This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]On: 19 October 2014, At: 09:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Attachment & HumanDevelopmentPublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rahd20

Emotional availability: anattachment perspectiveInge BrethertonPublished online: 14 Oct 2010.

To cite this article: Inge Bretherton (2000) Emotional availability: anattachment perspective, Attachment & Human Development, 2:2, 233-241,DOI: 10.1080/14616730050085581

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616730050085581

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication arethe opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of orendorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primarysources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused

arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions ofaccess and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:31

19

Oct

ober

201

4

Emotional availability:an attachment perspective

ING E B RETHERT ON

Hundreds of studies have used the Strange Situation to assess patterns ofinfant–parent attachment, and a rapidly growing number of studies docu-ment concordances between these infancy patterns and parental ‘states ofmind’ based on analyses of the Adult Attachment Interview (van IJzendoorn,1995). Yet, surprisingly, there have been few attempts at re� ning one of thebasic constructs on which the theoretical edi� ce of attachment patterns isbuilt: Ainsworth’s assessments of maternal sensitivity during the feeding,holding, crying, greeting of, and face- to- face play with, the infant in the � rstthree months of life, and the more global assessments she devised for ratingmaternal sensitivity- insensitivity, acceptance- rejection, cooperation- interfer-ence and accessibility- ignoring during the last quarter of the infant’s � rst year(Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton, 1971). Each of these scales has 9 scale points,and 5 anchor points with detailed behavioral descriptions. It is unfortunatethat only the sensitivity- insensitivity scale has been published (Appendix ofAinsworth, Bell, & Stayton, 1974).

The six studies presented in this special issue, like Ainsworth’s Baltimorestudy (Ainsworth et al., 1971), examine the quality of mother–child inter-actions, but do so by recourse to a related construct of ‘emotional availability’which has a somewhat different theoretical lineage. Inspired by Mahler, Pineand Bergman (1975), it was elaborated by Emde and Easterbrooks (1985), andfurther developed by Biringen and Robinson (1991). Biringen, who used theAinsworth sensitivity- insensitivity scales in an earlier study (Biringen, 1990),incorporated some of Ainsworth’s notions into Emotional AvailabilityScales. The authors of this special issue offer this system as an alternative forassessing parent–infant interaction quality, citing the following differencesbetween the EA assessment and the Ainsworthian approach.

1 The EA Scales focus more explicitly on emotion by emphasizing a parent’semotional availability and affect attunement as a practice arena for laterindividual emotion regulation. When children can expect that the parentwill help them achieve emotion regulation, they learn that emotional statescan be tolerated and changed (Easterbrooks et al., this issue).

Attachment & Human Development Vol 2 No 2 September 2000 233–241

Attachment & Human Development ISSN 1461–6734 print/1469–2988 online © 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltdhttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

Correspondence to: Inge Bretherton, Department of Child and Family Studies, University ofWisconsin- Madison, WI 53706, USA. E- mail: ibrether@facstaff.wisc.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:31

19

Oct

ober

201

4

2 The EA Scales are more explicitly dyadic, with 4 parental (sensitivity,structuring, nonhostility, and nonintrusiveness) and 2 child (responsive-ness, involvement) scales. Thus, the focus is on the emotional availabilityof both partners to each other (Biringen et al., this issue)

3 The EA Scales focus more explicitly on repairs of interactional missteps(Easterbrooks et al., this issue).

4 The EA Scales emphasize mutual negotiation more strongly (Easterbrookset al., this issue).

5 The EA Scales are explicitly designed to assess parent–child interactionsduring toddlerhood and beyond.

The authors also claim that the EA Scales subsume the Ainsworth conceptof maternal sensitivity. However, it could equally be said that the four globalAinsworth Scales emphasize ideas that are only implicit in the EA Scales.Because the Ainsworth Scales were designed to rate detailed narrativesdescribing mother–infant interactions during home visits lasting at least 16hours during the last quarter of the infant’s � rst year, they require judgmentsthat cannot easily be made on the basis of a brief interaction. This is particu-larly true of the emphasis on defensive processes, an emphasis that also re� ectsAinsworth’s background as a skilled clinical diagnostician (Bretherton, 1992).I see the following as distinctive features of Ainsworth’s assessments.

1 Maternal empathy and perspective- taking are highlighted more explicitly:a mother who is highly sensitive is not only attentive and responsive, but‘is able to see things from the baby’s point of view’ (Sensitivity/Insensitiv-ity Scale). However, ‘when she feels it is best not to comply with hisdemands . . . she is tactful in acknowledging his communication and inoffering an acceptable alternative’ (Sensitivity/Insensitivity Scale). Simi-larly, a mother who is highly cooperative ‘integrates her wishes, moods andhousehold responsibilities with the baby’s wishes, moods and ongoingactivity . . . rather than interrupting an activity that the baby has inprogress, she delays her intervention until a natural break in his activitiesoccurs’ (Cooperation/Interference Scale).

2 Defensive processes: a mother who is highly interfering may control theinfant in order ‘to control her own anxiety’ or may see the baby ‘as a nar-cissistic extension of herself’ (Cooperation/Interference Scale). Similarly, amother who is highly rejecting may comply ‘in a pseudo- patient, long-suffering way’ (Acceptance- Rejection Scale) and a mother who is highlyinaccessible may ‘� nd the demands implicit in her baby’s signals an intoler-able threat to her precarious balance’ (Accessibility/Ignoring Scale).

3 Ainsworth’s scales emphasize a number of proactive, planful parentalbehaviors that make restraint and con� ict less necessary (such as baby-proo� ng the house).

Despite these differences in emphasis, many of the assumptions underlyingthe EA and Ainsworth Scales are similar, perhaps linked at a deeper level

AT TA C H M E N T & H U M A N D E V E L O P M E N T VOL. 2 NO. 2234

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:31

19

Oct

ober

201

4

through their (object- relational) psychoanalytic heritage (Bretherton, 1987).The EA and Ainsworth approaches both suggest that optimal parental behav-ior consists of respecting a baby’s needs for comfort as well as his or herwishes to explore. What Mahler et al. (1975) called ‘supportive presence’resembles the ‘secure base’ and ‘attachment exploration balance’ of attach-ment theory (Ainsworth et al., 1971). Whereas Ziv et al. (this issue) arecorrect that attachment patterns are most often assessed under stress (i.e. inthe Strange Situation), Ainsworth’s home observations covered all facets ofinteraction including face- to- face play, greetings and affection (e.g. Blehar,Lieberman, & Ainsworth, 1977). Moreover, whereas EA acknowledges veryexplicitly that the child is an active contributor to the relationship, this ideais implicit in the Ainsworthian sensitivity construct itself and in papersdocumenting relevant individual differences in infant interactive behaviors.Sensitive responsiveness, as conceptualized by Ainsworth, does not imply aparental personality trait such as sociability or warmth, but an ability toattend, � exibly interpret and tailor responses to the individuality of a par-ticular child. That is, both the EA and the Ainsworth Scales are relationshipevaluations, wherein judgments made about one partner’s behavior depend,in part, on the response made by the other. That EA pays more attention tostructuring (subsumed under Cooperation/Interference by Ainsworth) andnegotiation is, in my view, due to the fact that this behavior is more evidentin toddler–parent interactions than in the � rst year of life, though theAinsworth Cooperation/Interference scales contain some references tocooperation- eliciting guidance (see also Stayton, Hogan, & Ainsworth,1971). Finally, where the word synchronous is used to describe optimal relat-ing in EA, Ainsworth describes sensitive interactions as ‘well rounded . . . theinteraction is smoothly completed and both the mother and the baby feelsatis� ed’ (Sensitivity/Insensitivity Scale).

In published work, Ainsworth used sensitivity as a proxy for her completesystem because ratings on the four scales were highly correlated, perhapsbecause the sensitivity scale already included facets of the accessibility,acceptance and cooperation dimensions (Ainsworth et al., 1971). It is there-fore of interest that, among the EA Scales, sensitivity ratings turned out tobe most consistently associated with assessments of attachment quality ininfancy and maternal ‘states of mind’ revealed by the AAI. Only one of thesix studies presented in this special issue did not report signi� cant correla-tions with EA sensitivity (see Table 1). This is quite remarkable, because thesix studies included advantaged and disadvantaged families, families in theUSA and Israel, families identi� ed as at- risk and volunteer families recruitedfrom the community. The � ndings are also noteworthy because the observedinteractions lasted only 5–20 minutes, the children and mothers varied in age,and the attachment measures were, in one case, collected � ve and a half yearsearlier. The one study that did not � nd associations between attachmentmeasures and EA sensitivity involved prenatally drug- exposed infants.Though not differing in sensitivity, primary caregivers of avoidant and

B R E T H E RT O N : E M O T I O N A L AVA I L A B I L I T Y A N D AT TA C H M E N T 235

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:31

19

Oct

ober

201

4

AT TA C H M E N T & H U M A N D E V E L O P M E N T VOL. 2 NO. 2236Ta

ble

1A

ssoc

iati

ons

betw

een

Em

otio

nal A

vaila

bilit

y Sc

ales

of m

ater

nal s

ensi

tivi

ty a

nd m

ater

nal s

truc

turi

ng, a

nd a

ttac

hmen

t mea

sure

s

Aut

hors

Age

of c

hild

NSa

mpl

eE

A o

bser

vati

onD

urat

ion

EA

mat

erna

lE

A m

ater

nal

at E

Ach

arac

teri

stic

sco

ntex

tse

nsit

ivit

y st

ruct

urin

g

Ziv

et a

l.12

mon

ths

687

wid

e ra

nge

ofla

bora

tory

, fre

e6

min

utes

SES;

mat

erna

l12

mon

ths

Stra

nge

(thi

s is

sue)

SES

(Isr

ael)

play

ses

sion

educ

atio

n; 1

2Si

tuat

ion

mon

ths

Stra

nge

(B v

s. no

n-B

)Si

tuat

ion

(B v

s. C

)

Swan

son

et a

l.18

–23

51m

othe

rla

bora

tory

, fre

e10

min

utes

no a

ssoc

iati

on w

ith

not t

este

d(t

his

issu

e)m

onth

sdr

ug-e

xpos

edpl

ay a

nd te

achi

ngE

A s

ensi

tivi

ty,

duri

ng p

regn

ancy

,se

ssio

nbu

t B +

C le

ss h

osti

lese

en w

ith

curr

ent

than

A +

Dpr

imar

y ca

regi

ver

Eas

terb

rook

s et

al.

7 ye

ars

45lo

w in

com

e, 5

0%la

bora

tory

, reu

nion

5–10

(a)

18 m

onth

s(a

)18

-mon

ths

(thi

s is

sue)

had

psyc

hoso

cial

afte

r 1-

hour

m

inut

esSt

rang

e Si

tuat

ion

Stra

nge

risk

in in

fanc

yse

para

tion

(B v

s. D

)Si

tuat

ion

(b)

mat

erna

l(b

)m

ater

nal

depr

essi

onde

pres

sion

Bir

inge

n,

5 ye

ars

35w

ide

rang

e of

SE

S,la

bora

tory

,20

min

utes

mat

erna

l edu

cati

on;

mat

erna

l edu

cati

on;

Bar

thol

omew

20%

sin

gle

stru

ctur

ed p

lay

conc

urre

nt m

ater

nal

conc

urre

nt m

ater

nal

et a

l. (t

his

issu

e)m

othe

rsan

d fa

ntas

y pl

ayA

AI

clas

si�

cati

on;

AA

I cl

assi

�ca

tion

sA

AI

scal

es o

fco

here

ncy,

lack

of

reca

ll, u

nres

olve

dlo

ss/t

raum

a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:31

19

Oct

ober

201

4

B R E T H E RT O N : E M O T I O N A L AVA I L A B I L I T Y A N D AT TA C H M E N T 237

Tabl

e 1

Con

tinu

ed

Aut

hors

Age

of

child

NSa

mpl

eE

A o

bser

vatio

nD

urat

ion

EA

mat

erna

lE

A m

ater

nal

at E

Ach

arac

teri

stic

sco

ntex

tse

nsit

ivit

y st

ruct

urin

g

Oye

n et

al.

18–4

230

at r

isk,

hom

e vi

sit,

30 m

inut

esco

ncur

rent

mat

erna

lco

ncur

rent

mat

erna

l(t

his

issu

e)m

onth

slo

w-i

ncom

est

ruct

ured

pla

yA

AI

(F v

s. a

llA

AI

(F v

s. a

llin

secu

re)

inse

cure

)

Bir

inge

n,18

mon

ths

42up

per

mid

dle

clas

sho

me,

str

uctu

red

16–2

018

mon

ths

not s

igni

�ca

ntM

athe

ny e

t al.

epis

odes

min

utes

Par

ent A

ttac

hmen

t(t

his

issu

e)In

terv

iew

(m

ater

nal

self-

este

em,

man

agem

ent o

fag

gres

sive

impu

lses

,em

otio

nal i

nves

tmen

tin

mor

al s

tand

ards

)

Bir

inge

n,24

mon

ths

42up

per

mid

dle

clas

sla

bora

tory

, joi

nt8–

10no

t sig

ni�

cant

18 m

onth

s P

aren

tM

athe

ny e

t al.

and

play

min

utes

Att

achm

ent

(thi

s is

sue)

39 m

onth

sIn

terv

iew

(mat

erna

lse

lf-es

teem

,m

anag

emen

t of

aggr

essi

ve im

puls

es)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:31

19

Oct

ober

201

4

disorganized babies in that study were rated more hostile during the inter-actions (though I query the wisdom of including secure and ambivalentinfants in the contrast group).

In terms of consistent correlations with attachment measures, the EAstructuring scales came a close second, with � ve of the studies showing sig-ni� cant associations between nonintrusive structuring and secure attach-ment, autonomous AAI classi� cations and Q- sort dimensions evaluating theParental Attachment Interview. That EA structuring at 24 and 39 months, notsensitivity, was related to several PAI scales may be due to the fact that thisinterview, though not primarily intended to assess maternal structuring, didin fact elicit much talk about guidance and various forms of discipline (seealso Bretherton, Biringen, Ridgeway, Maslin, & Sherman, 1989). I applaudparticularly the recently added EA distinction between intrusiveness andstructuring (Biringen, 1999).

That the nonhostility scales had the least predictive power makes sense.For most dyads, that component of the EA system may require more pro-longed interactions in a variety of contexts. Hostility was quite evident inAinsworth’s lengthy home visits where it would have been assessed underthe rubric of rejection and interference. Moreover, hostility is only oneform of insensitivity to the partner. It may be that in brief interactions anaggregate measure of several types of insensitivity would carry moreweight.

The EA responsiveness scales, which rate interactions from the child’spoint of view, were in line with those for maternal sensitivity, though overallthe associations with attachment measures were somewhat less consistent.Given the EA de� nition of child responsiveness, I would have liked to seemore discussion as to why the correlations between maternal sensitivity andchild responsiveness were not higher. What characterizes a highly responsivechild who has a less sensitive mother? What characterizes a highly sensitivemother with a less responsive child?

Furthermore, whereas the � ndings of the six studies are impressively con-sistent, the associations of EA with attachment measures are of moderate size.The same can be said about related studies examining parental sensitivityfrom an Ainsworthian perspective. The expectation for the obtained associ-ation derives from the basic assumption that relationship quality is a func-tion of communication quality. That is, in an optimal relationship an infantmay learn that his or her communicative behaviors are meaningful andacceptable to the parent and will receive an appropriate response because theparent is not only alert to infant communications, but also willing to respond.Conversely, in a less optimal relationship an infant may learn that somefeelings and feeling expressions are best suppressed because they meet withdisapproval or ignoring or that signals must be escalated to elicit a response.Individual differences in communication thus become relationship qualitiesor, to use attachment terminology, contribute to the construction of internalworking models of self with parent (Bretherton, 1990; see also Stern, 1985).

AT TA C H M E N T & H U M A N D E V E L O P M E N T VOL. 2 NO. 2238

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:31

19

Oct

ober

201

4

The �ndings suggest that these theoretically expected correlations arelowered by some as yet unidenti�ed factors.

A number of explanations are possible. Because interactions � uctuate inquality depending on context and mood, observations may have caught somedyads ‘at their best’ and others ‘at their worst’, thus lowering correlationswith other measures. However, longer observations do not necessarily yieldextremely high correlations either (e.g. studies in which the Waters Attach-ment Q- sort assessing secure base behavior is compared with Strange Situ-ation classi� cations). Here the dif�culty may lie in simultaneously weighingthe many dimensions of an interaction. Dif�culties in reliably distinguishingbetween genuinely open emotional communication and pseudo- openness orforced affect, and between overt and covert anger, may also lower potentialcorrelations with attachment measures. Finally, beyond infancy, members ofa dyad who feel comfortable with each other may not necessarily look mostsensitive in microanalyses of interactive behaviors. Mutual trust based on pastinteractions (i.e. internal working models of self with other) may make itmore likely that they will make positive attributions, even in situations inwhich a partner’s behavior seems not particularly sensitive.

Researchers interested in evaluating maternal attributions during inter-actions could usefully employ the video playback method (Pridham, 1993).This technique might even be used with children over 5 years of age. Insupport of this suggestion, attribution studies have shown that adults whorate themselves as secure in close relationships explain ambiguous vignettesabout partner behavior more positively than adults who rate themselves asavoidant or ambivalent (Collins & Read, 1990) and who are likely to attributenegative partner behavior to partner traits, rather than temporary states.Likewise, young children who had been classi� ed as secure with mother ininfancy made more positive attributions about ambiguous vignettes con-cerning peers than those earlier classi� ed as insecure (Suess, Grossmann, &Sroufe, 1992).

These issues aside, the originators of the EA system are to be applaudedfor their attempt to create as well as to continuously re� ne a system thatpermits the assessment of a variety of dimensions of the parent–childrelationship from the parent’s and the child’s perspective, and that has shownits effectiveness even during brief observations. Theirs is not only a methodo-logical contribution, but a theoretical one. Recent attachment research hasbeen dominated by measures that index attachment patterns. In the process,I suggest, the sensitivity construct has become oversimpli� ed. The extent towhich it, like the EA system, is a relational assessment is often forgotten.Furthermore, EA’s focus on emotion and emotion regulation is valuablebecause it forces the rater to attend to subtle qualities of interactive behavior.I believe, however, that EA could gain by explicitly attending to maternal andchild perspective- taking. By comparing and contrasting the EA and theAinsworthian approach, researchers may further re� ne their understandingof optimal relational qualities at different ages and in different contexts. I

B R E T H E RT O N : E M O T I O N A L AVA I L A B I L I T Y A N D AT TA C H M E N T 239

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:31

19

Oct

ober

201

4

therefore hope for continued collaboration between EA and attachmentresearchers.

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M., & Stayton, D. J. (1971). Individual differences inStrange Situation behavior of one- year- olds. In H. R. Schaffer (Ed.), The originsof human social relations (pp. 17–57). London: Academic Press.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M., & Stayton, D. (1974). Infant–mother attachment andsocial development. In M. P. Richards (Ed.), The introduction of the child into asocial world (pp. 99–135). London: Cambridge University Press.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attach-ment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Biringen, Z. (1990). Direct observation of maternal sensitivity and dyadic interactionsin the home: Relations to maternal thinking. Developmental Psychology, 26,278–284.

Biringen, Z. (1999). The Emotional Availability Scales (3rd ed.). Unpublished manu-script, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.

Biringen, Z., & Robinson, J. L. (1991). Emotional availability: A reconceptualizationfor research. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 258–271.

Biringen, Z., Robinson, J. L., & Emde, R. N. (1993). The Emotional AvailabilityScales. Unpublished manuscript, University of Colorado, Health SciencesCenter, Denver, CO, USA.

Blehar, M. C., Lieberman, A. F., & Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1977). Early face- to- faceinteraction and its relation to later infant–mother attachment. Child Develop-ment, 48, 182–194.

Bretherton, I. (1987). New perspectives on attachment relations: Security, communi-cation and internal working models. In J. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infantdevelopment (pp. 1061–1100). New York: Wiley.

Bretherton, I. (1990). Open communication and internal working models: Their rolein attachment relationships. In R. Thompson (Ed.), Socioemotional development(Nebraska Symposium 1987). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and MaryAinsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28, 759–775.

Bretherton, I., Biringen, Z., Ridgeway, D., Maslin, C., & Sherman, M. (1989).Attachment: The parental perspective. Infant Mental Health Journal, 10,203–221.

Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relation-ship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,644–663.

Emde, R. N., & Easterbrooks, M. A. (1985). Assessing emotional availability in earlydevelopment. In W. K. Frankenburg, R. N. Emde, & J. W. Sullivan (Eds), Earlyidenti�cation of children at risk (pp. 79–102). New York: Plenum.

George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1984). Adult attachment interview. Unpublishedmanuscript, University of California at Berkeley, CA, USA.

Mahler, M. S., Pine, F., & Bergman, A. (1975). The psychological birth of the humaninfant: Symbiosis and individuation. New York: Basic Books.

AT TA C H M E N T & H U M A N D E V E L O P M E N T VOL. 2 NO. 2240

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:31

19

Oct

ober

201

4

Main, M. (1995). Recent studies in attachment. In S. Goldberg, R. Muir, & J. Kerr(Eds), Attachment theory: Social, developmental, and clinical perspectives(pp. 407–474). Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.

Pridham, K. F. (1993). Anticipatory guidance of parents of new infants: Potentialcontribution of the internal working model construct. Image: Journal of NursingScholarship, 25, 49–56.

Stayton, D. J., Hogan, R., & Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1971). Infant obedience andmaternal behavior: The origins of socialization reconsidered. Child Develop-ment, 42, 1057–1069.

Stern, D. (1985). The interpersonal world of the infant: A view from psychoanalysisand developmental psychology. New York: Basic Books.

Suess, G. J., Grossmann, K. E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1992). Effects of infant attachmentto mother and father on quality of adaptation in preschool: From dyadic to indi-vidual organization of self. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 15,43–65.

van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1995). Adult attachment representations, parental respon-siveness, and infant attachment: A meta- analysis on the predictive validity of theAdult Attachment Interview. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 387–403.

B R E T H E RT O N : E M O T I O N A L AVA I L A B I L I T Y A N D AT TA C H M E N T 241

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:31

19

Oct

ober

201

4