Transitional Object Attachments in Early Childhood

and Personality Characteristics in Later Life

Keith N. Cohen and James A. Clark
University of North Dakota
The present study empirically assessed aspects of transitional object attachments
formed in early childhood and their relationship to personality characteristics in
later life. Subjects were college students enrolled in introductory psychology courses.
They were assigned to either a transitional object group or a no transitional object
group based on self- and parental reports obtained from a detailed questionnaire
focusing on early object attachments. Stringent criteria of inanimate object at-
tachments were used in selecting subjects. Subjects selected for the study were
administered the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Significant personality .
differences were found between the groups. These preliminary objective findings
were discussed in terms of the role of concrete object attachments in early childhood
and areas for further research.

The importance of special objects in the
lives of small children, though long recognized
by parents, has recently gained growing at-
tention among the psychological community.
Winnicott (1953) was the first to express the
importance of these blankets, teddy bears, and
other cuddly toys and objects in the normal
development of the child. He coined the terms
transitional objects and transitional phenom-
ena to designate the special possessions, ac-
tivities, and experiences of children during the
early months and years of life. Whereas the
transitional object is easily recognized in the
form of the ubiquitous blanket or teddy bear,
transitional phenomena refer to the often un-
noticed or unobservable repetitious behaviors,
mannerisms, sounds, fantasies, and thoughts
that also serve soothing and psychologically
supportive functions for the very young child.
According to Winnicott, the transitional
object and transitional phenomenon help the
child manage the stresses and anxieties of sep-
aration by symbolically recreating union with
the mother. These objects and phenomena are
theorized to serve a critical role in the devel-
opmental process of self-object differentiation.
During this period the young child struggles
to establish his or her individuality and to
adapt to the reality demands of the external
Requests for reprints should be sent to Keith N. Cohen,
who is now at the Cognitive Therapy and Diagnostic Ser-
vice, 169 Grove Street, Wellesley, Massachusetts 02181.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1984, Vol. 46, No. I, 106-111
Copyright 1984 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
106
world. The transitional objects and phenomena
serve the child with a "resting place" in the
struggle between inner and outer reality. In
healthly and normal development the func-
tions attributed to the object or phenomena
are not lost but instead extended to play and
creative experiences in later life.
Numerous psychoanalytic investigators have
refined and applied Winnicott's concepts to a
diverse spectrum of developmental and clinical
issues. These include, for example, such mat-
ters as the earliest symbolic expressions of the
infant (Deri, 1978), creative activity (Dinnage,
1978; Rose, 1978), the separation-individu-
ation process (Fraiberg, 1969; Metcalf & Spitz,
1978), and clinical implications of vicissitudes
in the transitional process (Coppolillo, 1967;
Downey, 1978; Giovacchini, 1978; Kahne,
1967; Kaminer, 1978; Modell, 1963; Natter-
son, 1976; Parrish, 1978; Solomon, 1962; Vol-
kan, 1973; Volkan & Kavanaugh, 1978).
Although most investigators view the tran-
sitional object as healthy and important to the
child's development, some have suggested that
such possessions, particularly when too highly
treasured by the child, reveal a pathological
development in the mother-child relationship
(Dickes, 1963, 1978; Sperling, 1963).
Investigators apart from the psychoanalytic
tradition have also focused on and discussed
aspects of early object attachments. Experi-
mental researchers (Gershaw & Schwarz, 1971;
Passman & Weisberg, 1975; Weisberg & Rus-
sell, 1971), focusing on the functions such ob-
 TRANSITIONAL OBJECTS AND PERSONALITY
jects serve for the child, have referred to these
possessions as "security blankets." Bowlby
(1969), offering an ethological perspective,
simply denned these objects as "substitutes"
for the mother and attributed no other special
meaning to them.
Empirical studies of the phenomena de-
scribed by Winnicott have lagged considerably
behind the vast theoretical formulations of-
fered. Many of the more systematized inves-
tigations have focused attention on object at-
tachment as linked to social factors. Gaddini
and Gaddini (1970) and Hong and Townes
(1976) in cross-cultural studies found object
attachment to be more prevalent (54%-61%)
among children of upper socioeconomic
groups. Factors such as breast feeding, weaning
at a later age, and sleeping in close proximity
to the mother were demonstrated to be related
to the lower frequency (5%-18%) of transi-
tional object attachments among rural, lower
socioeconomic groups in Italy and Korea.
Other investigators, often using differing
criteria in denning transitional object attach-
ments and varying sampling and data col-
lecting methods, have also studied these phe-
nomena of early childhood. From these sur-
veys, the frequency of object attachment has
been found by most accounts to exceed 50%
among children (Busch, Nagera, McKnight,
& Pezzarossi, 1973; Ekecrantz & Rudhe, 1972;
Passman & Halonen, 1979; Rudhe & Eke-
crantz, 1974; Sherman, Hertzig, Austrian, &
Shapiro, 1981). The persistence of these object
attachments are frequently found to extend
well beyond early childhood (Busch et al.,
19,73; Passman & Halonen, 1979), with one
study (Sherman et al., 1981) reporting almost
half of the children who initially formed such
attachments to still be displaying them at 9
years of age.
Relations have generally not been demon-
strated between object attachment and sex of
the child, birth order, parents' marital status,
behavioral characteristics, or ego development
(Ekecrantz & Rudhe, 1972; Sherman et al.,
1981; Stevenson, 1954). Boniface and Graham
(1979), however, discovered relations between
the presence of an attachment and thumb
sucking, sucking objects other than the at-
tachment object, and parents' ratings of their
child's independence.
In a well-designed experimental study
107
(Passman & Weisberg, 1975), behavioral difc-
ferences were found between children who
were attached to objects and those who were
not. Those children attached to a blanket were
able to play alone in a novel environment with
little stress comparable to children unattached
to a blanket but with their mother present.
The unattached children on the other hand,
when not in the mother's presence, exhibited
greater distress even when exposed to blankets,
familiar toys, or no objects at all. From the
study, it appeared that the blanket and the
mother possess similar supportive functions.
Although child-rearing practices and greater
physical contact with the mother appear re-
lated to low frequency of object attachment
(Gaddini & Gaddini, 1970; Hong & Townes,
1976), children experiencing maternal depri-
vation as seen among institutionalized infants
have shown a conspicuous absence of object
attachments (Provence & Ritvo, 1961). A ret-
rospective study by Horton, Louy, and Cop-
polillo (1974) also found a very low frequency
of prior transitional object attachments among
a group of personality disordered adults.
Hong (1978), in a comprehensive review
and integration of the various bodies of lit-
erature on transitional object attachments,
viewed the various positions and findings,
though at times conflicting, as adding to the
richness of the phenomena being studied. He
suggested that attachment objects need to be
considered in terms of their origin and func-
tion as well as their intrapsychic components.
All these aspects, he stated, .provide "a mul-
tidimensional view of the significance of tran-
sitional phenomena" (p. 76).
The purpose of the present study has been
to empirically assess aspects of early object
attachments and personality characteristics.
The emphasis has been to examine the nature
of the transitional object as representing early
developmental processes that expand and in-
fluence subsequent aspects of psychological
and interpersonal functioning. Whereas tran-
sitional objects can have a wide range of special
or personal meanings, their use and signifi-
cance might well be suspected of revealing
general characteristics in adaptive and per-
sonality style. This investigation specifically
examines the relationship between objectively,
measured personality characteristics in young
adulthood and the presence or absence of
108 KEITH N. COHEN AND JAMES A. CLARK
transitional object attachments in early child-
hood.
Method
Subjects
The subjects included in this study were 37 undergrad-
uate students selected from an initial pool of 278 subjects
enrolled in introductory psychology courses. This larger
pool of subjects all completed a 10-item questionnaire
designed to explore the nature of special inanimate object
attachments they may or may not have had as small chil-
dren. The questionnaire focuses on descriptive qualities
of the object and general adaptive functions it served.
From the self-reports of the 278 initial subjects, 107
persons were selected. Of these subjects, 55 had what were
considered to be primary transitional object attachments,
and 52 gave no indication of early object attachments.
The remaining subjects were eliminated due to responses
that were either too vague or not suggestive of primary
transitional object attachments. From the subjects selected,
64 were willing to participate in the study.
Parental reports were obtained from these subjects as
a further part of the screening process to confirm the
retrospective accounts of the subjects. These reports helped
establish the onset of the object usage within the first year
as well as corroborated its very special importance to the
child beyond that of other objects. If any significant dis-
crepancies between self- and parental reports existed, the
subject was eliminated.
The criteria (based on those proposed by Busch et al.,
1973) used for determining those with primary transitional
objects in early childhood from those without such at-
tachments were the following:
1. Transitional object group: This group consisted of
those persons indicating a strong, singular attachment to
a special object (e.g., blanket, pillow, diaper) that occurred
rather early in life, during the first year, which persisted
for a reasonable length of time (approximately 1 year,
often persisting for considerably longer). These involved
elaborate reports of loved objects that were highly treasured
and affectionately and nostalgically remembered. They of-
ten had special qualities (e.g., softness, smell) that served
important supportive and soothing functions.
2. No transitional object group: This group consisted
of those persons indicating no clear attachments of the
sort described above.
In the final analysis, 37 subjects remained. Nineteen (8
female, 11 male) had transitional objects based on the
specified criteria and consistency between self- and parental
reports, whereas 18 (9 female, 9 male) show no evidence
of transitional object attachments.
Measures
Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire: Form A. The
Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16 PF; Cattell,
Eber, & Tatsouka, 1970) is a personality inventory con-
sisting of 187 items. The 16 PF was selected for the study
as it represents an objective personality instrument that
measures a broad array of personality variables applicable
to nonclinical populations. The questionnaire was devel-
oped through extensive factor analytic research that re-
sulted in 16 primary scales or factors of personality.
The 16 PF was used in the present study to assess dif-
ferential aspects of the two previously defined groups: the
transitional object group and the no transitional object
group. The data were analyzed using multiple regression
analysis, which in this case is equivalent to a discriminant
function analysis. The purpose was to find the personality
traits on which the two groups differed. The multiple
regression technique assessed the contribution of each per-
sonality factor in predicting variation in the dependent
variable, transitional object attachment.
Results
Relationship of Personality Variables to
Transitional Object Attachment
In the analysis of the primary 16 factors,
significant effects were found on the Reserved
(sizothymia) versus Outgoing (affectothymia)
factor, F(l, 34) = 15.97, p < .0003, and the
Relaxed (low ergic tension) versus Tense (high
ergic tension) factor, f\l, 34) = 23.87, p <
.0001. These predictor variables considered in
a regression equation (see Table 1) produced
a squared multiple correlation indicating that
53.7% of the variance was accounted for in
the dependent variable (transitional object
group vs. no transitional object group). Pear-
son correlation coefficients for the significant
factors also produced significant relationships
both on the Reserved factor (r - .46, p < .004)
and the Tense factor (r = .57, p < .0003). The
effects of the remaining 14 variables did not
significantly add to the predictive power when
considered in the regression equation, F(14,
20) = .26, ns.
Inspection of the means for the transitional
object group and the no transitional object
group on the Reserved versus Outgoing di-
mension reveal that it was the no transitional
object group that deviated from the norm on
Table 1
Multiple Regression Predicting Object Attachment
from Primary Personality Factors
Source df SS MS P<
Reserved vs.
Outgoing 1 2.0085 2.0085 15.97 .0003
Relaxed vs.
Tense 1 3.0017 3.0017 23.87 .0001
Error
(residual) 34 4.2760 .1257
Note. Total SS = 9.2432. R2 = .5373, p < .0001.
 TRANSITIONAL OBJECTS AND PERSONALITY
that factor (Z = 4.08, p < .0001). This de-
viation was in the Reserved direction. On the
Relaxed versus Tense dimension, it was the
transitional object group that deviated from
the norm (Z = 3.43, p < .001). This occurred
in the Tense direction (see Table 2).
Discussion
The major findings of the present study re-
vealed significant relationships between spe-
cific personality characteristics and the pres-
ence or absence of transitional object attach-
ments in early childhood.
The personality factor related to the pres-
ence of strong and persistent attachments to
an inanimate object was the Tense factor of
the 16 PR This factor indicates excitability*
restlessness, and impatience. The scale is most
indicative of anxiety experiences and reactions.
Examination of the test items helps elucidate
some of the qualitative features of the per-
sonality characteristics defined by this factor
of the 16 PR The Tension factor is composed
of items that reflect admissions of feeling tense,
difficulty calming down, low tolerance for crit-
icism, ease in being angered, and inability to
hold back remarks (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsouka,
1970).
The personality characteristic related to the
absence of an early object attachment was the
Reserved factor of the 16 PR This scale reflects
traits of aloofness and detachment as well as
tendencies to be rather rigid, precise, and ob-
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for the
Transitional Object Group (TO) and No
Transitional Object Group (NTO) on Two
Personality Factors
Population
Factor parameters* TO NTO
Reserved vs.
Outgoing
M 10.93 10.32 7.61
SD 3.45 2.75 2.59
Relaxed vs.
Tense
M 13.43 17.21 12.50
SD 4.81 3.78 3.24
•Normative data for Sixteen Personality Factor Ques-
tionnaire on College Students (Males and Females: Form
A; Cattell et al., 1970). N = 4,272.
109
jective. Test items composing the Reserve di-
mension depict the individual as one who
would prefer to live alone in the deep woods
rather than in a sociable suburb, not involve
themselves in charitable work or political
causes, do carpentry or laboratory work rather
than be involved in more interpersonally de-
manding activities (Cattell et al., 1970).
The present set of findings appear to support
the hypothesis that transitional object attach-
ments as early and highly significant markers
of intrapsychic developmental functioning re-
veal certain generalizable characteristics about
personality development and style. These seem
to suggest the importance and impact that the
use of specific object attachments or their ab-
sence may have on the negotiation and reso-
lution of both development issues present in
early childhood as well as on the approach
and negotiation of subsequent interactions
with one's environment. There are many lim-
itations that caution against too greatly gen-
eralizing from these findings, as it is not known
what full array of factors lead to early object
attachments or, for that matter, what causal
relationships exist between object attachments
and personality factors. However, the person-
ality characteristics that have been found be-
tween groups are noteworthy and therefore
raise some interesting issues for consideration.
First, one must consider the seeming dis-
parity between the transitional object group's
endorsement of tension items on the 16 PF
and the theorized notions of the transitional
object as a healthy, universal adaptation (Win-
nicott, 1953) that serves soothing structure-
enhancing functions (Tolpin, 1971) for the in-
dividual both in early life and also throughout
later life experiences. The meaning of these
findings might best be viewed at this stage in
light of several possible interpretations of the
data. For example, one can view these findings
as supporting true tension and anxiety char-
acteristics or alternatively as tendencies toward
high arousal states and greater capacity for
intensity of experience or possibly as a greater
willingness to self-disclose negative aspects of
oneself. All remain as hypotheses in need of
further investigation.
A second consideration, again one requiring
several possible explanations, is why individ-
ual's reporting no involvement or attachment
with transitional objects revealed reserved
110 KEITH N. COHEN AND JAMES A. CLARK
traits on the 16 PF. The absence of an ob-
servable and concrete object attachment, an
attachment which is theorized to mark the
intrapsychic process of self and object differ-
entiation and the successful negotiation of the
demands of the external world, may represent
internal incapacities in the ability to meet such
requirements. Yet it may also be possible to
interpret these characteristics as reflecting
more positive features such as self-sufficiency
and resourcefulness. Again, the data is not
conclusive in supporting one definitive expla-
nation.
The findings from this study, although pow-
erful statistically, should be viewed as only
preliminary sources of objective data that have
not as yet been cross-validated. Moreover, the
data raise more questions and issues for con-
sideration than they provide conclusions and
answers to the developmental and personality
matters being investigated.
Further objective research along the lines
pursued in this study with accompanying be-
havioral data collected through interviews and
other interpersonal modalities (which can fo-
cus on the present capacity to engage in tran-
sitional experiences) can help expand the data
base needed in more fully gaining an under-
standing of this fascinating "third area" of ex-
perience that Winnicott (1953) has so richly
described.
References
Boniface, D., & Graham, P. (1979). The three year old
and his attachments to a special soft object. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 217, 217-224.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment.
London: Hogarth Press.
Busch, R, Nagera, H., McKnight, J., & Pezzarossi, G.
(1973). Primary transitional objects. Journal of the
American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 12, 193-214.
Cattell, R., Eber, H., & Tatsouka, M. (1970). Handbook
for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire.
Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability
Testing.
Coppolillo, H. P. (1967). Maturational aspects of the tran-
sitional phenomena. International Journal of Psycho-
analysis, 48, 237-246.
Deri, S. (1978). Transitional phenomena: Vicissitudes of
symbolization and creativity. In S. Grolnick, L. Barkin,
& W. Muensterberger (Eds.), Between reality and fantasy:
Transitional objects and phenomena (pp. 43-60). New
\fork: Jason Aronsoh.
Dickes, R. (1963). Fetishistic behavior: A contribution to
its complex development and significance. Journal of
the American Psychoanalytic Association, 11, 303-330.
Dickes, R. (1978). Parents, transitional objects, and child-
hood fetishes. In S. Grolnick, L. Barkin, & W. Muen-.
sterbergen (Eds.), Between reality and fantasy: Transi-
tional objects and phenomena (pp. 305-319). New "Vbrk:
Jason Aronson.
Dinnage, R. (1978). A bit of light. In S. Grolnick, L.
, Barkin, & W. Muensterberger (Eds.), Between reality
and fantasy: Transitional objects and phenomena (pp.
363-378). New York: Jason Aronson.
Downey, W. (1978). Transitional phenomena in the analysis
of early adolescent males. Psychoanalytic Study of the
Child, 33, 19-46.
Ekecrantz, L., & Rudhe, L. (1972). Transitional phenom-
ena: Frequency, forms and functions of specially loved
objects. Ada Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 48, 261-273.
Fraiberg, S. (1969). Libidinal object constancy and mental
representation. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 24,
9-47.
Gaddini, R., & Gaddini, E. (1970). Transitional objects
and the process of individuation: A study in three dif-
ferent social groups. Journal of the American Academy
of Child Psychiatry, 9, 347-365.
Gershaw, N., & Schwarz, J. (1971). The effects of a familiar
toy and mother's presence on exploratory and attach-
ment behavior in young children. Child Development,
42, 1662-1666.
Giovacchini, P. (1978). The impact of delusion and the
delusion of impact: Ego defect and the transitional phe-
nomenon. In S. Grolnick, L. Barkin, & W. Muenster-
berger (Eds.), Between reality and fantasy: Transitional
objects and phenomena (pp. 323-343). New \brk: Jason
Aronson.
Hong, K. (1978). The transitional phenomena: A theoretical
integration. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 33, 47-
79.
Hong, K., & Townes, B. (1976). Infants' attachment to
inanimate objects. Journal of the Academy of Child
Psychiatry, 15, 49-61.
Horton, P., Louy, X, & Coppolillo, H. (1974). Personality
disorder and transitional relatedness. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 30, 618-622.
Kahne, M. (1967). On the persistence of transitional phe-
nomena into adult life. International Journal of Psycho-
Analysis, 48, 247-258.
Kaminer, H. (1978). Transitional object components in
self and object relations. In S. Grolnick, L. Barkin, &
W. Muensterberger (Eds.), Between reality and fantasy:
Transitional objects and phenomena (pp. 233-243). New
\fork: Jason Aronson.
Metcalf, D., & Spitz, R. (1978). The transitional object:
Critical developmental period and organizer of the psy-
che. In S. Grolnick, L. Barkin, & W. Muensterberger
(Eds.), Between reality and fantasy: Transitional objects
and phenomena (pp. 97-108). New \brk: Jason Aronson.
Modell, A. (1963). Primitive object relationship and the
predisposition to schizophrenia. International Journal
of Psycho-Analysis, 44, 282-292.
Natterson, J. M. (1976). The self as a transitional object:
Its relationship to narcissism and homosexuality. In-
ternational Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 5,
131-144.
Parrish, D. (1978). Transitional objects and phenomena
in a case of twinship. In S. Grolnick, L. Barkin, & W.
Muensterberger (Eds.), Between reality and fantasy:
 TRANSITIONAL OBJECTS AND PERSONALITY
Transitional objects and phenomena (pp. 271-287), New
York; Jason Aronson.
Passman, R. H., & Halonen, J. S. (1979), A developmental
survey of young children's attachment to inanimate
objects. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 134, 165-178.
Passman, R., & Weisberg, P. (1975). Mothers and blankets
as agents for promoting play and exploration by young
children in a novel environment. Developmental Psy-
chology, 11, 170-177.
Provence, S., & Ritvo, S. (1961). Effect of deprivation on
institutionalized infants: Disturbances in development
in relationship to inanimate objects. Psychoanalytic
Study of the Child, 16, 189-205.
Rose, G. (1978). The creativity of everyday life. In S.
Grolnick, L. Barkin, & W. Muensterberger (Eds.), Be-
tween reality and fantasy: Transitional objects and phe-
nomena (pp. 345-362). New 'Vbrk: Jason Aronson.
Rudhe, L., & Ekecrantz, L. (1974). Transitional phenom-
ena. Ada Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 50, 381-400.
Sherman, M,, Hertzig, M., Austrian, R., & Shapiro, T.
(1981). Treasured objects in school-aged children. Pe-
diatrics, 68, 379-386.
Solomon, J. C, (1962). Fixed idea as an internalized tran-
sitional object. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 16,
632-644.
111
Sperling, M. (1963). Fetishism in children. Psychoanalytic
Quarterly, 32, 374-392.
Stevenson, O. (1954). The first treasured possession. Psy-
choanalytic Study of the Child, 9, 374-392.
Tolpin, M. (1971), On the beginnings of a cohesive self:
An application of the concept of transmuting inter-
nalization to the study of the transitional object and
signal anxiety. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 26,
316-354.
Volkan, V. (1973). Transitional fantasies in the analysis of
a narcissistic personality. Journal of the American Psy-
choanalytic Association, 21, 351-376.
Volkan, V., & Kavanaugh, J, (1978). The cat people. In
S. Grolnick, L. Barkin, & W. Muensterberger, (Eds.),
Between reality and fantasy: Transitional objects and
phenomena (pp. 289-303). New York: Jason Aronson.
Weisberg, P., & Russell, J. (1971). Proximity and inter-
actional behavior of young Children to their "security"
blankets. Child Development, 42, 1575-1579.
Winnicott, D. W. (1953). Transitional object and transi-
tional phenomena. International Journal of Psycho-
Analysis, 34, 89-97.
Received December 1, 1982