AQS Securty Scores

IMHJ (Wiley) RIGHT BATCH
top of AH
A R T I C L E
AQS SECURITY SCORES: WHAT DO THEY

REPRESENT? A STUDY IN CONSTRUCT
VALIDATION
HEDWIG J.A. VAN BAKEL AND J. MARIANNE RIKSEN-WALRAVEN

University of Nijmegen
ABSTRACT: In a sample of 129 Dutch 15-month-old infants, attachment security was assessed both with
the Attachment Q-Set (AQS; Waters, 1995) and with a short version of Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and
Wall’s (1978) Strange Situation (SSS). Infants classified as secure using the SSS had significantly higher
AQS scores than insecure and disorganized infants in particular. At the AQS item level, disorganized
infants were described as significantly more noncompliant, fussy, and angry relative to secure infants.
When security as assessed using the SSS was controlled, the observed quality of parental interactive
behavior, parental ego-resilience, high levels of infant task orientation and pleasure, and low levels of
infant anger proneness were found to explain significant and unique portions of the variance in the AQS
security scores. The apparently unfavorable set of characteristics associated with low AQS security scores
suggests such scores to predict later developmental problems.
RESUMEN: La seguridad de la unión afectiva fue evaluada en un grupo muestra de 129 infantes holandeses
de 15 meses de nacidos. Para tal evaluación se usaron, por una parte el Grupo de Preguntas sobre la
Afectividad (AQS; Walters, 1995), y por otra parte, una versión corta de la Situación Extraña de Ains-
worth (SSS). Aquellos infantes que fueron clasificados como seguros de sı́ mismos según el método SSS,
presentaron puntajes significativamente más altos en el método AQS que aquellos infates inseguros de
sı́ mismos y, en particular, desorganizados. Al nivel de las preguntas del sistema AQS, los infantes
desorganizados fueron descritos significativamente como menos obedientes, más exigentes y más enfa-
dados en correlación a los infantes seguros de sı́ mismos. En los casos en que la seguridad, tal como es
evaluada usando el método SSS fue controlada, se encontró que las siguientes situaciones podı́an explicar
porciones significativas y únicas de la variedad en los puntajes de seguridad del método AQS: la observada
calidad de la conducta interactiva de los padres, la fuerza moral del yo paterno-maternal, altos niveles de
la orientación hacia los deberes y el placer por parte del infante, y los bajos niveles de predisposición
hacia el enfado en el infante. El grupo de caracterı́sticas aparentemente desfavorables asociado con los
bajos puntajes de seguridad en el método AQS, sugiere que tales puntajes predicen problemas de desa-
rrollo posteriores.
RÉSUMÉ: Dans un échantillon de 129 bébés hollandais de 15 mois, la sécurité de l’attachement a été
évaluée à la fois avec le Q-set d’Attachement (AQS; Waters, 1995) et avec une version courte de la
Portions of this article were presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,
Minneapolis, April 2001. We are grateful to Dymphna C. van den Boom for coding the tapes of the Short Strange
Situation. Direct correspondence to: Hedwig J.A. van Bakel, Department of Developmental Psychology, University
of Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands; e-mail: H.J.A.vanBakel@uvt.nl.
INFANT MENTAL HEALTH JOURNAL, Vol. 25(3), 175– 193 (2004)

䊚 2004 Michigan Association for Infant Mental Health short
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/imhj.20001 standard
175 base of drop

IMHJ (Wiley) LEFT BATCH
top of rh
176 ● H.J.A. van Bakel and J.M. Riksen-Walraven base of rh
cap height
“Situation Etrange” d’Ainsworth (SSS en anglais). Les bébés classifiés comme étant sécures utilisant la base of text
SSS avaient des scores AQS bien plus élevés qu’en particulier les enfants insécures et désorganisés. Au
niveau item AQS, les bébés désorganisés étaient décrits comme étant bien plus non-coopératifs, difficiles,
et en colère par rapport aux bébés sécures. Lorsque la sécurité, évaluée en utilisant la SSS, fut contrôlée,
la qualité observée du comportement interactif parental, l’ego-résilience parentale, les hauts niveaux
d’orientation dans l’exercice du bébé et de plaisir, et des niveaux bas de tendance à la colère du bébé ont
chacun été trouvés pour expliquer les portions importantes et uniques de la variance dans les indices de
sécurité AQS. Le set de caractéristiques apparemment peu favorable lié à de faibles indices de sécurité
AQS suggère que de tels indices peuvent prédire des problèmes ultérieurs de développement.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: In einer Untersuchungsgruppe von 129 15 Monate alten, holländischen Kleinkin-

dern wurde die Bindungssicherheit sowohl mit dem Attachment Q-set (AQS; Waters, 1995), als auch mit
einer Kurzversion der Fremden Situation nach Ainsworth (SSS) untersucht. Kleinkinder, die im SSS als
sicher klassifiziert wurden, hatten signifikant höhere Punktezahlen im AQS, als unsicher und im beson-
deren desorganisiert gebundene. Auf der Ebene der Werte wurden desorganisierte Kleinkinder als sig-
nifikant mehr nicht-mitmachend, unruhig und ärgerlich beschrieben, als sichere Kleinkinder. Wenn die
Sicherheit, wie sie im SSS bestimmt worden war, mit der Qualität des elterlichen, interaktiven Verhaltens,
der Selbstbezogenheit der Eltern, hohen Ausprägungen der Bezogenheit auf die Tätigkeit, Freude und
geringen Ausprägungen der Neigung des Kleinkinds zur Ärgerlichkeit korreliert wurden, so fand sich,
dass jede Ausprägung signifikant und allein Teile der Varianz der AQS Sicherheitswerte erklären konnte.
Der offensichtlich nachteilige Die Charakteristika, die mit niedrigen Sicherheitswerten im AQS verbunden
waren, weisen darauf hin, dass solche Werte spätere Entwicklungsprobleme vorhersagen können.
* * *
For many years, Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall’s (1978) Strange Situation was the
only procedure recognized for the assessment of infant and toddler attachment. Over the past
few years, however, the Attachment Q-Set (AQS; Waters, 1995; Waters & Deane, 1985) also
has been generally acknowledged as an instrument to assess attachment security in young
children. There is empirical evidence that both the AQS and the Strange Situation are tapping
into an attachment construct in ways that both overlap and are unique. As yet, there is little
clarity about what the AQS represents beyond attachment security as assessed in the Strange
Situation. In their review chapter on the measurement of attachment security in the Handbook
of Attachment, Solomon and George (1999) strongly recommended further validation of the short
AQS in relation to the Strange Situation. The present study was designed for that purpose. standard
top of rh
AQS Security Scores: What Do They Represent? ● 177 base of rh
cap height
The AQS and the Strange Situation differ in various respects. The Strange Situation is a base of text
20-min, structured laboratory procedure designed to observe whether infants can use the care-
giver as a secure base under conditions of increasing stress. Classification is based on the
infant’s reunion behavior after separation from the caregiver. Ainsworth et al. (1978) distin-
guished three attachment groups: secure (B), anxious-avoidant (A), and anxious-resistant (C).
Later, Main and Solomon (1986, 1990) added a fourth category called “disorganized/disori-
ented” (D) because such infants lack a coherent strategy to derive security from the caregiver.
The AQS was devised by Waters and Deane (1985) to observe young children’s “secure-
base behavior,” that is, the balance between exploration and proximity seeking, in the natural
home setting. The AQS consists of 90 cards describing specific behavioral characteristics of
children. After having observed a child for at least 2 hr, the observer sorts the cards into nine
piles ranging from “most descriptive of the child” to “least descriptive of the child.” A security
score is then obtained by correlating the child’s individual sort with a criterion sort provided
by the world’s foremost experts when describing the behavior of a prototypically secure child
(Waters & Deane, 1985). In studies using the AQS, security scores are usually based on the
sorts provided by trained observers or the mothers themselves. Because doubts have been raised
about the validity of the mother-based AQS (van IJzendoorn, Vereijken, Bakermans-Kranen-
burg, & Riksen-Walraven, in press), we decided to use observer sorts in the present study and
restricted ourselves to studies using the observer-based AQS in our review of the relevant
literature.
In the past decade, various studies have examined the link between AQS security scores
and Strange Situation classifications. A recent meta-analysis by van IJzendoorn et al. (in press)
of 32 studies showed, on average, a moderate correlation of r ⫽ .32, (N ⫽ 1,981) between the
AQS and Strange Situation security. Until now, only one study has been published in which
the observer AQS has been related to disorganized attachment in a normal sample (Seifer,
Schiller, Sameroff, Resnick, & Riordan, 1996). Seifer et al. (1996) found the average AQS
security scores for the disorganized infants to be considerably lower than those for children in
other groups (Msecure ⫽ .43, Mdisorganized ⫽ ⫺.20, Mavoidant ⫽ .24, Mresistant ⫽ .37); the significance
of the differences among the insecure attachment groups was not reported.
In sum, the significant association between the AQS and Strange Situation security indi-
cated that the AQS and Strange Situation overlap importantly, but the modest correlations also
showed that most of the variance in the AQS scores cannot be explained by attachment security
as assessed in the Strange Situation. The question then is what other factors may account for
the remaining variance. In their recent review of AQS studies, Solomon and George (1999)
postulated that “a certain amount of what is observed in the home is quite likely to be a function
of child temperament (including sociability), the immediate physical and social environment,
the family milieu (e.g., marital harmony), and more transitory influences (e.g., the health, mood,
and current activities of the participants)” (Solomon & George, 1999, p. 309). Solomon and George
suggested that more studies were needed to highlight what the AQS scores represent beyond
attachment security as assessed in separation–reunion situations. They proposed that “it may be
helpful to explore the sources of nonconvergence between the two measures of attachment security,
in order to better estimate and understand the underlying construct of security” (Solomon & George,
1999, p. 308). The present study was designed exactly for that purpose.
We examined just how much of the variance in the AQS security scores of 15-month-old
infants is explained by their attachment security as assessed using an abbreviated version of
the Strange Situation. Next, we examined the unexplained variance remaining in the AQS
scores after Strange Situation security was controlled.
We expected that the quality of parents’ behavior towards their infants would be related short
to the AQS scores. This expectation was based on one of the core propositions of attachment standard
top of rh
cap height
theory — that the quality of parent – child attachment reflects the history of care provided by base of text
the parent. Studies using the observer AQS have indeed shown strong associations between
maternal sensitivity and child AQS security. The meta-analysis by van IJzendoorn et al. (in
press) yielded an average correlation of r ⫽ .39 between observer AQS security and maternal
sensitivity across 18 independent samples (n ⫽ 1,355). Remarkably, the association between
AQS security and maternal sensitivity was stronger than the association between Strange Sit-
uation security and maternal sensitivity. In a meta-analytic study, De Wolff and van IJzendoorn
(1997) reported correlations ranging from .17 to .24 between Strange Situation security and
maternal sensitivity. The stronger association between AQS security and maternal sensitivity
may be explained by the lack of constraints imposed on maternal behavior during the AQS
observations at home. In the Strange Situation, in contrast, maternal behavior is restricted
considerably by the instructions given to the mother with regard to how to behave, for example,
when she enters the room after having left. The infants’ behavior towards the mother in the
Strange Situation is therefore assumed to be mainly a function of what they expect of the parent
on the basis of the parent – child interaction history; the secure base behavior of children in the
natural home setting may reflect both the parent – child interaction history and the actual be-
havior of the parent during the observational episode. Therefore, we expected the quality of
parental interactive behavior to explain a significant amount of the variance in the AQS scores
even when the children’s Strange Situation security was controlled.
In addition to the quality of the parents’ behavior towards the infant, we expected various
child and parental characteristics to contribute to the child’s secure base behavior as observed
at home. First, we expected infant temperament to be reflected in the children’s AQS scores.
In a recent review, Vaughn and Bost (1999) indeed found AQS security and not Strange
Situation security to significantly correlate with infant temperament. In 10 studies (n ⫽ 831)
using the observer AQS to assess infant security, an average correlation of ⫺.16 was found
between infant negative reactivity and AQS security (van IJzendoorn et al., in press). Given these
results for negative reactivity, we expected parental ratings of infant anger proneness as measured
by the Toddler Behavior Assessment Questionnaire (TBAQ; Goldsmith, 1994) also to be related
to the infant’s AQS security scores. With regard to the other dimensions of temperament that have
not been directly related to AQS security in previous research, the following expectations held: (a)
We expected infant pleasure and interest/persistence to be positively related to AQS security be-
cause infant pleasure may prompt the sharing of affect; (b) interest/persistence, defined as enduring
engagement in solitary play, may promote infants to venture away from the caregiver; and (c) both
kinds of behavior are typical of secure-base functioning. Given the equivocal evidence regarding
the nature of the relationship among temperamental social fearfulness and attachment security, we
refrained from making strong hypotheses about the relation between social fearfulness and attach-
ment (see Thompson, 1999). Finally, we also had no expectation with regard to the relation between
a child’s activity level and AQS security.
In addition to infant temperament, we expected two other infant characteristics to contrib-
ute to secure-base functioning at home: infants’ cognitive development and task orientation as
assessed using the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID; Bayley, 1969). With regard
to cognitive development, studies based on the Strange Situation have shown only weak as-
sociations between attachment security and developmental or intelligence quotients (combined
r ⫽. 09, N ⫽ 1,026; van IJzendoorn, Dijkstra, & Bus, 1995). In the only study to our knowledge
that examined the relation between children’s cognitive development and AQS security, At-
kinson et al. (1999) reported a correlation between AQS security and the Bayley Mental De-
velopmental Index (MDI) of r ⫽ .34 at 26 months and r ⫽ .28 at 42 months (N ⫽ 53) for
Down Syndrome children. We expected infant MDI to be related to AQS security in our sample short
standard
top of rh
cap height
as well. A high Bayley MDI in 15-month-olds reflects personal competence as well as such base of text
interpersonal skills as understanding instructions and cooperating with the experimenter. Dur-
ing the AQS observations at home, these two kinds of competence may be reflected in the
child’s exchanges with the parent on the one hand, and in high-quality exploration and play
on the other hand, thereby contributing to the observer’s impression of secure-base functioning
in the infant.
We also rated the task orientation or interest, involvement, and concentration of the chil-
dren on the basis of their behavior during the test. Just as for the parental rating of infant
interest/persistence, we expected infant task orientation to contribute to the child’s AQS se-
curity score because it may promote the infant to venture away from the parent for exploration
and play. Conceptually, the measure of task orientation seems to overlap with the measure of
interest/persistence; however, the two measures differ in that interest/persistence is reported by
parents and pertains to the child’s solitary play whereas task orientation is observed by an
independent rater in an interactive situation.
In addition to the aforementioned child characteristics, we also expected a single parental
characteristic to contribute to the infants’ AQS security: parental ego-resiliency. Ego-resiliency
is a comprehensive personality construct defined by Block and Block (1980) as “resourceful
adaptation to changing circumstances,” “flexible invocation of the available repertoire of prob-
lem-solving strategies,” and “the ability to maintain integrated performance while under stress”
(p. 48). We assume ego-resiliency to foster the ability of parents to provide supportive care
for their children and thereby foster a basic sense of security among their offspring. Parental
ego-resiliency has indeed been found to relate to infant AQS security via high-quality support
provided for the infant (van Bakel & Riksen-Walraven, 2002a). In addition, we found a direct
relation between parental ego-resiliency and infant AQS security, suggesting that resilient par-
ents also contribute to their children’s sense of security independent of what they convey during
parent – child interactions. A possible explanation for this direct effect is that resilient parents
may be better able to create and maintain stable living conditions and a harmonious home
atmosphere than “brittle” parents, which may contribute to their children’s sense of security.
Another explanation for a direct relation between ego-resiliency and infant AQS security might,
at least in part, be based on genetic transmission. A shared constitutionally based capacity for
self-regulation (cf. Rothbart, 1989), for example, might contribute both to parental ego-resil-
iency and to the child’s ability to use the parent as a secure base from which to explore the
environment. Whether parental ego-resiliency still contributes to the AQS scores when the
child’s Strange Situation security is controlled remains to be seen.
The aim of the present study was threefold. First, we examined the relation between infants’
AQS security and their attachment quality as assessed during the SSS. Based on earlier research,
we expected secure children to have higher AQS scores than insecure and disorganized children
in particular. Second, we examined whether AQS security and SSS security are differentially
related to the quality of parental interactive behavior, various dimensions of infant temperament
and competence, and parental ego-resiliency. These factors were expected to be more strongly
associated with AQS security than with SSS security. Finally, we examined what the AQS
scores reflect beyond attachment security as assessed in the SSS. We expected parental inter-
active behavior, various child temperament measures and competence, and parental ego-resil-
iency to explain significant portions of the variance in the AQS security scores beyond the
variance that is explained by attachment security as assessed in the SSS.
Thus, this study is the first to compare the two most acknowledged attachment measures
in infancy by relating them to a great variety of relevant variables and subsequently assess
what the variables uniquely contribute to both the Strange Situation and the AQS. short
standard
top of rh
cap height
METHOD base of text
Participants
The present sample consisted of 129 physically healthy 15-month-old infants (67 boys, 62
girls) and their primary caregivers (126 mothers, 3 fathers). Local health care centers in Nij-
megen, The Netherlands initially sent a recruitment letter to 639 families with a 15-month-old
baby. The primary caregiver was asked to return a card when interested in participation. Of
the 174 families who replied, 129 parent – child dyads (the maximum attainable given the time
and resources available for the project) were then randomly selected to participate. Of the
infants, 73 were first-borns, and 56 had one or more older siblings. The sample included 123
two-parent families and 6 single-parent families. The ages of the primary caregivers ranged
from 22 to 47 years (M ⫽ 32.9 years, SD ⫽ 4.42), and their level of education ranged from
low (elementary school or 8 years of formal education) to high (college degree or 18 years of
education). The average number of years of formal education was 12, and the median level
was secondary vocational education.
Procedure
All parent – child dyads were observed twice within a single week, once at home and once at
the university lab. First, the parents and children were visited in their homes by the first author
for 2 hr when the child was 15 months old (M ⫽ 15.1, SD ⫽ .25). During the visit, a semi-
structured procedure was followed. After getting acquainted (about 15 min), the primary care-
giver completed a Q-sort and a set of questionnaires assessing his or her ego-resiliency, child
temperament, and background information. This phase of the visit lasted about 1.5 hr, with
various breaks in which the parent was fully available to the child. Next, the parent and child
were videotaped during the performance of four consecutive instructional tasks lasting 3 to 4
min each. The parent was asked to have the child unlock a puzzle box, put a puppet together,
do a jigsaw puzzle, and “read” a set of picture books. The parents also were told that they
could help the child whenever they felt the need. After each home visit, the trained visitor
applied the 90-item version of the AQS to her observations during the visit. Within 1 week of
the home visit, the parent and child visited the university laboratory where the child’s cognitive
development was assessed using the BSID. This was followed by a parent – child interaction
episode that was similar to the home visit session involving four consecutive instructional
tasks. At the end of the visit, the SSS was administered. For 2 infant – parent dyads, laboratory
data were not available because these dyads were not able to visit the lab.
Instruments and Measures

Infant attachment security. A Dutch translation of AQS Version 3 (Waters, 1995) was used
to describe infant attachment behavior at home. After having observed the child for 2 hr, the
trained observer sorted the 90 behavior items describing the child’s secure-base behavior to-
wards the parent. The observer arranged the 90 descriptive statements along a forced nine-
category distribution according to the evaluated applicability of each item to the particular
child. The security score was obtained by correlating the child’s individual Q-sort description
with the criterion sort provided by experts for a prototypically secure infant (Waters, 1995).
The security scores could range from ⫹1.00 for a perfectly secure infant to ⫺1.00 for the most
insecure infant. The home visitor had been thoroughly trained by the second author, who has short
extensive experience with the application of the AQS, until a reliability level of .75 was reached. standard
top of rh
cap height
Reliability checks throughout the study showed the Q-correlations for five independent sorts base of text
for the same children to exceed the standard of .75.
The SSS was used to assess the quality of the infant – parent attachment in the lab. This
shortened version consisted of three episodes: parent and child in the room (3 min), child alone
(4 min), and parent – child reunion (3 min). A single separation was deemed sufficiently stress-
ful to activate the child’s attachment system for various reasons. First, the SSS was situated at
the end of the rather fatiguing 2-hr lab visit. Second, the child had been confronted by a stranger
and a “frightening” robot immediately prior to the SSS (not reported on in the present study).
Third, in previous research, modified versions of the Strange Situation have proven valid for
the assessment of attachment quality in both normal and clinical samples. Waters, Wippman,
and Sroufe (1979) also applied one single separation from the caregiver rather than the two
3-min separations and reliably distinguished secure and insecure 15-month-old infants. Lewis,
Feiring, McGuffog, and Jaskir (1984) used a strange situation procedure involving no stranger
and only one 3-min separation from the caregiver. Finally, Willemsen-Swinkels, Bakermans-
Kranenburg, Buitelaar, van IJzendoorn, and van Engeland (2000) applied a similar procedure
in which children were separated from the parent, who returned 3 min later. The latter study
also included disorganized children. Two trained coders (the second author and Dymphna. C.
van den Boom from the University of Amsterdam, who also has been trained in D-classifica-
tion) observed the videotaped separation – reunion episodes and classified the infants as secure
(B), avoidant (A), resistant (C), or disorganized/disoriented (D) according to the directions
provided by Ainsworth et al. (1978) and by Main and Solomon (1990). The intercoder agree-
ment established on the basis of 20 cases was found to be 95%.
Quality of parental interactive behavior. The videotaped parent – child instructional sessions
at home and in the laboratory were rated for the quality of parental interactive behavior, using
five 7-point scales developed by Erickson, Sroufe, and Egeland (1985): (1) supportive presence
or the provision of emotional support, (2) respect for the child’s autonomy or nonintrusiveness,
(3) structure and limit setting, (4) quality of instructions, and (5) hostility. Each interaction
episode was rated independently by two observers trained by the second author, who has
extensive experience with the scales. The home and lab interaction episodes were scored by
different pairs of observers blind to the other scores for the families. The interrater reliabilities
expressed as Pearson correlations exceeded r ⫽ .85 for all scales. The Cohen’s kappas (for
agreement within 1 scale point) were beyond .98. Composite scores for the quality of parental
interactive behavior at home and in the lab were computed by summing the five standardized
scale scores for each situation after reversal of the score for hostility. The Cronbach’s alphas
for the combined scales were .84 for the home episode and .83 for the lab episode.
Child temperament. A Dutch translation of the TBAQ (Goldsmith, 1994) was used to char-
acterize the children in terms of five dimensions of temperament: Activity Level, Pleasure,
Social Fearfulness, Anger Proneness, and Interest/Persistence. The parents indicate along a
7-point scale how often they have observed particular behaviors of their child during the past
month, for example: “When your child was being approached by an unfamiliar adult while
shopping or out walking, how often did your child show distress or cry?” The internal con-
sistency of the five scales proved satisfactory; the Cronbach’s alphas were .86 (20 items) for
Activity level, .82 (19 items) for Pleasure, .77 (19 items) for Social Fearfulness, .88 (28 items)
for Anger Proneness, and .79 (22 items) for Interest/Persistence.
Child cognitive development and task orientation. The children’s level of cognitive function- short
ing was assessed using the Dutch version of the Bayley (1969) Mental Scale of Infant Devel- standard
top of rh
cap height
opment (van der Meulen & Smrkovsky, 1983). The first author and four graduate students base of text
trained for assessment administered the tests. Cognitive development was expressed as the
standardized MDI, which provides an overall impression of the child’s cognitive abilities rel-
ative to a large sample of same-age Dutch children. Immediately after testing, the experimenter
and an observer behind a one-way screen independently applied the Infant Behavior Record
(IBR) of the Bayley Scales. A score for Task Orientation was computed by summing the
infant’s scores on the four 9-point IBR rating scales: (1) object orientation or the infant’s interest
in the test materials, (2) goal directedness or persistence in working towards the goals of the
test, (3) attention span or sustained attention during the test, and (4) reactivity or responsiveness
to the introduction of the test materials. The factor Task Orientation emerged as significant in
a factor analysis of IBR data in earlier research (Matheny, 1980) and also has been found to
be significant for the Dutch version of the IBR (van der Meulen & Smrkovsky, 1983). The
interrater reliability of the composite score in the present study was .87 (Pearson correlation).
Parental personality. Parents described their own personality using a Dutch translation (van
Aken & Rost, 1998) of the 100-item California Adult Q-Set (CAQ) (Block, 1961/1978). The
CAQ consists of 100 descriptive statements that sample a broad domain of personal and inter-
personal characteristics and functioning. The parents were asked to sort these 100 statements
into a fixed, quasi-normal, nine-category distribution ranging from “least characteristic” to
“most characteristic” in terms of their salience to themselves. From these CAQ descriptions,
scores for ego-resiliency were computed by correlating each parent’s personality description
with the description of a prototypical ego-resilient adult provided by experts. The correlation
coefficients used to measure ego-resiliency could range from ⫺1.00 (very ego-brittle) to ⫹1.00
(very ego-resilient).
RESULTS
Before answering the research questions, we first present the results of some preliminary anal-
yses. With regard to gender and birth-order effects, we tested the equality of the correlation
matrices for gender and first- and later born children (Green, 1992). The test results for gender
and birth-order differences indicated that the matrices are not different from each other (also
see van Bakel & Riksen-Walraven, 2002a).
The means, standard deviations, and ranges for the study variables are presented in the
right-hand columns of Table 1. The AQS security scores as well as the scores for parental
interactive behavior, parental personality, and child characteristics were all normally distributed
with means approximating those found in other research (Goldsmith, 1996; Zevalkink & Rik-
sen-Walraven, 2001). As shown in Table 1, the mean AQS security score in the present sample
was .25 (SD ⫽ .26). In a recent meta-analysis on AQS studies in which the mother – child
attachment relationship also was rated by an observer, a mean security score of .32 (SD ⫽ .11)
was found across 34 samples (van IJzendoorn et al., in press). The distribution of attachment
classifications in the present study (65% B, 13% A, 8% C, and 14% D) did not differ from the
distribution reported by van IJzendoorn, Schuengel, and Bakermans-Kranenburg (1999) for
“normal,” middle-class, nonclinical groups in North America, ␹ 2 (3) ⫽ .59, p ⬎ .05. The
interrelations between the quality of parental behavior, child characteristics, and parental ego-
resiliency are presented in Table 2. The correlation between the quality of parental behavior
at home and in the lab (r ⫽ .69, p ⬍ .01) suggests considerable stability across settings. Given
that the two scores also show a similar pattern of correlations with the other variables, it was
decided to use the combined score for overall quality of parental behavior in subsequent anal- short
yses. No gender effects were found for the means and interrelations of the study variables. standard
IMHJ (Wiley)
TABLE 1. Correlations Between AQS and SSS Security Scores and Parental Interactive Behavior, Child Characteristics, and Parental Characteristics, Means,
Standard Deviations, and Range
ABCD Classifications
AQS SSS
Security Securitya B (n ⫽ 82) A (n ⫽ 17) C (n ⫽ 10) D (n ⫽ 18) F Test Contrasts M (SD) Range
AQS 1.00 .36** .32 (.25) .21 (.21) .10 (.25) .04 (.24) 8.02** B⬎D .25 (.26) ⫺.54– .72
Parental Interactive Behavior
Quality Home .48** .47** 1.34 (3.27) ⫺2.28 (3.27) ⫺.94 (3.55) ⫺3.47 (4.00) 13.29** B ⬎ A, D 0 ⫺11.78– 8.30
Quality Lab .40** .38** 1.07 (3.34) ⫺1.70 (2.93) ⫺1.48 (3.65) ⫺2.42 (4.84) 7.09** B ⬎ A, D 0 ⫺13.50– 7.96
Overall Quality .48** .46** 1.20 (2.91) ⫺1.99 (3.013) ⫺1.21 (3.48) ⫺2.95 (3.98) 12.11** B ⬎ A, D 0 ⫺11.38– 8.13
183
Child Characteristics
Activity Level ⫺.11 ⫺.10 3.61 (.81) 3.76 (.73) 3.81 (.65) 3.75 (.78) .42 n.s. 3.66 (.80) 1.77– 6.25
Anger Proneness ⫺.15* ⫺.01 3.38 (.73) 3.54 (.96) 3.44 (.83) 3.25 (.81) .42 n.s. 3.39 (.77) 1.62– 5.19
Interest/Persistence ⫺.08 ⫺.05 3.63 (.75) 3.88 (.75) 3.50 (.50) 3.68 (1.00) .55 n.s. 3.65 (.84) 1.41– 6.53
Pleasure .18* ⫺.00 5.03 (.77) 5.21 (.74) 4.91 (1.15) 4.94 (.98) .41 n.s. 5.03 (.82) 2.63– 6.68
Social Fearfulness ⫺.02 .15 3.79 (.83) 3.41 (1.05) 3.68 (.88) 3.57 (.67) 1.16 n.s. 3.70 (.84) 1.63– 5.77
Bayley MDI .39** .09 104.24 (16.74) 101.18 (18.72) 106.60 (17.60) 97.78 (18.53) .89 n.s. 103 (17) 59– 141
RIGHT
Task Orientation 30** ⫺.18* 22.60 (3.45) 22.12 (2.89) 21.40 (3.57) 20.35 (4.53) 2.03 n.s. 22.13 (3.60) 10– 20
Parental Characteristics
Ego-resiliency .34** .16* .46 (.18) .47 (.18) .26 (.18) .39 (.24) 3.90* B, A ⬎ C .43 (.19) ⫺.05– .74
Note. N between 126–129. a Secure (B) ⫽ 1, Insecure (A, C, D) ⫽ 0. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.
BATCH
base of text
cap height
base of rh
top of rh
standard
short
IMHJ (Wiley)
TABLE 2. Intercorrelations Among Parental Interactive Behavior, Child Characteristics, and Parental Characteristics
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Parental Interactive Behavior

1. Quality Home –
2. Quality Lab .69** —
3. Overall Quality .92** .92** —
4. Activity Level ⫺.21** ⫺.26** ⫺.25** —
184
5. Anger Proneness ⫺.03 .02 ⫺.03 .40** —
6. Interest/Persistence .05 ⫺.04 .01 ⫺.24** ⫺.06 —
7. Pleasure ⫺.17* ⫺.13 ⫺.16* .27** .11 .07 —
8. Social Fearfulness .30** .20* .27** ⫺.06 .34** .08 ⫺.22** —
9. Bayley MDI .40** .51** .49** .02 .13 ⫺.04 .08 .13 —
10. Task Orientation .20* .20* .22** ⫺.01 .02 .02 .05 .05 .58** —
LEFT
11. Ego-resiliency .36** .26** .34** ⫺.10 ⫺.14 ⫺.13 ⫺.12 ⫺.01 .21** .09 —
Note. N between 126–129. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.
BATCH
base of text
cap height
base of rh
top of rh
standard
short
top of rh
cap height
The Relation Between AQS Security and SSS Attachment base of text
Classification
As shown in Table 1, a significant but modest correlation was found between AQS security
and security in the SSS (r ⫽ .36, p ⬍ .01). The mean AQS security scores for the secure and
insecure groups were Msecure ⫽ .32, SD ⫽ .25 and Minsecure ⫽ .12, SD ⫽ .24; t ⫽ 4.34, p ⬍
.01. A one-way ANOVA yielded a significant difference in the AQS security scores for the
four attachment groups. As shown in Table 1, the disorganized infants had significantly lower
AQS scores than the secure children, but they did not distinguish themselves significantly from
their avoidant and resistant peers.
To examine whether the infants in the four attachment groups differed with regard to
specific behavioral items, we conducted 90 separate one-way ANOVAs, with the four attach-
ment classifications as the grouping variable and the 90 AQS items as the dependent variables.
Due to the large number of tests performed, a significance level of .01 was selected for use. In
Table 3, the 14 items for which a significant difference among the attachment groups was
detected are presented. Two items distinguished the avoidant from the resistant children. For
the remaining 12 significant items, the analyses revealed a significant contrast between the
secure and the disorganized children. Closer inspection of these items reveals a picture of the
disorganized infants as noncompliant (Items 1, 18, 19) and as fussy, angry, easily upset, and
difficult to comfort (Items 2, 6, 38, 65, 71, 74, 79). In sum, the AQS was found to be associated
with SSS attachment quality both at the level of the AQS security scores and at the item level.
Are AQS Security and SSS Security Differentially Related to

Parental Interactive Behavior, Child Characteristics, and
Parental Characteristics?
To gain greater insight into what AQS security reflects when compared to SSS security, we
correlated both security measures with quality of parental behavior, child characteristics, and
parental ego-resiliency. As shown in Table 1, both AQS and SSS security were significantly
related to parental interactive behavior at home and in the lab. A one-way ANOVA, with the
four attachment classifications as the grouping variable and parental interactive behavior as the
dependent variable, showed secure infants to receive significantly higher quality parenting than
avoidant and disorganized infants both at home and in the lab. The resistant infants did not
distinguish themselves from the secure infants with regard to quality of parental care.
AQS and SSS security were found to be differentially related to child characteristics. As
expected, AQS insecurity was significantly related to infant anger proneness and pleasure. The
expected relation of AQS with interest/persistence was not found. Social fear and activity level
were not related to AQS security. In accordance with our hypotheses, the Bayley MDI was
found to be significantly related to AQS security, but not to SSS security. Child task orientation
was significantly related to both security scores, with the difference between the correlation
coefficients not reaching significance.
Parental ego-resiliency turned out to be related to both AQS and SSS security. The dif-
ference between the two correlation coefficients was not significant. Table 1 shows a significant
difference in parental ego-resiliency across the four attachment groups. Parents of resistant
infants were significantly less ego-resilient than parents of secure and avoidant infants.
To compare the total amounts of variance in AQS and SSS security accounted for by the
various parental and child measures and examine the unique contributions of the different
measures to both security scores, we conducted two multiple regression analyses. In the first short
analysis, AQS security was the dependent variable. Those variables significantly related to standard
top of rh
cap height
TABLE 3. Q-Set Items that Distinguish Among the A, B, C, and D Attachment Groups in the Short base of text
Strange Situation (p ⬍ .01) (N ⫽ 127)
M(SD)
Item Item Descriptiona B (n ⫽ 82) A (n ⫽ 17) C (n ⫽ 10) D (n ⫽ 18) F (3, 123) Contrasts
01 Child readily shares with mother or 7.46 (1.59) 6.71 (1.93) 6.40 (1.90) 5.72 (2.27) 5.55 B⬎D
lets her hold things if she asks to
02 When child returns to mother after 3.77 (2.15) 3.47 (2.15) 4.50 (2.37) 5.89 (2.14) 5.32 A/B ⬍ D
playing, he is sometimes fussy
for no clear reason
04 Child is careful and gentle with 7.04 (1.80) 6.82 (1.74) 7.20 (1.87) 5.28 (2.16) 4.64 B⬎D
toys and pets
06 When child is near mother and sees 4.74 (2.48) 5.41 (2.74) 6.20 (2.15) 6.89 (2.52) 4.21 B⬍D
something he wants to play with,
he fusses or tries to drag mother
over to it
18 Child follows mother’s suggestions 5.82 (1.94) 5.65 (2.52) 4.40 (2.17) 3.72 (1.90) 6.10 B⬎D
readily, even when they are
clearly suggestions rather than
orders
19 When mother tells child to bring or 6.56 (2.17) 6.18 (2.07) 5.10 (2.38) 4.72 (2.35) 4.25 B⬎D
give her something, he obeys
20 Child ignores most bumps, falls, or 6.72 (2.26) 7.88 (2.03) 4.50 (3.41) 7.33 (2.54) 4.63 C ⬍ A, D
startles
38 Child is demanding and impatient 5.34 (2.55) 5.59 (2.69) 6.70 (2.06) 7.50 (1.76) 4.36 B⬍D
with mother. Fusses and persists
unless she does what he wants
53 Child puts his arms around mother 8.13 (1.09) 7.59 (1.77) 7.50 (2.01) 6.94 (1.73) 4.18 B⬎D
or puts his hand on her shoulder
when she picks him up
63 Even before trying things himself, 3.87 (1.99) 2.53 (1.23) 4.70 (2.00) 3.17 (1.82) 3.80 A⬍C
child tries to get someone to help
him
65 Child is easily upset when mother 2.76 (1.77) 3.29 (2.28) 3.10 (2.60) 5.17 (2.55) 6.92 B⬍D
makes him change from one ac-
tivity to another (even if the new
activity is something the child
often enjoys)
71 If held in mother’s arms, child 7.32 (1.55) 7.12 (1.41) 6.20 (2.20) 5.83 (1.65) 5.11 B⬎D
stops crying and quickly recov-
ers after being frightened or up-
set
74 When mother doesn’t do what the 4.73 (2.62) 5.35 (3.08) 6.20 (2.10) 6.83 (1.54) 3.97 B⬍D
child wants right away, he be-
haves as if mom were not going
to do it at all (fusses, gets angry,
walks off to other activities, etc.)
79 Child easily becomes angry at 3.99 (2.44) 5.59 (2.37) 5.70 (1.77) 5.89 (2.17) 5.38 B⬍D
mother
a The Attachment Q-Set (Version 3.0, Waters, 1995).
short
standard
top of rh
cap height
TABLE 4. Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting the AQS Security Scores base of text
from Parental Interactive Behavior, Child Characteristics, and Parental
Characteristics (N ⫽ 127)
Regression Steps
1 2
Overall Parental Interactive Behavior .49** .43**

Anger Proneness ⫺.15*
Pleasure .28**
Bayley MDI .05
Task Orientation .18*
Ego-resiliency .18*
R2 24% 40%
R2 change 15%
F (1, 124) ⫽ 38.70 (5, 120) ⫽ 15.82
Note. The coefficients are standardized regression coefficients. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.
AQS security (see Table 1) were used as predictors: overall quality of parental behavior, infant
anger proneness, pleasure, Bayley MDI and task orientation, and parental ego-resiliency. A
two-step hierarchical procedure was used. Based on the core proposition that attachment se-
curity is most directly affected by the quality of parent – infant interaction, the overall quality
of parental interactive behavior was entered first into the regression equation. The child char-
acteristics and parental ego-resiliency were entered in Step 2 of the analysis. As can be seen
from Table 4, the overall quality of parental behavior explained a significant part of the variance
in the AQS scores (24%). The second step yielded a significant increase (16%) in the explained
variance. Infant pleasure, anger proneness and task orientation, and parental ego-resiliency
were found to make significant and unique contributions.
A similar regression analysis was conducted with SSS security as the dependent variable.
Parental interactive behavior was entered first; infant social fearfulness and task orientation
and parental ego-resiliency were entered in the second step. Remarkably, only the quality of
parental interactive behavior was found to explain a significant portion of the variance in SSS
security (21.5%). Neither infant task orientation nor parental ego-resiliency was found to con-
tribute significantly to the explained variance in SSS security when parental interactive behavior
was controlled, Step 1, R 2 ⫽ 21.5, F(1, 124) ⫽ 33.90; Step 2, R 2 change .007, F(2, 122) ⫽
0.50, n.s.
Taken together, the analyses presented in this section demonstrate that AQS and SSS
security are related, but not identical. Both measures are associated with the quality of parental
interactive behavior, but unlike SSS security, AQS security also is linked with various child
and parental characteristics.
What Do AQS Scores Reflect Beyond SSS Attachment

Security?
The significant correlation between AQS and SSS security shows the AQS to indeed capture short
a significant portion of the variance associated with attachment security as assessed in the SSS. standard
top of rh
cap height
TABLE 5. Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting the AQS Security Scores from Short Strange base of text
Situation Security, Parental Interactive Behavior, and Variables in the Child and Parent Domain
(N ⫽ 127)
Regression Steps
1 2 3
Short Strange Situation Security .38** .19* .15

Overall Parental Interactive Behavior .40** .37**
Anger Proneness ⫺.15*
Pleasure .27**
Bayley MDI .11
Task Orientation .17*
Ego-resiliency .18*
R2 14% 27% 42%
R2 change 13% 15%
F (1, 124) ⫽ 20.52 (2, 123) ⫽ 22.38 (6, 119) ⫽ 14.02
Note. The coefficients are standardized regression coefficients. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.
But what do the AQS scores reflect beyond SSS security? To answer this question, we con-
ducted a three-step hierarchical regression analysis with AQS security as the dependent vari-
able. To control for the variance associated with SSS attachment security, we first entered SSS
security into the regression equation. The overall quality of parental interactive behavior was
entered in Step 2, and the child and parental characteristics in Step 3. As shown in Table 5,
each successive step yielded a significant increase in the amount of explained variance for AQS
security. The quality of parental behavior explained a significant portion (13%) of the variance
in the AQS scores beyond the variance explained by SSS security in Step 1 (14%). In Step 3,
the child and parental characteristics added a significant 15% to the amount of explained
variance, yielding a total of 42% of the variance in the AQS scores being explained by the
seven variables in the regression equation. In the final model, five variables were found to
explain significant and unique portions of the variance in the AQS security scores: the overall
quality of parental behavior, infant anger proneness, pleasure and task orientation, and parental
ego-resiliency.
DISCUSSION
The results of the present study yield a picture of the AQS as a comprehensive measure of the
quality of the parent – child relationship. AQS security scores were found to significantly over-
lap with attachment security as observed in a short version of the Strange Situation. In addition,
our study was the first to show infants classified as disorganized on the basis of their reunion
behavior to have significantly lower AQS security scores than infants classified as securely
attached and also to significantly distinguish themselves from the secure children at the level
of the AQS items. Beyond attachment security as assessed in the SSS, the observed quality of
parental interactive behavior, parental ego-resilience, high levels of infant task orientation and short
standard
top of rh
cap height
pleasure, and low levels of infant anger proneness each explained significant and unique por- base of text
tions of the variance in the AQS security scores.
Our finding of significantly higher AQS scores in secure infants when compared to infants
classified as insecure in the Strange Situation is in accordance with the results of previous
research (van IJzendoorn et al., in press). Seifer et al. (1996) were the first to include disor-
ganized infants in a comparison of Strange Situation classifications and AQS security, and they
reported very low AQS scores for the 3 infants classified as disorganized in their sample
(M ⫽ ⫺.20 vs. M ⫽ .43 for the secure infants; not tested for significance). The present
study yielded somewhat less extreme AQS scores (Ms of .04 and .32 for disorganized and
secure infants, respectively), but nevertheless showed a significant difference in the AQS
scores for the two attachment groups.
The disorganized infants also differed from the secure infants at the level of the AQS
items. The items typifying the behavior of the disorganized infants during the home visit (see
Table 3) yield a picture of such infants as significantly more fussy, angry, and noncompliant
than their secure peers. The behavior we observed in the disorganized 15-month-olds at home
seems to foreshadow the externalizing and emotion-regulation problems that have been found
to characterize disorganized children at later ages (see Lyons-Ruth & Jacobvitz, 1999). The
behaviors of the disorganized infants toward their parents during the home visit also resembled
the “controlling” or “punitive” behaviors toward the caregiver that have been observed in 6-
year-olds classified as disorganized in infancy (Main & Cassidy, 1988; also see Jacobvitz &
Hazen, 1999). Such controlling behaviors are reflected by several of the AQS items found to
distinguish the disorganized infants from the securely attached infants, such as: “When child
is near mother and sees something he wants to play with, he fusses or tries to drag mother over
to it;” “Child is demanding and impatient with mother. Fusses and persists unless she does
what he wants;” and “When mother doesn’t do what the child wants right away, he behaves
as if mom were not going to do it at all (fusses, gets angry, walks off to other activities, etc.).”
It is a remarkable finding of the present study that controlling behaviors and early signs of
externalizing and emotion-regulation problems can be observed for disorganized infants at the
early age of 15 months. It might be possible that constitutional or temperamental characteristics
are involved in the relation between D-classification and AQS security scores. A recent meta-
analysis by van IJzendoorn et al. (1999), however, indicated that there is no reason to assume
that disorganized attachment is the consequence of the infant’s difficult temperament. This is
supported by the lack of association between D-classification and temperamental scores found
in the present study (see Table 1). However, Lakatos et.al. (2000) recently reported a strong
association of infant disorganization in low-risk populations with the presence of a polymor-
phism on the DRD4 gene, resulting in underfunctioning of the D4 receptor. In other studies,
this gene has been associated with infant irritability, hyperactivity, impulsivity, and compulsive
behavior (Green & Goldwyn, 2002). These recent studies suggested D-behavior to be associated
with certain innate biological features that may not be detected by the regular questionnaires
used to measure temperament.
In interpreting the results of the present study relating AQS security to a variety of parental
and child measures, the validity of the measures is an important issue. It is a strong feature of
the present study that various methods were used to obtain data from multiple sources such as
tests, observations in various settings by various raters, and questionnaires completed by par-
ents. Only the measures of parental ego-resiliency and child temperament were obtained from
a single source and were based on parental self-report. However, the lack of a correlation
between these two measures may speak in favor of their validity.
With regard to the relation between child temperamental factors and AQS scores, the short
standard
top of rh
cap height
expected relation of anger proneness and pleasure was indeed found; however, the hypothesized base of text
positive relation between the child’s interest/persistence and AQS scores was not found. This
is all the more surprising given the significant correlation between the children’s task orien-
tation — a concept closely related to interest/persistence — and their AQS scores. This differ-
ence might be due to the fact that interest/persistence pertains to the child’s solitary play
whereas task orientation, like AQS security, is observed in a social interactive situation.
The finding that none of the five temperamental characteristics was found related to at-
tachment security as assessed with the SSS is in accordance with previous studies that also did
not show significant and strong relations between Strange Situation security and temperament
(Vaughn & Bost, 1999).
It should be noted that the home visitor who videotaped the parent – infant interaction
episode was the same person who applied the AQS following the home visit. Although she
was not acquainted with the parental rating scales at the time of the home visits, it cannot be
excluded that the parental behavior she observed while videotaping influenced her AQS ratings
of the child. The correlation between the quality of parental interactive behavior and infant
AQS security thus may be inflated. However, note that the AQS just cannot be applied without
gaining an impression of the parents’ behavior because application requires observation of
children’s secure-base behavior, which tends to manifest itself particularly during interactions
with the parent. This may explain why parental sensitivity has been found to have a stronger
association with AQS security than Strange Situation attachment security, which is not based
on extended observations of parent – infant interactions (mean rs ⫽ .50 vs. .26; cf. van IJzen-
doorn et al., in press). More importantly, the correlation we found between parental behavior
and AQS security at home (r ⫽ .48) does not differ from the correlation between parental
behavior and AQS security in the lab (r ⫽ .40) or the mean correlation of .50 reported in the
meta-analysis by van IJzendoorn et al. (in press).
In the present study, we used an abbreviated version of Ainsworth et al.’s (1978) Strange
Situation procedure to assess infant attachment security in the lab. As noted in the Method
section, other modified versions of the Strange Situation also have proven valid in previous
research. Several findings speak in favor of the validity of the SSS as applied in the present
study. First, the distribution of the attachment classifications based on the SSS was strikingly
similar to the distribution reported in a recent meta-analysis (van IJzendoorn et al., 1999).
Second, as indicated in Table 1, SSS security was found to have a significant and substantial
relation to the quality of parental interactive behavior both at home and in the lab (rs ⫽ .47
and .38, respectively), which accords with one of the core propositions of attachment theory.
Third, other evidence pertains to the distinction between infants classified as A2 and B2 in the
SSS. Given that the A2-B2 distinction is generally based on a decrease versus increase of infant
avoidance from the first to the second reunion in the Strange Situation, one might particularly
object that the use of a single separation – reunion episode makes it difficult to distinguish
between A2 and B2 cases. To check for this, we compared the dyads classified as A2 (n ⫽ 8)
and B2 (n ⫽ 12) in our sample on the quality of parental interactive behavior, which according
to attachment theory should be lower for the avoidant than for the secure dyads. The significant
difference in the overall quality of parental interactive behavior that we found between the
main categories of A and B dyads (see Table 1) indeed also was found for the A2 versus B2
distinction, MA2 ⫽ ⫺2.15, SD ⫽ 2.87; MB2 ⫽ 1.18, SD ⫽ 1.92; t ⫽ 3.16, p ⬍ .01. In an earlier
study on the same sample focusing on infant behavior towards the parent during the instruc-
tional tasks, we also reported significant and theoretically meaningful differences in infant
interactive behavior between the A2 and B2 cases. We found the A2 infants to exhibit signif-
icantly more avoidance towards the parent than the B2 infants both at home and in the lab (van short
Bakel & Riksen-Walraven, 2002b). standard
top of rh
cap height
Interestingly, no other factors were found to explain a significant amount of variance in base of text
the infant SSS security scores beyond the quality of parental interactive behavior. Although
infant task orientation and parental ego-resiliency significantly — but weakly — correlated with
SSS security, these associations disappeared when parental behavior was controlled. In other
words, SSS security scores primarily reflect the quality of parental interactive behavior. In the
Introduction, we suggested that SSS security mainly reflects the parent – child interaction his-
tory in light of the considerable constraints placed on the actual behavior of the parent in the
Strange Situation. AQS security, in contrast, is based on observations in the natural home
setting, and was therefore assumed to also reflect the quality of current parental behavior. This
assumption is supported by the finding that the quality of parental behavior still explained some
of the variance in the AQS security scores when SSS security — including the variance in
parental behavior associated with the SSS scores — was controlled.
In conclusion, our findings clearly show the AQS to represent the secure-base function as
a dyadic construct. In dyads with high AQS security scores, the ego-resilient parents were
observed to skillfully provide secure-base support to their infants, who in turn derived security
from the parent as evident from high levels of pleasure and low levels of anger proneness, and
from their capacity to get involved in task behavior in the presence of the caregiver. This
picture of dyadic secure-base functioning confirms the proposition advanced by attachment
theorists that both secure-base use and secure-base support are organized by the same secure-
base control system (Waters & Cummings, 2000).
The apparently unfavorable set of characteristics associated with low AQS security scores
suggests infants from such dyads to be at risk for later developmental problems. Given the
outcomes of our study, AQS security — at least assessed at 15-months — may even be a better
predictor of children’s future development than attachment security as assessed in the Strange
Situation. Longitudinal studies are needed to shed more light on the issue.
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological
study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Atkinson, L., Chisholm, V.C., Scott, B., Goldberg, S., Vaughn, B., Blackwell, J., Dickens, S., & Tam,
F. (1999). Maternal sensitivity, child functional level, and attachment in Down syndrome. In B.E.
Vaughn & E. Waters (Eds.), Patterns of secure base behavior: Q-sort perspectives on attachment
and caregiving (pp. 45– 66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bayley, N. (1969). Bayley Scales of Infant Development. New York: Psychological Corporation.
Block, J. (1978). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychology Press. (Original work reprinted 1961)
Block, J.H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of behavior.
In W.A. Collins (Ed.), The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 39–101). Hills-
dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
De Wolff, M.S., & van IJzendoorn, M.H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-analysis on parental
antecedents of infant attachment. Child Development, 68, 571–591.
Erickson, M.F., Sroufe, L.A., & Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship between quality of attachment and
behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing
points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Devel-
opment, 50, 147– 166.
Goldsmith, H.H. (1994). The Toddler Behavior Assessment Questionnaire: Preliminary manual. Unpub- short
lished manuscript, University of Oregon. standard
top of rh
cap height
Goldsmith, H.H. (1996). Studying temperament via construction of the Toddler Behavior Assessment base of text
Questionnaire. Child Development, 67, 218–235.
Green, J., & Goldwyn, R. (2002). Annotation: Attachment disorganisation and psychopathology: New
findings in attachment research and their potential implications for developmental psychopathology
in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 835–846.
Green, J.A. (1992). Testing whether correlation matrices are different from each other. Developmental
Psychology, 28, 215– 224.
Jacobvitz, D., & Hazen, N. (1999). Developmental pathways from infant disorganization to childhood
peer relationships. In J. Solomon & C. George (Eds.), Attachment disorganization (pp. 127–159).
New York: Guilford Press.
Lakatos, K., Toth, I., Nemoda, Z., Ney, K., Sasvari Szekely, M., & Gervai, J. (2000). Dopamine D4
receptor (DRD4) gene polymorphism is associated with attachment disorganization in infants. Mo-
lecular Psychiatry, 5, 633– 637.
Lewis, M., Feiring, C., McGuffog, C., & Jaskir, J. (1984). Predicting psychopathology in six-year-olds
from early social relations. Child Development, 55, 123–136.
Lyons-Ruth, K., & Jacobvitz, D. (1999). Attachment disorganization: Unresolved loss, relational violence,
and lapses in behavioral and attentional strategies. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook
of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 520–554). New York: Guilford Press.
Main, M., & Cassidy, J. (1988). Categories of response to reunion with the parent at age 6: Predictable
from infant attachment classifications and stable over a 1-month period. Developmental Psychology,
24, 415– 426.
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of a new, insecure-disorganized/disoriented attachment pat-
tern. In T.B. Brazelton & M. Yogman (Eds.), Affective development in infancy (pp. 95–124).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented during
the Ainsworth strange situation. In M.T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E.M. Cummings (Eds.), At-
tachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 121–160). Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Matheny, A.P. (1980). Bayley’s infant behavior record: Behavior components and twin analyses. Child
Development, 51, 1157– 1167.
Rothbart, M.K. (1989). Temperament in childhood: A framework. In G.A. Kohnstamm, J.E. Bates, &
M.K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood (pp. 59–74). New York: Wiley.
Seifer, R., Schiller, M., Sameroff, A.J., Resnick, S., & Riordan, K. (1996). Attachment, maternal sensi-
tivity, and infant temperament during the first year of life. Developmental Psychology, 32, 12–25.
Solomon, J., & George, C. (1999). The measurement of attachment security in infancy and childhood.
In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical practice
(pp. 287– 316). New York: Guilford Press.
Thompson, R.A. (1999). Early attachment and later development. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.),
Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical implications (pp. 265–287). New York:
Guilford Press.
van Aken, M.A.G., & Rost, H. (1998). De Nijmegen–California Sorteertechniek voor Volwassenen,
NCVS [The Nijmegen– California Adult Q-Sort]. Unpublished manuscript, University of Nijmegen.
van Bakel, H.J.A., & Riksen-Walraven, J.M.A. (2002a). Parenting and development of one-year-olds:
Links with parental, contextual, and child characteristics. Child Development, 73, 256–273.
van Bakel, H.J.A., & Riksen-Walraven, J.M.A. (2002b). Quality of infant–parent attachment as reflected
in infant interactive behaviour during instructional tasks. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychi-
atry, 43, 387– 394. short
standard
top of rh
cap height
van der Meulen, B.F., & Smrkovsky, M. (1983). BOS 2-30 Bayley Ontwikkelingsschalen [Bayley Scales base of text
of Infant Development]. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
van IJzendoorn, M.H., Dijkstra, J., & Bus, A.G. (1995). Attachment, intelligence, and language: A meta-
analysis. Social Development, 4, 115– 128.
van IJzendoorn, M.H., Schuengel, C., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J. (1999). Disorganized attachment
in early childhood: Meta-analysis of precursors, concomitants, and sequelae. Development and Psy-
chopathology, 11, 225– 249.
van IJzendoorn, M.H., Vereijken, C.M.J.L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., & Riksen-Walraven, J.M.A.
(in press). Assessing attachment security with the Attachment Q-Sort: Meta-analytic evidence for
the validity of the observer AQS. Child Development.
Vaughn, B.E., & Bost, K. (1999). Attachment and temperament: Redundant, independent, or interacting
influences on interpersonal adaptation and personality development? In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver
(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 287–316). New York:
Guilford Press.
Waters, E. (1995). The Attachment Q-Set. In E. Waters, B.E. Vaughn, G. Posada, & K. Kondo-Ikemura
(Eds.), Caregiving, cultural, and cognitive perspectives on secure-base behavior and working models.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60, 247–254.
Waters, E., & Cummings, E.M. (2000). A secure base from which to explore close relationships. Child
Development, 71, 164– 172.
Waters, E., & Deane, K. (1985). Defining and assessing individual differences in attachment relationships:
Q-methodology and the organization of behavior in infancy and early childhood. In I. Bretherton,
& E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development, 50, 41–65.
Waters, E., Wippman, J., & Sroufe, L.A. (1979). Attachment, positive affect, and competence in the peer
group: Two studies in construct validation. Child Development, 50, 821–829.
Willemsen-Swinkels, S.H.N., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., Buitelaar, J.K., van IJzendoorn, M.H., &
van Engeland, H. (2000). Insecure and disorganised attachment in children with a pervasive devel-
opmental disorder: Relationship with social interaction and heart rate. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 41, 759– 767.
Zevalkink, J., & Riksen-Walraven, J.M.A. (2001). Parenting in Indonesia: Inter- and intracultural differ-
ences in mothers’ interactions with their young children. International Journal of Behavioral De-
velopment, 25, 167– 175.
short
standard

AQS Securty Scores

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

AQS Securty Scores

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

IMHJ (Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

AQS SECURITY SCORES: WHAT DO THEY

HEDWIG J.A. VAN BAKEL AND J. MARIANNE RIKSEN-WALRAVEN

INFANT MENTAL HEALTH JOURNAL, Vol. 25(3), 175– 193 (2004)

175 base of drop

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: In einer Untersuchungsgruppe von 129 15 Monate alten, holländischen Kleinkin-

Instruments and Measures

Note. N between 126–129. a Secure (B) ⫽ 1, Insecure (A, C, D) ⫽ 0. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.

Parental Interactive Behavior

Note. N between 126–129. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.

Are AQS Security and SSS Security Differentially Related to

a The Attachment Q-Set (Version 3.0, Waters, 1995).

Overall Parental Interactive Behavior .49 .43

Note. The coefﬁcients are standardized regression coefﬁcients. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.

What Do AQS Scores Reﬂect Beyond SSS Attachment

Short Strange Situation Security .38** .19* .15

Note. The coefﬁcients are standardized regression coefﬁcients. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.

También podría gustarte