Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Attach Hum Dev. 2018 Mar 14;20(3):255–271. doi: 10.1080/14616734.2018.1446734

Parental Insightfulness and Parenting Behavior: A Two-Dimensional Analysis of Parent Contributions to Child Cognitive Outcomes

Jessie A Gomez a, Alice S Carter b, Danielle Forbes b, Sarah A O Gray a
PMCID: PMC6107072  NIHMSID: NIHMS1501071  PMID: 29536790

Abstract

Utilizing a two-dimension model of parenting emphasizing both 1) proximity-seeking and 2) exploration, consistent with a conceptual framework rooted in attachment theory, the relations between parental insightfulness, observed parenting, and child cognitive outcomes were investigated in a low-income sample of 64 of caregivers and their young 3- to 5-year-old children. Specifically, observed parental sensitivity (proximity-seeking) and intrusiveness (exploration) and parental insightfulness assessed dimensionally to capture Positive Insight and Focus on Child were examined in relation to child cognitive outcomes. Parental intrusiveness was negatively correlated with cognitive performance; however, parental sensitivity was not associated with child cognitive outcomes. Parents’ capacity to remain child-focused during the Insightfulness Assessment was negatively correlated with observed intrusiveness and was associated with child cognitive performance. These results suggest unique contributions of dimensions of parental insightfulness and parenting behaviors to child cognitive outcomes – specifically, parents’ capacity to remain focused on children’s experience during the Insightfulness Assessment and non-intrusive parenting behavior, which may reflect strategies to support children’s exploration.

Keywords: Insightfulness Assessment, cognitive and language development, sensitive parenting, intrusive parenting, attachment-related representations

There is a robust body of attachment research focused on the associations between positive parenting and adaptive child outcomes, including cognitive development (Matte-Gagne, Bernier, Sirois, Lalonde, & Hertz, 2017). Van IJzendoorn, Dijkstra, and Bus (1995) suggest that parental instruction and children’s exploration are possible mechanisms or pathways between attachment and cognitive development. Parenting behaviors that are both contingently responsive and also encourage acquisition of knowledge through child engagement are associated with greater vocabulary skills, attention, and persistence, all of which are necessary for learning (Choudhury & Gorman, 2000; Soares, Lemos, & Almeida, 2005; Isabella & Belsky, 1991; van IJzendoorn et al., 1995).

Attachment security as originally conceptualized is described as the balance between proximity seeking and competent exploration (Ainsworth, 1985). This two-dimensional framework is reflected by a two-dimensional approach to parenting emphasizing sensitivity and non-intrusiveness, parenting behaviors that support proximity seeking and competent exploration, respectively. Historically, the literature has focused more heavily on sensitivity – although Ainsworth’s original interactive scales included a dimension of interference vs. cooperation (1969). However, a growing body of work is investigating the independent contributions of non-intrusive or autonomy-supporting parenting behavior (Bernier, Whipple, & Carlson, 2010), observing unique relations to children’s cognitive outcomes (Matte-Gagne & Bernier, 2011).

A smaller but growing body of research focuses specifically on attachment related representations about children, such as parents’ insightfulness as measured by the Insightfulness Assessment (IA), as the context for secure attachment transmission and the process underlying positive, responsive parenting (Oppenheim & Koren-Karie, 2002). Insightfulness, rooted in attachment theory, is theorized as the capacity to understand the child’s motives in a child-focused, reflective manner. A two-dimensional model of parenting consistent with the literature on attachment, emphasizing both sensitivity and autonomy-supportive or non-intrusive parenting, is reflected conceptually by the two-dimensional model of insightfulness. Two IA factors have been confirmed in several factor analyses across samples: first, parents’ capacity to remain child-focused and see the child’s motives as separate from one’s own, a factor termed Focus on Child, and second, parents’ capacity to coherently describe the motives underlying their child’s behavior, a factor termed Positive Insight (Hotez, Swanson, Delavenne, & Siller, 2015; Rosenblum, Martinez-Torteya, Beeghly, Koren-Karie, & Oppenheim, 2015). As shown in Figure 1, just as parenting behaviors can be conceptualized along two dimensions – sensitive behaviors to support proximity seeking and non-intrusive behaviors to support exploration – parent insightfulness can similarly be conceptualized along two dimensions – a parent’s capacity to ‘know’ and accept their child (Positive Insight), as well as to be comfortable with separateness and focus on the child’s agenda (Focus on Child). First, we will review the literature on parenting behaviors along these two dimensions as well as child language and cognitive outcomes, then we will describe what is known about the link between attachment related representations, parenting behaviors, and child outcomes.

Figure 1. Conceptual Two-Dimensional Model of Parents’ Attachment Related Representations and Parenting Behaviors.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Both parenting insightfulness factors (Positive Insight and Focus on Child) and parenting behaviors (sensitivity and non-intrusiveness) can be conceptualized along two dimensions that are consistent with the literature on attachment regarding parenting that is both contingently responsive to support child’s proximity seeking behaviors as well as autonomy supportive to support children’s competent exploration.

Parenting Behaviors & Child Cognitive Development

In line with the conceptualization of attachment security developing out of both proximity seeking and competent exploration, Ainsworth (1969)’s original four scales describing maternal behaviors included both Sensitivity vs. Insensitivity as well as Cooperation vs. Interference, in addition to Physical and Psychological Availability vs. Ignoring and Neglecting and Acceptance vs. Rejection. Parental support of the child’s capacity to be self-initiating and competent while guiding and encouraging effective self-regulation skills so that the child can experience success, control, and mastery within their environment is at the core of non-intrusive, autonomy supportive parenting behavior (Fuligni & Brooks-Gunn, 2013). These parenting behaviors encourage children to internalize skills that allow them to solve problems independently (Landry, Miller-Loncar, Smith, & Swank, 2002).

Non-intrusive parenting is child-focused rather than adult-focused, recognizing and respecting the validity of the child’s perspective and appropriately recognizing cues without letting the parent’s own goals for the task or activity predominate (Fuligni & Brooks-Gunn, 2013). Respecting the validity of the child’s perspective requires the parent to be able to take the child’s perspective, an essential component of insightfulness. Intrusive or directive parenting behaviors, on the other hand, are adult-centered and manifest in the exertion of control over the child’s behaviors, ignoring the child’s cues in favor of the parent’s agenda (Fuligni & Brooks-Gunn, 2013; Whipple, Bernier, & Mageau, 2011).

Various studies suggest that non-intrusive parenting yields positive child outcomes across a range of domains. The capacity to follow the child’s lead while maintaining joint attention is associated with positive language outcomes; for example, Carpenter, Nagell, and Tomasello (1998) found that mothers’ verbalizations regarding the object of children’s attention (maternal following language) and mother-child joint engagement at 9 months predicted word production at 13, 14, and 15 months, and that following language and joint engagement at 12 months was associated with later word comprehension (Carpenter et al., 1998). Additionally, there is evidence that suggests these maternal behaviors influence child language skills rather than the reverse. Dieterich, Assel, Swank, Smith, and Landry (2006) found that maternal scaffolding at 3 years had a direct effect on language skills at 4 years but language skills at 3 years did not predict maternal scaffolding at 4 years, indicating that mothers who scaffold language at a high level do so independent of the child’s language skills. Additionally, Neitzel & Stright (2003) found that emotionally focused verbal and nonverbal scaffolding encourages self-regulatory skills and persistence, skills that are necessary for learning, processing, and comprehension (Choudhury & Gorman, 2000; Soares et al., 2005). Additionally, mothers’ autonomy supportive behaviors during the toddler years have been associated with children’s language and executive functioning longitudinally (Matte-Gagne & Bernier, 2011). Parental behaviors including scaffolding are embedded within the emotional context of dyadic interactions (Darling & Steinberg, 1993), and sensitivity and scaffolding are complementary aspects of dyadic behaviors (Hustedt & Raver, 2002).

Insightfulness in the Context of Attachment Related Representations

Ainsworth’s scales reference internal processes regarding parent-child interaction, but the use of these scales has predominantly focused on coding observed caregiver behaviors (Oppenheim & Koren-Karie, 2013). The Insightfulness Assessment addresses this gap by measuring those internal processes directly. Insightfulness, in the simplest of terms, is the capacity to see things from the child’s point of view; indeed, Ainsworth (1969) describes sensitive mothers as being able to do just that. This capacity is essential to a parent’s empathic understanding of the child (Oppenheim, Koren-Karie, & Sagi, 2001). More specifically, insightfulness, as described by the authors of the IA, is the capacity to construct positive motives underlying the child’s behaviors while maintaining an emotionally complex and open, flexible view of the child (Oppenheim & Koren-Karie, 2002). A parent’s proclivity for understanding the child’s behavior in terms of the child’s underlying motivations is described in the literature in various ways, and the presence and quality of this orientation has been shown to affect pre-linguistic skills (Paavola, Kemppinen, Kumpulainen, Moilanen, & Ebeling, 2006; Bornstein & Tamis-LeMonda, 1997), language acquisition and development (Meins, 1998), attachment security (Meins, Fernyhough, Fradley & Tuckey, 2001), and theory of mind abilities (Meins & Fernyhough, 1999). Parents’ mind-mindedness, sensitivity, and autonomy supportive, non-intrusive parenting have been linked to the development of children’s executive functions (Bernier, Carlson, Deschenes, & Matte Gagne, 2012) and their school readiness (Bernier, McMahon & Perrier, 2017). Researchers have asserted that the influence of parents’ treatment of children as independent mental agents on children’s subsequent cognitive development may be underestimated in current models (Bernier et al., 2017).

The insightful orientation toward the child is an underlying component of non-intrusive behaviors that support children’s agendas, key to scaffolding their effective learning. Non-intrusive parenting behaviors requires maintenance of the child’s attention, remaining in tune with the child, and reading children’s cues (Radin, 1971), behaviors that are associated with the two factors in the IA, Focus on the Child and Positive Insight (Oppenheim & Koren-Karie, 2002). The capacity of the parent to read the child’s cues in itself has been associated with positive effects on cognitive development (Sharp et al., 1995; Bakeman & Brown 1980; Coates & Lewis, 1984). High levels of joint attention and reciprocity are also associated with global ratings of maternal sensitivity (Raver & Leadbeater 1995). Thus, just as secure attachment allows for a secure base from which a child can develop competent exploration skills (Ainsworth, 1985), an insightful state of mind might allow for non-intrusive parental behaviors that support a child’s autonomy while scaffolding their learning.

To our knowledge, caregiver insightfulness has not been examined in relation to child cognitive outcomes. However, attachment related representations in the context of child-caregiver relationships have been explored previously in relation to children’s cognitive functioning. For example, Busch and Lieberman (2010) investigated the relation between maternal attachment assessed using the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) and children’s cognitive functioning in a violence exposed sample, finding that higher coherence of mind on the AAI was associated with higher children’s verbal and performance IQ scores. Maternal coherence of mind describes the mother’s ability to provide relevant, appropriate, and specific descriptions of their attachment experiences, a form of thought and speech processes also characteristic of insightful parents (Oppenheim & Koren-Karie,2014). This study also found that the effect of coherence on total IQ was mediated by children’s receptive and spoken language abilities, suggesting that children’s verbal and non-verbal abilities should be examined separately (Busch & Lieberman, 2010). Additionally, mothers’ mind-mindedness, or their focus on children’s mentalistic attributes, has been associated with children’s school readiness (Bernier et al., 2017)

The Current Study

While a growing body of literature suggests a two-dimension model of sensitivity-non intrusiveness, this model has not been tested in models of parental behavior and child cognitive outcomes; moreover, extant studies have not incorporated two-dimensional models of parental thoughts and feelings about the child. Drawing from attachment as originally theorized by Ainsworth (1985) and others (Belsky, 1984), the purpose of this study was to examine two dimensions of parenting – sensitivity and non-intrusiveness – across both parenting behavior and parents’ thoughts and feelings about the child, in relation to one another and to child cognitive outcomes.

The present study tested the following hypotheses:

  1. Higher ratings on the Positive Insight and Focus on Child Insightfulness dimensions would be associated with higher child cognitive performance.

  2. Higher ratings of observed sensitivity and lower ratings of observed intrusiveness would be associated with higher child cognitive performance.

  3. While both insightfulness dimensions may be related conceptually to parenting behaviors, we anticipate that, when considered together, Positive Insight will account for more variance in observed sensitivity than Focus on Child, and Focus on Child will account for more variance in intrusiveness than Positive Insight.

Method

Participants

Participants were drawn from a larger study designed to document the impacts of violence exposure on children’s social-emotional development (Gray, Forbes, Briggs-Gowan, & Carter, 2015). This study included 64 dyads in which the caregivers were sixty biological mothers of the participating child, two fathers, one grandmother, and one great-grandmother (age range: 18–74). Caregivers were racially diverse (19% white, 45% black; 22% Latino), and 36% were bilingual. The majority of caregivers were single parents (61%), currently unemployed (53%), and 13% of caregivers had a college degree. Children (34 girls) were between 3–5 years of age (mean age = 3.83, SD = .77). All participants were low-income based on their eligibility for receiving services from Women Infants and Children (WIC) and Head Start programs (100–185% of federal poverty guidelines).

Procedures

Participants were recruited from a larger screening study at WIC and Head Start programs based on elevated or low parent report of exposure to potentially traumatic events. After screening, caregivers and children completed a 2 to 3 hour visit at their home or in the lab (based on caregiver preference) conducted by graduate students in clinical or counseling psychology. Exclusion criteria included not being able to complete interviews in English and diagnosis of global developmental delay or autism by parent report. Screener surveys included information on parent and child exposure to potentially traumatic events (PTEs) on the Life Events Checklist (Gray, Litz, Hsu & Lombardo, 2004), and the sample was enriched for endorsement of violence-related PTEs, which were further assessed in person using the Preschool Aged Psychiatric Assessment (Egger et al., 2006). Caregivers were given $50 for their participation, and children were given a book and toy. All procedures were approved by a university IRB.

Measures

Sociodemographic information.

Caregivers reported on their own and their children’s race, ethnicity, and age, as well as education, marital status, and bilingual status.

Caregiver insightfulness.

The Insightfulness Assessment (IA; Oppenheim & Koren-Karie, 2002) Caregiver and child interactions were videotaped across three activities with the parent. The first task was a free play task, where children and caregivers were given three bags of age appropriate toys to play with. The second task was a wordless book task, where caregivers were given only a book without words and the following instructions: “Now, we have this book for you. We’ll give you 4 minutes together with the book.” The third task was a parent distraction task, where children were given a simple toy while caregivers filled out a form. Following the activities, caregivers viewed two-minute video-taped vignettes of their interactions with their children and participated in a semi-structured interview about their perceptions of children’s thoughts and feelings. The IA yields both dimensional scales and categorical classifications. Interviews were coded on 10 scales that have been shown in factor analytic analyses to load onto two dimensions: Positive Insight and Focus on Child (Oppenheim et al., 2001; Hotez et al., 2015; Rosenblum et al., 2015). The 10 rating scales are insight into child’s motives, openness, complexity of description of child, maintenance of focus on child, richness of description of child, coherence of thought, acceptance, anger, worry, and separateness from child; each scale is rated from 1 to 9. The Positive Insight dimension is comprised of complexity, richness, insight into motives, acceptance, coherence, and reverse coded anger (α = .91); while, the Focus on Child dimension is comprised of maintenance of focus, separation, and reverse coded concern (α = .95). In addition, transcripts were categorized according to one of four categories: insightful, one-sided, disengaged, and mixed. In this sample, 27 were insightful (42.19%), 21 were one-sided (32.81%), 14 were disengaged (21.88%), and 2 (3.13%) were mixed. Twenty percent of transcripts were coded for reliability, and coders were blind to all outcome and predictor variables, (e.g., quality of parent-child relationship). Reliability for scales was in the acceptable range (ICCs ranged from .76-.95) and reliability for classifications were also in the acceptable range (classifications kappa = .77).

Parenting quality.

Observed caregiver-child interactions were coded with the Parent-Child Interaction Rating Scales (PCIRS; Sosinsky, Marakovitz & Carter, 2004). Caregiver-child interactions were observed and recorded during 6 minutes of free-play with three bags of age-appropriate toys as well as during a 4-minute wordless book task. Interactions were rated on items with 7 point scales, and coding was completed by two coders. Both coders were blind to insightfulness status, and 20% of the tapes were evaluated for inter-rater reliability, which was strong (αs = .82-.90). Two PCIRS scales were selected for these analyses: 1) Sensitivity and 2) Intrusiveness/over-control. Intrusiveness as defined by the PCIRS is behavior characterized by adult-centered imposition of the parent’s agenda and not relinquishing control of the interaction and is evaluated from the perspective of the child. This type of behavior does not facilitate the child’s exploration and does not allow the child to make choices or influence the pace or focus of play. Sensitivity is defined as being child centered and “in tune” with the child, and using the child’s “needs, mood, interests, and capabilities” to guide parental behaviors. Parental behavior markers include acknowledging the child’s affect and being responsive to the child’s verbalizations and activity, facilitating the child’s play, sharing positive affect, and encouragement of the child’s efforts. Scores for each of the two scales, intrusiveness and sensitivity, were summed across the free play and wordless book task, which were highly correlated (intrusiveness: r = .68, p < .001; sensitivity: r = .71, p < .001).

Child cognitive performance.

Children were administered cognitive and language assessments to derive a composite of child cognitive performance. Children completed a subset of tasks from the Differential Ability Scales-II (DAS-II; Elliot, 2007). The DAS-II assesses cognitive abilities, and two DAS-II tasks were administered (Pictures Similarities and Pattern Construction) to assess nonverbal intellectual functioning. In Pictures Similarities children were asked to match pictures based on reasoning, and in Pattern Construction children were asked to build increasingly difficult structures, shapes, or patterns using blocks. Scores from these two subscales were used to calculate the nonverbal cognitive functioning composite standard score. Additionally, an overall core language standard score was derived from The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamental-Preschool 2 (CELF-P2; Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2004), a comprehensive diagnostic tool used for identifying, diagnosing, and performing follow up evaluations of language deficits in 3 to 6-year-old children. The CELF-P2 has good internal consistency (.77 to .95), test-retest reliability (.78 to .94), and inter-rater reliability (.95 to .97). Three subtests (sentence structures, word structure, and expressive vocabulary) were used to yield the overall Core Language composite. As the language and cognitive scores were correlated (r = .43) and were both standard scores, they were averaged to create an overall cognitive performance composite.

Results

Examination of missing data revealed that no IA data were missing; two participants were missing data on both the DAS-II and the CELF-P2 due to concerns about the validity of testing, one participant was missing data for the CELF-P2 only, and two participants were missing data on the DAS-II only. Two dyads were missing data for the parent-child interaction due to equipment malfunction. Multiple imputation with 10 imputations was used to address missing data for parent-child interaction tasks; imputed data are reported for analyses including parenting sensitivity and intrusiveness. Data were evaluated for normality assumptions. Skewness and kurtosis were in the acceptable range for normality for each of the variables of interest. One outlier in the data was identified for child nonverbal cognitive scores on the DAS-II (n = 1). All analyses were run with the outlier excluded, and patterns remained consistent, so results are presented for the entire sample.

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations between study variables are reported in Tables 1 & 2. Potential covariates, including child age and sex, parent education, and marital status were examined in relation to predictors and outcome variables. No significant correlations were found between potential covariates and both a predictor and outcome variable, so no potential covariates are included in the reported results.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables

N Range Mean SD
Positive Insight 64 19–56.5 35.66 10.16
Focus on Child 64 18–27 20.81 5.10
Cognitive Performance 59 61–110.5 89.50 11.99
Sensitivity 62 3–13 8.19 2.44
Intrusiveness 62 2–11 4.60 2.60
Open in a new tab

Table 2.

Correlations between main study variables

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
1. Positive Insight
2. Focus on child .08
3. Free play sensitivity .21 .15
4. Book task sensitivity −.03 .14 .71**
5. Free play intrusiveness −.07 −.30* −.41** −.28*
6. Book task intrusiveness .10 −.19 −.35** −.39** .67**
7. Sum Sensitivity .12 .19 .93** .92** −.39** −.40**
8. Sum Intrusiveness .01 −.26* −.42** −.37** .93** .90** −.43**
9. Cognitive Performance −.17 .40** .01 .06 −.19 −.37** .10 −.30*
Open in a new tab

Note.

*

p < .05

**

p <.01.

Hypothesis One: Insightfulness Dimensions and Child Cognitive and Language Scores

To test the hypothesis that higher scores on the dimensional variables of parental insightfulness (Focus on Child and Positive Insight) would be associated with higher child cognitive performance scores, a regression analysis was conducted. Positive Insight and Focus on Child were entered together as predictor variables, with child cognitive performance scores as the outcome. Together, the IA factors explained 19.7 % of the variance (F (2,58) = 6.85, p = .002) in child cognitive performance. Focus on Child but not Positive Insight significantly predicted cognitive performance, with parents’ higher Focus on Child in the context of the IA interview predicting higher child cognitive performance scores (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Insightfulness dimensions predicting child cognitive performance

Child Cognitive Performance
B SE B β
Focus on Child .95 .28 .41**
Positive Insight −.24 .14 −.20
R2 .20
F(2,58) 6.85
p .00
Open in a new tab

Note.

*

p < .05

**

p <.01

Given that this sample included a subsample of children exposed to violence, as well as concerns that these processes may differ across child sex and developmental level, we tested moderation of these patterns using Hayes’s PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013). The relation between Focus on Child and child cognitive performance was not moderated by child age (interaction: β = .47, p = .19; R2 change = .02, F = 1.73, p = .19), child sex (interaction: β = .23, p = .70; R2 change = .00, F = .15, p = .70), visit location (lab or home; interaction: β = .00, p = .99; R2 change = .00, F = .00, p = .99) or children’s dichotomously coded exposure to violence as indicated by parents in the Preschool Aged Psychiatric Assessment (Egger et al., 2006; n = 24 children with violence exposure; see Gray et al., 2015)(interaction: β = .26, p = .65; R2 change = .00, F = .21, p = .65).

Hypothesis Two: Observed Parenting and Child Nonverbal Cognitive and Language Scores

In order to examine how sensitivity and intrusiveness together related to child outcomes, observed sensitivity and intrusiveness scores were entered together as predictors, with child cognitive performance scores as the outcome (see table 4). Despite a significant bivariate correlation between observed intrusiveness and child cognitive performance, observed sensitivity and intrusiveness did not significantly predict child cognitive performance (F (2, 56) = 2.74, p = .07). As observed parenting variables were obtained by collapsing observation ratings for sensitivity and intrusiveness across two tasks, a free-play task and a wordless book reading task, exploratory correlational analyses examined whether parenting behavior in either task was more strongly associated with child cognitive performance (see Table 2). Observed intrusiveness during the wordless book task was significantly correlated with child cognitive performance, but observed intrusiveness during the free-play task was not significantly correlated with child cognitive performance. Observed sensitivity was not significantly correlated with child cognitive performance in either the wordless book task or the free-play task.

Table 4.

Observed parenting variables predicting child cognitive performance

Child Cognitive Performance
B SE B β
Sensitivity −.32 .71 −.06
Intrusiveness −1.5 .65 .32
R2 .09
F(2,56) 2.74
p .07
Open in a new tab

Note.

*

p < .05

**

p <.01

Hypothesis Three: Observed Parenting and Insightfulness Dimensions

As depicted in Table 2 and consistent with the theorized two-dimensional conceptual model, Focus on Child was significantly correlated with observed intrusive parenting behaviors; however, no relation was found between Positive Insight and observed sensitive parenting behaviors (see Table 5). Again, as observed parenting variables were obtained by collapsing observation ratings for sensitivity and intrusiveness across two tasks, a free-play task and a wordless book reading task, exploratory correlational analyses examined whether parenting behavior in either task may be more associated with Focus on Child and Positive Insight (see Table 2). Task-level patterns were in contrast to what was observed for the child cognitive outcomes: observed intrusiveness during the free-play task was significantly negatively correlated with Focus on Child, but observed intrusiveness during the wordless book task was not significantly correlated with Focus on Child. In both the wordless book and free-play tasks, observed intrusiveness and observed sensitivity were not significantly correlated with Positive Insight.

Table 5.

Insightfulness dimensions predicting observed parenting variables

Intrusiveness Sensitivity
B SE B β B SE B β
Focus on Child −.14 .07 −.27* .09 .06 .18
Positive Insight .06 .03 .03 .03 .03 .11
R2 .07 .05
F(2,61) 2.23 1.48
p .12 .24
Open in a new tab

Note.

*

p < .05

**

p <.01

Discussion

Grounded in a two-dimensional, attachment-informed conceptual framework of parenting, the relations between parental insightfulness, observed behaviors, and child cognitive outcomes were explored in this study. Specifically, Positive Insight and Focus on Child, dimensional variables of insightfulness, along with observed parental sensitivity and intrusiveness, were examined in relation to one another and to child cognitive performance. This study was based on an attachment-informed framework that emphasizes parental thinking and behavior that promote both proximity seeking and exploratory child behaviors, with the intent of examining parenting that supports cognitive and language development.

Results partially support the hypotheses, as some relations between the insightfulness dimensions, specifically caregivers’ Focus on Child during the context of the interview, and child nonverbal cognitive and language abilities, were found. Unique in the literature, Focus on Child had a positive association with child cognitive performance. Findings for observed parenting were less robust, but observed intrusiveness was significantly correlated with child cognitive performance and with caregivers’ ability to focus on the child in the context of the IA. When examined by task, intrusiveness during a wordless book activity specifically was significantly correlated with cognitive performance. Additionally, the Focus on Child IA dimension was significantly correlated with intrusiveness during the free-play task.

Focus on the Child, Positive Insight, and Child Outcomes

As defined by the IA, insightfulness is the ability of the caregiver to maintain an emotionally complex, child focused, flexible perspective of their child while constructing positive motives for the child’s behaviors (Oppenheim & Koren-Karie, 2002). It was hypothesized that caregiver’s capacity to present a complex, open and accepting view of the child (Positive Insight) and to sustain focus on the child rather than the self or other unrelated topics (Focus on Child) would be associated with higher child cognitive performance.

Parents’ capacity to remain child-focused in the context of the Insightfulness Assessment interview in particular predicted child cognitive performance. In the only other known study exploring caregiver attachment related representations along with behaviors in relation to children’s cognitive development, among a sample of preschoolers who had witnessed domestic violence, Busch and Lieberman (2010) demonstrated that parental coherence of mind in the context of the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI), a measure of parental representations of attachment relationships, predicted child verbal IQ. While AAI coherence is conceptually and empirically linked to sensitivity, it is also the case that coherence of mind as assessed with the AAI requires the caregiver to remain focused on their attachment relationships in the context of an interview, similar to the IA Focus on Child. It may be that caregivers who score low on Focus on Child, providing narratives that are characterized by high concern, difficulties in separateness, and lack of focus, may inhibit children’s exploration in ways that would encourage cognitive development. While Focus on Child has not been studied previously in relation to cognitive or language abilities, this child-focused sense of separateness characterizes conceptually related positive caregiving constructs like mind-mindedness and parental reflective functioning (Hawkins, Madigan, Moran, & Pederson, 2015) that allow the parent to understand the child’s mental states and behaviors in a way that is theorized to encourage the development of self-regulatory skills (Sharp & Fonagy, 2008). Indeed, this finding parallels recent findings that maternal mind-mindedness, or capacity to attribute mental states to their infant, contributed significantly to children’s school readiness (Bernier et al., 2017); mothers with high rates of mind-related commenting during interactions may behaviorally reflect the IA construct of focusing and tuning in on children’s experience. These findings, in combination with prior work by Busch and Lieberman (2010), suggest that this capacity may have particular relevance not only for children’s social-emotional outcomes but also for cognitive and language competencies – and that these patterns appear to operate similarly for children who have been exposed to violence as well as those who have not. Contrary to hypotheses, parents’ capacity to describe their child in positive, flexible, and complex manner (Positive Insight) did not predict child cognitive performance in the sample. In the context of our two dimensional model, it could be that Positive Insight, an ability more conceptually related to security rather than exploration (Focus on the Child), may be more predictive of children’s socio-emotional outcomes.

Focus on the Child, Observed Parenting Behaviors, and Child outcomes

Contrary to hypotheses, neither observed sensitivity nor intrusiveness predicted cognitive performance in this sample, although parents’ observed intrusiveness during a wordless book-reading task was negatively associated with cognitive performance. This general pattern of null findings in this sample is despite robust findings in the literature broadly on the beneficial impact of both sensitive parenting and non-intrusive, autonomy supportive parenting on child cognitive outcomes (Tamis-LeMonda, Shannon, Cabrera, & Lamb, 2004; Brady-Smith et al., 2013). Our lack of findings between observed sensitivity and child cognitive performance may be related to the small sample size, the constricted sample (all low-income mothers), or that parenting behavior was assessed at only one point in time, albeit in two tasks. Additionally, the relatively low-demand nature of the parenting task, including free play and a book activity, may not have elicited parenting behavior sufficiently variable in scope to capture the range of sensitive, responsive parenting that supports cognitive development. Given the diversity in this sample, it is necessary to consider parenting behaviors within the context of social norms. Findings suggest that certain parenting behaviors may be developmentally beneficial in some socio-cultural contexts where those behaviors are normative, but less relevant in other contexts where those behaviors are not (Brady-Smith et al., 2013). It could be that the lack of findings in the present study could be due to the high-risk composition of the present sample, as well as the normative samples on which the parenting measure was developed.

Additionally, in this sample, a significant relation between Focus on the Child and observed intrusiveness, but no relation was found between Positive Insight and observed parenting variables, despite support from the literature (Oppenheim & Koren-Karie, 2013). In their prior work with the Adult Attachment Interview and preschoolers’ verbal outcomes, Busch and Lieberman (2010) found that mothers rated highly on coherence of mind were also significantly more sensitively responsive and less controlling during a free-play task with their young children – although sensitive parenting did not mediate the relation between coherence of mind and child outcomes in that sample, suggesting unique contribution of parent’s attachment related representations. Additional studies with the Insightfulness Assessment have also demonstrated correspondence between categorization as positively insightful and observed parenting sensitivity (Koren-Karie, Oppenheim, Dolev, Sher, & Etzion-Carasso, 2002). Robust patterns of association from parent attachment related representations to sensitive parenting behavior, however, were not observed in this sample, although parents’ ability to remain focused on the child in the context of Insightfulness Assessment was negatively correlated with observed intrusiveness, particularly in the free-play task. Again, parenting behaviors must be considered in context. There is evidence that the link between parenting behaviors and child outcomes varies across types of interaction during which parenting is assessed; in this sample, intrusive parenting during a more didactic activity was more strongly associated with child cognitive performance (Page, Wilhelm, Gamble, & Card, 2010), whereas intrusive parenting during a free play activity was more strongly associated with the Focus on Child IA dimension. It may be that the free-play task presented no specific goals, providing the parent the opportunity to exhibit child-focused behaviors; conversely, the wordless book task may have prompted more goal-oriented, instructive dyadic interactions.

Taken together, these findings suggest a unique contribution of parental insightfulness to children’s cognitive development that cannot be fully accounted for by observable parenting behaviors. Other contributing factors to children’s cognitive outcomes may include child-specific factors associated with security which may be impacted by parents’ attachment-related representations. Examples of these child specific factors might include children’s self-confidence (Erikson, Sroufe, & Egeland, 1985) or their self-regulation capacities (Vondra, Shaw, Swearingen, Cohen, & Owens, 2001). These child-level factors developed across early caregiving interactions, rather than observed parenting concurrent to measures of cognitive and language function, may contribute to the effect of parental insightfulness on cognitive and language outcomes.

Limitations, Strengths, and Future Directions

Several methodological limitations constrain the findings of the study. First, the study design was cross-sectional, so causal conclusions regarding the influence of insightfulness or observed parenting on child cognitive and language outcomes cannot be drawn. However, the findings presented warrant further exploration longitudinally and with a larger sample, particularly as the present study may have been under-powered to detect small effects. This sample was also not representative as it was low income, limiting generalizability. Additionally, it is necessary to study parenting from a sociocultural perspective, as current measures of parenting behaviors may be culturally bound to predominantly white, middle class families. Appropriate parenting behaviors may look significantly different in other cultural groups. Beyond the parenting behaviors, another limitation of the present study is the exclusion of child-specific and parent-specific factors like child temperament and parent psychopathology, as well as the exclusion of child socioemotional outcomes. In order to create a comprehensive picture of parent-child interactions, it is necessary to examine these individual factors. Future research should also examine other child outcomes like self-regulation and socio-emotional competencies, as child development across domains occurs together and not in a vacuum.

Given these limitations, this study design also had several methodological strengths. The two-factor approach taken allowed for identification of unique relations between parental insightfulness, parenting and child cognitive and language outcomes. Additionally, this sample was recruited directly from community agencies serving low-income families and was enriched for violence exposure, ensuring that the sample was comprised entirely of low-income children. While not generalizable to a broader community sample, this allowed for the study of these processes in this population where responsive parenting may be even more critical. Additionally, the parenting data were gathered through direct assessment, observationally, not through self-report.

Future research may benefit particularly from continuing to examine relations between attachment related representations and child cognitive and language outcomes – particularly in longitudinal models incorporating child factors that may illuminate this pathway. Existing evidence suggests that negative relational behaviors, including intrusive parenting, are amenable to change and that early dyadic therapy can affect positive change; in a study on relational behavior and parental representations, mothers’ post-treatment were able to provide richer narratives on the mother-child relationship, a hallmark of insightfulness (Dollberg, Feldman, Tyano, & Keren, 2013). Additionally, intrusive behaviors were associated with more restricted parental narratives regarding parent-child interactions, an important component of the IA, suggesting that further study is needed to more thoroughly explore the relation between insight and intrusive parenting behaviors (Dollberg et al., 2013). There is also preliminary evidence that suggests that caregiver insight itself can be changed through treatment (Oppenheim, Goldsmith, & Koren-Karie, 2004). Young children with high sociodemographic risk exhibit lower executive functioning and compromised self-regulation (Raver, Blair, & Willoughby, 2013) and children from disadvantaged families exhibit significant disparities in language acquisition as early as 18 months (Fernald, Marchman, & Weisleder, 2013). Future research may help to determine what and how changes in parents’ attachment related representations and behaviors may affect nonverbal cognitive and language outcomes for children in order to target intervention for children at risk.

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by Award Numbers K12HD043451 & L30HD085275 (SG) from the National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, the Spencer Foundation, the Melissa Foundation, and the University of Massachusetts Boston Graduate Student Assembly. We would also like to thank David Oppenheim, Nina Koren-Karie, and the caregivers and children who participated in this project.

Footnotes

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to report.

References

  1. Ainsworth MDS (1969). Object relations, dependency, and attachment: a theoretical review of the infant-mother relationship. Child Development, 40, 969–1025. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ainsworth MDS (1985). Patterns of infant-mother attachment: Antecedents and effects on development. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 61, 771–791. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bakeman R, & Brown JV (1980). Early interaction: Consequences for social and mental development at three years. Child Development, 51(2), 437–447. doi: 10.2307/1129277 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Belsky J (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55(1), 83–96. doi: 10.2307/1129836 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bernier A, Carlson SM, Deschênes M, & Matte‐Gagné C (2012). Social factors in the development of early executive functioning: A closer look at the caregiving environment. Developmental Science,15(1), 12–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01093.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bernier A, Carlson S, & Whipple N (2010). From External Regulation to Self-Regulation: Early Parenting Precursors of Young Children’s Executive Functioning. Child Development, 81(1), 326–339. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01397.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bernier A, McMahon CA, & Perrier R (2017). Maternal mind-mindedness and children’s school readiness: A longitudinal study of developmental processes. Developmental psychology, 53(2), 210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bornstein M, & Tamis-LeMonda C (1997). Maternal responsiveness and infant mental abilities: Specific predictive relations. Infant Behavior and Development, 20(3), 283–296. doi: 10.1016/S0163-6383(97)90001-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Brady-Smith C, Brooks-Gunn J, Tamis-LeMonda CS, Ispa JM, Fuligni AS, Chazan-Cohen R, & Fine MA (2013). Mother–infant interactions in Early Head Start: A person-oriented within-ethnic group approach. Parenting: Science and Practice, 13(1), 27–43. doi: 10.1080/15295192.2013.732430 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Busch AL, & Lieberman AF (2010). Mothers’ Adult Attachment Interview ratings predict preschool children’s IQ following domestic violence exposure. Attachment & Human Development, 12(6), 505–527. doi: 10.1080/14616734.2010.504542 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Carpenter M, Nagell K, & Tomasello M (1998). Social cognition, joint attention, and communicative competence from 9 to 15 months of age. Monographs of The Society for Research in Child Development, 63(4), 176. doi: 10.2307/1166214 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Choudhury N, & Gorman KS (2000). The relationship between sustained attention and cognitive performance in 17–24-month old toddlers. Infant and Child Development, 9(3), 127–146. doi: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Coates DL, & Lewis M (1984). Early mother–infant interaction and infant cognitive status as predictors of school performance and cognitive behavior in six-year-olds. Child Development, 55(4), 1219–1230. doi: 10.2307/1129991 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Darling N, & Steinberg L (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487–496. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dieterich SE, Assel MA, Swank P, Smith KE, & Landry SH (2006). The impact of early maternal verbal scaffolding and child language abilities on later decoding and reading comprehension skills. Journal of School Psychology, 43(6), 481–494. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2005.10.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dollberg D, Feldman R, Tyano S, & Keren M (2013). Maternal representations and mother-infant relational behavior following parent-infant psychotherapy. Journal of Infant, Child & Adolescent Psychotherapy, 12(3), 190–206. doi: 10.1080/15289168.2013.821884 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Egger HL, Erklani A, Keeler G, Potts E, Walter BK, & Angold A (2006). Test-retest reliability of the Preschool Age Psychiatric Assessment (PAPA). Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 45, 538–549. doi: 10.1097/01.chi.0000205705.71194.b8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Elliot CD (2007). Differential Ability Scales, 2nd edition: Introductory and technical handbook. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. [Google Scholar]
  19. Fernald A, Marchman VA, & Weisleder A (2013). SES differences in language processing skill and vocabulary are evident at 18 months. Developmental Science, 16(2), 234–248. doi: 10.1111/desc.12019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fuligni AS, & Brooks-Gunn J (2013). Mother–child interactions in Early Head Start: Age and ethnic differences in low-income dyads. Parenting: Science and Practice, 13(1), 1–26. doi: 10.1080/15295192.2013.732422 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gray MJ, Litz BT, Hsu JL, & Lomardo TW (2004). Psychometric properties of the Life Events Checklist. Assessment, 11(4), 330–341. doi: 10.1177/1073191104269954 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gray SAO, Forbes D, Briggs-Gowan M, & Carter AS (2015). Caregiver Insightfulness and Young Children’s Violence Exposure: Testing a Relational Model of Risk and Resilience. Attachment & Human Development, 17(6), 615–634. 10.1080/14616734.2015.1100207 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hawkins E, Madigan S, Moran G, & Pederson D (2015). Mediating and moderating processes underlying the association between maternal cognition and infant attachment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 39(2015), 24–33. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2015.04.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hayes AF 2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation and Conditional Process Analysis. New York, New York: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hotez E, Swanson M, Delavenne A, & Siller M (2015, August). Responsiveness-Based Parent Education Programs for Young Children with Autism: A Preliminary Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Role of Parental Insightfulness. Paper presented at the 7th International Attachment Conference, New York City, NY. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hustedt JT, & Raver CC (2002). Scaffolding in low-income mother-child dyads: Relations with joint attention and dyadic reciprocity. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(2), 113–119. doi: 10.1080/01650250042000636 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Isabella RA, & Belsky J (1991). Interactional synchrony and the origins of infant-mother attachment: A replication study. Child Development, 62(2), 373–384. doi: 10.2307/1131010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Koren-Karie N, Oppenheim D, Dolev S, Sher E, & Etzion-Carasso A (2002). Mothers’ insightfulness regarding their infants’ internal experience: Relations with maternal sensitivity and infant attachment. Developmental Psychology, 38(4), 534–542. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.38.4.534 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Landry SH, Miller-Loncar CL, Smith KE, & Swank PR (2002). The role of early parenting in children’s development of executive processes. Developmental Neuropsychology, 21(1), 15–41. doi: 10.1207/S15326942DN2101_2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Leerkes EM, Supple AJ, O’Brien M, Calkins SD, Haltigan JD, Wong MS, & Fortuna K (2015). Antecedents of maternal sensitivity during distressing tasks: Integrating attachment, social information processing, and psychobiological perspectives. Child Development, 86(1), 94–111. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12288 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Matte-Gagné C, & Bernier A (2011). Prospective relations between maternal autonomy support and child executive functioning: Investigating the mediating role of child language ability. Journal of experimental child psychology, 110(4), 611–625. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Matte‐Gagné C, Bernier A, Sirois MS, Lalonde G, & Hertz S (2017). Attachment Security and Developmental Patterns of Growth in Executive Functioning During Early Elementary School. Child Development. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Meins E (1998). The effects of security of attachment and maternal attribution of meaning on children’s linguistic acquisitional style. Infant Behavior & Development, 21(2), 237–252. doi: 10.1016/S0163-6383(98)90004-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Meins E, & Fernyhough C (1999). Linguistic acquisitional style and mentalizing development: The role of maternal mind-mindedness. Cognitive Development, 14(3), 363–380. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2014(99)00010-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Meins E, Fernyhough C, Fradley E, & Tuckey M (2001). Rethinking maternal sensitivity: Mothers’ comments on infants’ mental processes predict security of attachment at 12 months. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 1–12. doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00759 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Neitzel C, & Stright AD (2003). Mothers’ scaffolding of children’s problem solving: Establishing a foundation of academic self-regulatory competence. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(1), 147–159. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.17.1.147 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Oppenheim D, & Koren-Karie N (2002). Mothers’ insightfulness regarding their children’s internal worlds: The capacity underlying secure child-mother relationships. Infant Mental Health Journal 23(6), 593–605. doi: 10.1002/imhj.10035 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Oppenheim D, Koren-Karie N, & Sagi A (2001). Mothers’ empathic understanding of their preschoolers’ internal experience: Relations with early attachment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16–26. doi: 10.1080/01650250042000096 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Oppenheim D, Goldsmith D, & Koren-Karie N (2004). Maternal Insightfulness and Preschoolers’ Emotion and Behavior Problems: Reciprocal Influences in a Therapeutic Preschool Program. Infant Mental Health Journal, 25(4), 352–367. doi: 10.1002/imhj.20010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Oppenheim D, & Koren-Karie N (2013). The insightfulness assessment: Measuring the internal processes underlying maternal sensitivity. Attachment & Human Development, 15(5–6), 545–561. doi: 10.1080/14616734.2013.820901 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Oppenheim D & Koren-Karie N (2014) Parental Insightfulness and Child-Parent Emotion Dialogues: Their Importance for Children’s Development In Mikulincer M and Shaver P (Ed.), Mechanisms of Social Connection: From brain to group (pp. 205 – 220). New York: American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  42. Paavola L, Kemppinen K, Kumpulainen K, Moilanen I, & Ebeling H (2006). Maternal sensitivity, infant co-operation and early linguistic development: Some predictive relations. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3(1), 13–30. doi: 10.1080/17405620500317789 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Page M, Wilhelm MS, Gamble WC, & Card NA (2010). A comparison of maternal sensitivity and verbal stimulation as unique predictors of infant social–emotional and cognitive development. Infant Behavior & Development, 33(1), 101–110. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2009.12.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Radin N (1971). Maternal warmth, achievement motivation, and cognitive functioning in lower-class preschool children. Child Development, 42(5), 1560–1565. doi: 10.2307/1127920 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Raver CC, Blair C, & Willoughby M (2013). Poverty as a predictor of 4-year-olds’ executive function: New perspectives on models of differential susceptibility. Developmental Psychology, 49(2), 292–304. doi: 10.1037/a0028343 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Raver CC, & Leadbeater BJ (1995). Factors influencing joint attention between socioeconomically disadvantaged adolescent mothers and their infants In Moore C, Dunham PJ, Moore C, Dunham PJ (Eds), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 251–271). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  47. Rosenblum K, Martinez-Torteya C, Beeghly M, Koren-Karie N, Oppenheim D (2015, August). Maternal Insightfulness in Mothers with Histories of Childhood Maltreatment is Associated with Peripartum Parenting. Paper presented at the 7th International Attachment Conference, New York City, NY. [Google Scholar]
  48. Semel E, Wiig EH, & Secord W (2004). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals- Preschool (2nd Edition ed.). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. [Google Scholar]
  49. Sharp C, & Fonagy P (2008). The parent’s capacity to treat the child as a psychological agent: Constructs, measures and implications for developmental psychopathology. Social Development, 17(3), 737–754. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00457.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Sharp D, Hale DF, Pawlby S, Schmücker G, Allen H, & Kumar R (1995). The impact of postnatal depression on boys’ intellectual development. Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 36(8), 1315–1336. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1995.tb01666.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Soares I, Lemos MS, & Almeida C (2005). Attachment and motivational strategies in adolescence: Exploring links. Adolescence, 40(157), 129–154. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Sosinsky L, Markovitz S, & Carter A (2004). Parent–Child Interaction Rating Scales (PCIRS). Unpublished manual. University of Massachusetts Boston. [Google Scholar]
  53. Tamis-LeMonda CS, Shannon JD, Cabrera NJ, & Lamb ME (2004). Fathers and mothers at play with their 2- and 3-year-olds: Contributions to language and cognitive development. Child Development, 75(6), 1806–1820. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00818.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. van IJzendoorn M (1995). Adult attachment representations, parental responsiveness, and infant attachment: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the Adult Attachment Interview. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 387–403. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.387 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. van IJzendoorn MH, Dijkstra J, & Bus AG (1995). Attachment, intelligence, and language: A meta-analysis. Social Development, 4(2), 115–128. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.1995.tb00055.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Vondra JI, Shaw DS, Swearingen L, Cohen M, & Owens EB (2001). Attachment stability and emotional and behavioral regulation from infancy to preschool age. Development and Psychopathology, 13(01), 13–33. doi: 10.1017/S095457940100102X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Whipple N, Bernier A, & Mageau GA (2011). A dimensional approach to maternal attachment state of mind: Relations to maternal sensitivity and maternal autonomy support. Developmental Psychology, 47(2), 396–403. doi: 10.1037/a0021310 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES