.eóc.. ,.reloprrennn Prchol.sr 31,1$ 1rA
Edelrteinw. xnd Iioinxn.. v. (199,1), A lódgirudinllstudl oi Ihê Èlation
beiweenrepÉsenrations oi rnà.hnenr in childhoodand coanÍive runctoning1n
childhoodrnddorcscence DswtoPnehtdlPsrthttólr 30,112-121
-Huss. M. Fendrich i . P , a n d Z i e s e n h i nU, ( 1 9 9 7 ) , C h i l d r e o ' s
M,, K r u Ê s M
abilir] ro de|ly gratilication:LóngnudinalFl:tións to nother child rtt..hncnt
J.und.íAeneti. Psr.halos, 158.4\r 426.
- Zi.gcnhiin, U., Mullcr, B., Roltmmo, U., Hoimann,v and Edelrtein,w.
(r992,Septenber)Ptu.li.tihl eabili't...f nonÈ chitdarn hdehtpatern! in.t.'"
utu childrcnínn infdn r to ase ó PoÍèr presented at thc Fiith wotld Co09è$
ollohotPs!chlxtirandAlliedDisciplines.Chicag..
J,.obvnz, D. (1998).F//!hc,ins ..rcÈirirc: Link: \ti1h,t.ther'! k\s untt tr.una
Papcfpresented at thc biennirl me.tingol the S.Dth{.siernSocietvloÍ Rcsca.ch
inIIumroDevelopnent.Gdvc$on,Texos.
N. L. xnd Riggs, S (.1991),DitarSuni.è.jnennrt Pnrt\:t: In
nonp^, tiEhlen.d/íri8hÈnin! behari.r in &ftlive , anl d^rtilnIed, tlto/!t1-
nizè.1b.harh in inÍoncj-.PaPerprescnted rt the bicn.ial mèeiingol rhe SRCD,

JaD.s, w. (1931),Th. ptinl:ipte\ .f p:lhato:tr. Crnbidsci llarvld Unive$ity

Prcss(Orieinrlso.k pubLished in 1390)
J..et. P. (1965),Tn. naj.r Jl,tpt n: ol h\retu New Yoik Hrlnet. (OÍiginrl woÍk

Krplrn, \. (198?)./n./ivi&,all!f.rert:e: in :írea*.kl \ th.ught: .hout tèlotd'

nnn: Ptu.lí:t.1líron .íaLhnlt b .1l1etd, r8c ,rc UnPubli\heddoctoril
disrerltio.. Univ.rsnyof CÀLiaornià àrBcrkelèl
.nd lvrtrin.v (r98.r, I986) At\e:!n nt .,Joí.,:hnenl .ry.ni.otion thn Bh
dlilthen ! hh1lt drdfirt\ unpublishedmanls.ript. Detrdment ol Psv.bologv,
Unive^it! olCaLifomir!L B.*clcY
K.ror.iro,R.x.dCampos,JJ(1988),Locomotorèxperiènce:Aràcilitatorofsp.ral
co!niri\enrv.lopnc0t.CridDer!l.pnent. 59.5q5 621
il6 F R I K H I J S E A N D N I Á N YN I Á J N

KihliÍon, J F (19971.Consciouitss md ír nÈsi ln J D Cohen lod J \t

Sclrooler(Eds.),Scidniir. .Jrrtuthtt b ..rtcid^n.r t.?OItl 1ó8) Carn€sic
Ucllon stmposnnDon cog.ition NewJ.6c] L:$renc. ErlbxunAssocrltcs.ln'
Kla-esbruó, M., trndB.wLb].J. (l!76), Resp..s.sto sePrraiioorron paren[: A clioi
crlte\t hrchildren. r.ntlll /,' ntul .f lnkdre Pri..'th.tt)(r'2t 1 2t
K h n n e n ,M . D , C n m p o \ J, . J , S o r c eJ, . F , E m d e .R , à í d S v e d j t rM, ( 1 9 8 1 ) ,
En.rions rs bchàriorregDlators: Socill ÈrèrcDcingi. ,nl!nc!. In R Plulchikàdd
Il. Kellcrmin(Ed\ ).Ific,,',ri,,r, v,r.l SnnDidgo,CA AcidemicPress
Ljot,. G (1992),D,ro'gani,e,Ydisori.ntèd atrchmcnt in the e{iola3}or thc dlsso
.i iled,sofdeÍs.Dirr,.níh, J. 196 2ll'1
- (1991),Disorgrnizedàttlchmentand diss.ciatireexpèÍiences: Ad illu$r.
tion oí rhedevelopÍEnraleth,nóg,càl dpproach$ .ogniriverhenpv In H. Roren
and KT. Kuêhlwcin (Eds.), C,s,ri'c thernP in dctiak (pp. 213-219) sln
Francisco: Jorsèt Bass.
- (1999).Disorganizrrion ol àttachment as r rodÈl lor unde$tàndingdsso-
.ixtive psy.hoFathology.In l. SolononandC. Ceoreè(Eds),,4rdchnentd^a4d'
niatiantpp.29t ll?). New Y.Ík Thc GuilfoÍdPrês
Llons Ruth, K (1996),Alh.hrent lel.tionshiPsanong childEo *nh aggresive
bclulior pr.blens The role órdhorganizedefl! at.chmenrprGms J.rrndr d
C.nxuhinsdntl Clinical Pflch.k'$',ó,1,64 13
- and Jacobvil/. D. (1999). Atrhncnt disolclniz,tion Uffesolved l.s!.
rclntionshipviolen.c, and hpsès Ií behavioraland rttcrtional struregicsln I
Cassidyand P R. Sh.ver (Eds), H.hdba.k.Í ^ta.hhlcnt: T|1eory're\eulh ahtl
.loit:atuppli.d1,,$ (pp 520 j5!r) Ns* York: TheCuilaordPrcss
- B.onlman, E.. hd Pasons, E. l,n pr.sr. Màtern,l diwupted aliecti!è
comruíicition. mrtcnal ftishlened.r liightening bchavioÍ,ind dis.ÍslnizÈd
inlà.t,Íachmenr stratcgiesIn J. V.ndra andD Brfret (Ëds), AtvpiGl p.terns
ol inlint attlchmen!:Thc.ry. rese!rchand curent dirê.tioós t/to"astaPh!rÍth.
Sac'.4f.r Rennrchin Chi!l Dèwlorntenl
- Rcp.choli,B. Ivlcleod.S, Md Silvr. E (1991).Disoreanizèd dchmcnt
bch.vior in inl:rn.! Shon rermÍxbiliry. mrternàland intint coÍelarer,Md risk
r.la(.d nrb types D?tt|.?ierl unl Pti-rh.plthol,3} l, 377 3!6
Nriin. M. (19r3), tflonrnr,, tttttr,thd..Sniire Juh.liont\ n! retd?t b thitd
rdhet dtd.hln.t Unpubli\hed do.roral disseírrion. Thc Johns H.pkrns

- \\919nI s.dte ftn lhotlere&diwientàl ihlant heharbr in t slnse ta thè

Mdin dnrtW.*nh Cloto Se::i.n Uopublishedndnuscnpt, Univeriry of Crlilornii

- (l9trb). The ultLm..ecau\rrion .l sodc ftanr rtrlchncnt phenomenr:

FuÍher xnstrers.luíher phcnoneora.d luÍher qu.sions The Eehuri.nul lntl
2. ó14 Ér1
Brdir Sr:rcnLe:
(lt3l). Àvoid.nce i. rhe sdv,c. ol r.hmenr: Á working pipeÍ ln K
Innrelmrnn.G Brrlo\r, L Perin.vit.h rdd Iv1 .\nainlEr)s), B?htrit,ul levèl.p'
n?nt.Ttu ai.t.í.1d inlenlI(iplindry tnjztt(Fp 651 693) Ncw York Canhidge

(1990).Co\ .ultLral sudies or àttrchrcnt .rganization Recent!udie\.

changingm.rhodololi.s ind the c.n.cpt ofcondniood srtuIèe\csHuna Dewl

(1995). Receotrudics in anachment orcÍvlew, wnh implicarn,n\ ra'

cliniclr *ork. rn S. CoLdbelg,R. Muir, and J. Ker (Eds). Aru.hnèht Ihc.a:
Su:n , dttèrtn,nlul dnl rliíi.dlPc^?erri'er' Hillsdalc,NJ: Anrlyric PÈss,lnc,
SLCO\DC.L
JR^. U\ LI L(I\ IJ ] O: \I. IPL\ .\C P PL\I! 5ti

-(1999). Efiio-qucAu&hnent rheory:EishrccnpolÍs wi(, sglestlodj tor

autuÍÈ$udies In J. Clsidy rnd P R. Shxvcr(Eds.l.á,,!1r..1 'í Áur.hn'rrt
th.r^, Rese.nh unl Cliniul At,|li.atbri {tp 3.15888) New York Tre

- (rn prcss). fbc Adulr AltachmenrIntèrvi.w: FcaÍ. xttcntiod.srrcty xód

dNc.u.scproccssos. J,rádl ry'th. Anz r i(.n P:t( hoar. ^ | rc A! lL kí í )n
- àndStidrman.J í1931).Ioirot rc\Fodrcto rclc.non of phyicil contnctbl
thè or.rher:Ásaresson.rv.id..cc.nd conlii.t J,rr,,l,/re ^rt.ri.nr A.tdpntt
.lChill Pj].hiolry.20 1192 3041.
& tlesse.E. (1992-1998).Fnshtenins,liightcncd,dNsoclxt.d,dcltr.odal,
serualizedrod dis.Ígrnizedparcntalbcha!iof: A coding systemfor frightcnnrg
prÈót infant intcractions.Unpublishednanuscnpi.UnivÈrsiryof Crhtumir a'

- rnd Cà!!idl, J (1988),Catcgories ofresponreIo reuion lviIh rhe prenl al

agerir: Prèdictêdtiod inldt a(achmentclassincarions ànd $àble oveÍ r one
froírh pcti.d D.vlopn.htdl Pt-chobst-. 21, 4\5 126
.......'-.._
and Gord*yn,R (1984-1998).Á.irr d.arr,,s,t :..tinÈ .ntl tl^:íit.tit,1
Drrcr! Uopuhlishe,tmhus.npa, Depdtment of Pslcholo:y. Uoiversny of
CaLifomià.tBerkèl,cy
a.d Hesse,E. (1990),Plrenri' doÊs.lveJ taudltic cxpcicnccsnrc rclatcd
to iólxnt disorg.nizedattlchnren!stri!\: Is liightcn.d a.d/or frighlennreprrcntal
behavio.the linkins nechanND?ln M T. CLeenberg, D Ciccherli.and E M.
Clnnlngs(Eds.),ÁÍa./i,le,tinlhept?:rhr.trè.f:1hèory,tescar.h.ntliht.r.
vèntioh(pp. 161 18:).Chi.xs.: UnivesitlolChicxgoPress.
(1992),DisoBlnizê(/dNoricntcd infant behariornr the ifange
siruarion,lapsesin rhe nonitoing ot reas.ningànd drrcou$edunnBrhe parenrs
Adult Atrhfrèdt lnrÍview, anddissociative dàtès.ln M. Anmanni andD. Srcfn
lgt\),Attd(hnèht ohtlp!rch.andllxir (Fp.86 l.l0). (Tfanslaledf.om rhellaLian).
-àíd Morgan,H. (1996),DisorsrniTàtion xnd dirorienr ion io ini0nl Srtrnse
SituationbehavióÍ:Phên.typicresemblancetodis!cirtirc$!tcslInLNlichclron
andw. Rxy (Eds), ríddf,.[.,/ Dt riuti.n: Thè.t.ri.d, ]:ftttr1tat aitlCtnlnal
Pe^t.rtiret, Fp 107 ll8.Nè* York PLenum.
- à.d (1986).Dis..very or r nès, ins..urÈ.disorsonized/ disodented
atichment Ftem ln T. B. Brazelron and Nl w Yogman (Edr),,\t!.rire
derètopnèntin ihldh..tlpD 95-124) Norwood.NJ:Ablex
rod - (1990), Procedufeslor identrying i.tuós as dsorganizcd/
di\oricn(.d duíng rh. ain\*orth nÍrngê lruinon ln M. T Cfeèoberg,D.
C,cchetti,and E. M Cumminss(!ds ). Á/d.lusn, in th. tr.!h..tlèu{: lh..rr,
rciean:11.dntlinicflenlion(pp.l2l160).Chi.rgo: Universityof Chi..go P.css
- uJ lv.Íon. D. R ( 1981). ThequrLnyol thc (oJdlc.s tlarnmnlp ro dorh*
xnd N lailrer RelIeJ ro .onili.r bchariof ard rhe '{dine\\ t, e\hbli\h oe*
rclrtio.stupsC/rl.l D/rp/,,,n.nt, j2, 932 9.10.
KapLrn.\, lnd Cnsidy. J (1985).Secunf io iolincy, childhood.lnll
adulihood:A moveh ths Lr!cl ol.cp'.r.drxtion. In L B etheí.n rnd E Warer\
(Ed: ). Gru{ing poinrsoI attn.horcntthe.ry r.d resea..h th)n.r..ph: tí th.
S..izrf.t Re:e.'th h) child D.tcr.rr,cd, ir(N!s.1-2. SeÍirlNo 209) ó6 l0-t
Minrssis,K B,rdLey,S Goldbcrg,S., Hood.J..rnd SuiDr.i. R P (l0tr). Attr.h
nrur 1nmorlre^with anxierydi\orde. addth.n childrÈnJ.,4"t tnat A.dt1.nr oJ
Chill unl ^l.test.nt P:.;.hi.try 3:1,I \06- \ | 13
Moss,E.. Prreol.S. Glsclin, c., Rnu$cnu.D.. rod orheN(1996),Ánachmentxnd
tca.hcFr.portedbèhaviorprobLems duÍng rh. pÍeschooland errly rchooL33e
pèti.Íl l)ewl.pnent & Ps;.h.tdÀr1.3),8:511-j2j
it8 E n l Kl [ s s [ \ N D u . \ R \ [ r Á t N

Rou$eru,D- lÍen! S.,Sr LiuÈnt. D. ándorhÍs (1998),Coatixtcsof

rtrrchmcnt!t schoolasc: Ma(enrl rcpoíc,i ÍÍ(s. morherchild intdacrion,and
behrvioÍpÍ,brems.Crid Dae l.pient, 69:1394-|tA5.
Ogawa,J. R., Sfoufc,L. A.. Wcinllcld,N. S.,CÍlson, E A. andEgèlrnd,B. (199r),
Dcvclopmcntand thc lÍagmcnrcd$lt Longitudinalstudy ol dssocràrive\lmt-
t.marolag! in à nonclinicd slmple.Derebpnlentanl Pt-th.ldrnb!_\, 9, 855

OrvN.hêl,H., Plig Anlich,J..Chanbe$,W, Tabdzi,NL A., andJohnsln,R. (1982),

Rêtrcspe.tirerssessment oaprepubertalnajor depression with tho Kiddie SADS-
E J.urndl oI rhèAntrit.n A..ttn\ .i Chittt P\,".:hiutn, 21, 6t5 JA1.
Pederon,D. R., Clèlson,K. E., MoÍàn,6., and Bcnt., s (1998).Valefnxl a(ach
nènr repr.scntldons,natdnal sensiLivily:n,l rhe iolant norher arra.hmcntÈlà
tionsh\p. Derelarhental Pechalqr, 31, 925 931.
& Monó. G (1996).Expre$ionsof rhe durhmenr Elationshipousldc or
the StangcSituatio..CrilzlDeNel.pnènt ó7,915 921
Pipp Siegel,S, Siesel,C. H, and Dean,J. (in pre$), Neurologi.alaipè.h .i the
dnorsa.'edldis.ÍieoLedarhchmentclassification system:DifieÍenriaringqu,ht
olthc atiactuncntrchtionshiplromncDrolo$.allnpai.ment.to J I vondm andD.
Bamet (Eds.),Àtypicala(a.hmc.t in infdn.y md clrly childh.ódrmongchildEn
r' developmentalinsk MahqrurhÍ oJ th. S.ciet! lol Rè!.àr(h in Chilt

Prince,lU. 11918),Iftd liry,.i"ri,, /,/d reri,n"/it. Ne$ York Oxiod Univesit]

PE\s (Onginrl tork pLbli.hêdio1905).
PLtnàd,F \\ (l9iJ5).Dss.cialon as a Ícsponscro cxtcnc t.,unà ln R P. Kluft
lqd),The chitt.nle.èLllnts.l tnuLliptè perlahdli4 vr'ashingron.
DC AmeÍicrn

RadkeYr(.w. i!.. ..Cunning\. E. M., Kuczyoski,L, aod Chrtmrn, NÍ (1985).

Pxtt.rnsola(a.hncnr in rv.'and thrcc-ycaroldsin nornallamilièswÍh Fà.enràl
deprèssion.ChildDevelopment,56,S84-893
Ràdojcvi..M (1992.Jury),PfttittinÊ qtutu!.1 inJuntdtd(hnent tutther ur ti
nbnrh! li.n ?.e-natal ?rtèntal r.presentolionsoJ órichnent: ^n Aultulit,t
.,,rir!rr, PàFeÍFÍe\entedàt rhe XXV lnrêmàtiónrlC.ngÍessoi Pslcholos],
Brussch,Bclgiun, l9 25.
(199,11,
Mcnt.r rcprcscn(atjonsof ata.hó.nt amongprospe.tiveAustruliao
f^rnets Aleroli.r & Ne\r Zealanl Jarmal .l Pr-chiatrr. 2a:505 5 t |.
Robersoó.J and R.beísoí, J (1971),YoDng.hildrèd in bnêr serrrllion: A iresh
laak t'r)'chaana4tic íldy d l1e ch .!, 26- 261-3],5
andBowlby,J (1952),Rcsponscs otyohg.h,ldrcn ro scplrrion frcm rheii
norhec Corrrler CznbèIntzmati.nateEnfdn? 2. \31-12
SrdLeÍ,J(11601.Thebacksrornd.lsale\y.tn1./ntiah.!Jo|rnd.fP:!th.dnd

SchalLr,H R..nd Efr.rsoó,P. E (!964),ThedeveLopmenr of sociil tachncntsnr

irtrnct M.nr eruph\oi rv So.iet-Í.r R.sear.hih chikt Dcrer?u.r (SÍi]L No
91).
Schu.ng.L.c, vÍ Uzendódrn.\Í H rnd BakeÍminsKrancnburg,\4 J. (1997).
À(rhmcnr and lo$ F.ighteningmrtenal behalior linkrng uorè\oL1èd loss .nd
disorganizcdhjnlanràkchncnt. ln C S.hlengel.Árd.l,!c/t, 1.s! dnn n.knat
hèh.rior: ^ rtd\ .n lnteryen2rdtiannl iarshilri,n (pp .10 ju). Unpublished
Joclorrldis\euion,Leiden Univesit.
J r d B o , ' .v t o o \ . r . i ; h ta . ; J . \ t ^ . J 1u -
r . . t d . : . . . 1 . . ,' 1 ! . 1 . 1.,t1...-..,J, p,f! pr.a d,
 CEN€RATION
SÊCOND EFFECTS P\RfNTS
ÍN NON.\,íALIRÈÁTI\L 5-19

rhc bienni.l meetiogoi rlE Societl lor Refrdr n Child D.\.l.tn cnt,

( , r L r a )F r i e h c n j nmarè.óal
g b.hxvioÍ linking unrêsolved
loss rnd disofg.oizedi.la anachmenr.J.urnal of C.n\rltinB unll Clini.al
fs\.hrbs ó7 51 63.
SiegèI,D (199t), ?fie lzvrl@ing nirul: TailanL a nztnbial\,r .J Latul,e^.n.t
.r1,./,en.p Ncw York:TheCdilr.rd Press
Solomon,J ond Gedrgc C. (1999).Thc place of diloÍganlzationin àttachmenl
thcory:Linkingclassicobserlrti.ns$ith conlemPorary nrdnr8s.ln., Solomo.and
C. Cêorgc(!ds.).Àt .n,r,/ I ko\anizutión, pp 3 32 New Y.rk: The Guiltufd

& Ivins.B. (r987,April), MD,he,chil.!ihteracn.nin the hrnt antt

se.oid .f à11a.hh.nlat ase \i. Papetpresented àt thc biènnialmeerin8of lhe
So.retyfor ReserÍchin ChildDe!eloPmèdi. B Àl!moE
-- rnd D.Jong,A (1995).
Child.encla$ified asconrolling at rge six:
EvidencelordisorgànizcdrePresentatjonalírategiesàndaggrcssonarhoneandal
sch..t Der.tapn.nt and Pst.hapanrn4!, 7, 411-463
SpanglÍ, C & Cro$mrn. K. E. (1993),Biobehavioral orgrizarion in securel]and
jnse.Lrclyatrchedióianr.altld Derebtintnt, 64, 1139 145Q
SpicgÈ1. D. (1990).Hypnosis,dirsóc,ationand trumd: Hid.l.l
tn J. Singer(Ed), R.prcrri.n,nd dkta.nti.n: InPticdlionsía. P"N)nutit, theóD^
pt-.h.path.LaSr,andheuLthlpp.l2l-1.12),Chicago Universitl.fChicagoPEss
Spitz,R Á (19.16), Anacliticdcpfesion P \)dr,,,, hri. .ti,l t, iJth. ChtU2 3l3-

Stuutt, L. A. (1985),Adachme.ichsificalion rrófr the pe$Pecdveor IntinlcaLe_

eiverElàtonshipsandinfmr rcnpeÍtmèntChildDereloPnent,5ól 11
- & \!are6. E. (197r), UeaÍ Íàrc às a convetsêntmcastrein clinical and
dcvcroporenhrÉsear.h.M.ziuP.tfter Qmterb, 23,3 21
- d R!trcr.M. (198:1).'fhc donain oídevclopmenhlpsychopatholog].
Clill
D e l e l . p n t , 5 5 , 1 1 8 4\ 1 9 9
Srèêre,H.. Steere,\í. a.d Foore\,P lt996h),^íachnent in the silh tènr oí tiÍe
Fltsr prcsenledat the neeting\ ol the Inte'mtioml CongÍessot Pslcholog]

__ ind - (1996a),Asociationsrmoóg atràchment ch\sif i.ations

.l rorhD$. ialheis àdd infants:Elidcnce fo. r ..1.tionship rtec,h. pe6pcctive
child Derelipnènt, 2, 511 555
Sleèle,NI. Fonagy.P, Yabslc)- S, . Woolgar.M. lnd Croii, C (199i. \1arch)
,laien.L rcre:ennÍi.,$ .f ardrhnan drn\ Yelnun.i" PttdiLt the qtu1i1 oJ
thildt." \ l.!l p|t,t .t fr? retL^ .l d3e Prcscnr.dar the bièdnialmeetina'f [he
so.Lcrytb'Rè\exÍ.h inChildD.vclo1]lneoL. Ind,an.polis.Indirol
S(:Se, A . andVaio. M ll9ai), Ata.hnent ard parentthitt! lnc.tne ,atzms l^
V. Ntx,n (Chiif). Atrchncnt: A movc to tlrc level of rcp.csÈntation. Paper
p.cs.ntedd thc bicnnirl nr.(in-! ol the So.iety tuÍ Reselrh in Ch,ld Dc!.lDp'

Tinb.rgcn N (l95ll. nr? ,/xdr "/i,Íi,./ Oxbl{l Clsren,l.i Pn:\{

lroy.lu.. lnd sronfe.L A. (1987).Victimi,àti.n anong prè scho.l.* Thc rolc ol
att.chmeftfelrtionshiprhcoft. J.trnul af th. An1ètnunAtutbn''.J Child dnd
AAab \. en1P: tthi dth- 2ó, | 6t- l 12
Pasroi.L.. Rlxn. R.. andOrnar, F (1998).Mdrrmal ièhar1o^ r.tdte.l k)
TÍuc. V\4..
ds.r!.ni.ett )ní Í dtathnent in w^1 Airic. PaPerprcs.itcd :t the annud
meetingofthc wc$cm Psych.loglcalAso.irtio., Albuqusrque, New Mexico
540 ERIK HESSEÁND ÀIARY

vm Uzendoom,M, H. (1995),Adultattachmcnt representalions, pdentalresPonsive-

nes andinla.t atachnent A neta ànalysison the predictirevalidíy ofthe Adull
A(llachncnrlnrerviewPry.l.lo gicatBulletin, I I 7, 341-143.
- and koonenberg,P. M (1988),Crossc'rlt!Íxl paÍtehs of àftachÍenu A
metaanaltsisof thc StanSeSirvr\an. ChildDèr.lopnekt,63, M0 Asa.
Moran,C.. Behky,J.,Pêdeson,D., Bakermans Krbênburg,M, & Fishêr,K.
(in prest. Tho sinila.ity oi siblings' attachnentsto lheir motber Ci,ld

- and BaternansKrdênburg. M. (199ó), AttachmentrepÍesentations in

nothe$, farhêd, adolcscenhand .linic,l gróups: A nêra dáltric sedch fóÍ
rctn^rirc dàra.Jourkal oí C|inicàt and Cnhsultiq Pstchalost, 64, a-21
and De wolrl Mrimne S. (199?),In sedch or thê ábsênifàthêr netà
analysh ór inlanlfather lttachmenu A rejolndcr ro our discussanb.c/td
DèNel aphent, 68, 604-609.
- Schuensel,C. Md BatcrmdÍKraenburs, M. i. (1999), Dhorgdized
atrachmentin early childhood:Meta'saltsis oi pÉcusoa, concófrna.tsand
segnelaeDewl.pnenl dnd Prchopatholas!, in ptèss.
Vaugh{ B E., and Bos. K. K. (1999),A$achnênted tonpcranentiRodunddi
independent, or intêracringinfluenceson inrêDêronaradapration and personálny
developmênt? rn J. Cassidyand P. R. ShàvÍ (Eds.),lldlóook aí Aíachnat:
Theao, ReÍeaÍ.h and Clinical Appticatioas (pp. 198 225). New Yorki Th€

volknr, a. R., and Siesel,A. E, (1979),Younechildren'sresponses to discEpant

so.iar conmunications Jrl,aI óÍ Chil.l Psychalob- and Psrchiotrt, 20, 139-149.
- Hoder,E L., and Siegcl,A. E. (1980),Discrepdt socialcomnunications.
Dercl.pnentat Psr.h.loer | 6, 495-505.
Wahh, F. w. (1978),Concurent grandpdêntdead and birth of schizophrehic
offspnng:An intrisuinsfinding.Fahil, Prcces, 17,451463.
WÍd M. t., andCdhón, E.A. (1995),Thepredictivêválidnyorthê adultattachrênr
intêrviewforadolescent mothêts.ChildDerelopnent,66, 69-19
Wdtner, U. C., Gro$rdn, K., lrenmerBonbik, E., dd Suess,G. (1994),At6ch
mentpauêhsat agcsix in SouthCemany: Prêdicdbjlityrron inrmcy 6d ihpli
cations ior Frcschool behavior.ChiLt Dévètoptunt. 65, rQr4 tA21,
wêinfield. S., Srolfe, L. A., Egêldd. B. dd Cdhon, E. A. (1999),The.ature of
iódividuàl dilferencesin inie.cregiver attachmenl.In J. Casidy md P. R.
Shà\eí lEÀs.), Hantlboak oí And.hnent: Thêary, Rcsearch and Clinical Apptica-
ti,,r (pp.68-88).New Yo*: Thc GuillordPress.
wi nnicot. D. w ( r 974), Fear ol bterkdówn. tntemati.tul Rèriêw óí Pslchaamusis,
1, r01 l0t.

Dzpatnent.í P:|.hota 3r
Uniwrsitr aÍ catiÍórnia at B.rkler