representations of attachment to parents and shyness as predictors of children's relationships...
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Universitat Politècnica de València]On: 17 October 2014, At: 01:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Attachment & Human DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rahd20
Representations of attachment toparents and shyness as predictors ofchildren's relationships with teachersand peer competence in preschoolAnn-Margret Rydell , Gunilla Bohlin & Lisa B Thorella Uppsala University , Swedenb Department of Psychology , PO Box 1225, S-751 42, Uppsala,Sweden E-mail:Published online: 02 Feb 2007.
To cite this article: Ann-Margret Rydell , Gunilla Bohlin & Lisa B Thorell (2005) Representationsof attachment to parents and shyness as predictors of children's relationships with teachersand peer competence in preschool, Attachment & Human Development, 7:2, 187-204, DOI:10.1080/14616730500134282
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616730500134282
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror 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 study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 01:
45 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Representations of attachment to parents and shyness aspredictors of children’s relationships with teachers andpeer competence in preschool
ANN-MARGRET RYDELL, GUNILLA BOHLIN, & LISA B. THORELL
Uppsala University, Sweden
AbstractIn a group of 112 children (46% boys), representations of attachment to parents and shyness at age 5were used as predictors of social relationships in preschool at age 6. A Story Completion task was usedto assess attachment representations and shyness was assessed through parent ratings andobservations. Preschool teachers rated the child – teacher relationship and the child’s peer competence.Children with avoidant representations had more conflictual and less close teacher relationships, andshowed less prosocial orientation with peers than did children with secure attachment representations.Children with bizarre-ambivalent representations had somewhat less intimate teacher relationships andless social initiative with peers than did children with secure representations. Shy children had lessclose and less conflictual teacher relationships and somewhat less social initiative with peers than didnon-shy children. There was one marginally significant interaction effect of the quality of attachmentrepresentations and shyness on social relationships.
Keywords: Preschool, attachment, shyness, child – teacher relationships, peer competence
Introduction
The present study investigated representations of attachment to parents and shyness as
predictors of children’s relationships with teachers and their competence with peers in
preschool. It is a commonly held view that, when children enter preschool and school,
harmonious interpersonal relationships in the new context become a marker of healthy
development. The short- and long-term importance of peer acceptance and positive peer
relations has been amply demonstrated through the years (e.g., Asher, Parkhurst, Hymel, &
Williams, 1990; Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Coleman, 1997; Parker & Asher, 1987). During the
precedent 5 – 10 years, researchers have recognised that, in addition to peer relations, the
relationships children form with out-of-home caregivers and teachers are formative for
adaptation (e.g., Birch & Ladd, 1998; Pianta, 1997; Pianta & Steinberg, 1992). Teachers
and caregivers of young children take on responsibilities (e.g., comforting, disciplining, and
assisting in self-help activities) with clearly relationship building qualities (Hamilton &
Howes, 1992). Not surprisingly, the teacher/caregiver – child relationship has been assessed
in terms of attachment quality, or using measures based in attachment theory (e.g.,
Correspondence: Ann-Margret Rydell, Department of Psychology, PO Box 1225, S-751 42 Uppsala, Sweden.
E-mail: [email protected]
Attachment & Human Development,
June 2005; 7(2): 187 – 204
ISSN 1461-6734 print/ISSN 1469-2988 online ª 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/14616730500134282
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 01:
45 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
DeMulder, Denham, Schmidt, & Mitchell, 2000; Howes & Hamilton, 1992; Howes,
Matheson, & Hamilton, 1994; Lynch & Cicchetti, 1992; Pianta, 1996).
Two characteristics of the child’s relationship with out-of-home caregivers/teachers point
to its importance. First, it is fairly stable with the same caregiver/teacher and consistency in
relationship quality has also been found across teachers (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Howes &
Hamilton, 1992; Howes, Phillipsen, & Peisner-Feinberg, 2000; Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins,
1995; Vondra, Shaw, Swearingen, Cohen, & Owens, 1999). Second, relationship quality
seems to be related to the child’s school career and social functioning. Teacher attachment
has been found to predict functioning in preschool both concurrently and prospectively
(Howes, Hamilton, & Matheson, 1994; Howes, Matheson, et al. 1994; Howes & Ritchie,
1999; Mitchell-Copeland, Denham, & DeMulder, 1997). Negative teacher relationships in
particular have been found to be associated with a variety of poor school outcomes (e.g.,
Birch & Ladd 1997, 1998; Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Howes, 2000; Howes et al., 2000; Pianta
et al., 1995). Thus, factors that may predict the quality of the child – teacher relationship are
of considerable interest. Following peer relationship research, we have focused on two
factors: the child’s relational experiences with parents and the child’s shyness.
Attachment to parents and social relationships
The child’s attachment to parents, assessed directly through observations of the child’s
behaviour in standardized lab procedures (e.g., Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978;
Main & Cassidy, 1987) or using representational methods to explore the child’s internal
working models of the attachment relationship (e.g., Bretherton, Ridgeway, & Cassidy,
1990) supposedly has an impact on development. A central prediction from attachment
theory is that the quality of the child’s attachment to parents will be related to the quality of
relationships with other people. With regard to peer relations, these claims have received at
least moderate support (see Schneider, Atkinson, & Tardif, 2001, for a review). In
longitudinal studies relating infant attachment to preschool/school functioning as well as in
concurrent investigations, insecurely attached infants and children, and children with
insecure attachment representations, have shown less competence with peers and been less
accepted by peers than have secure children (Bohlin, Hagekull, & Rydell, 2000; Cohn, 1990
(boys only); Granot & Mayseless, 2001; Sroufe, 1983; Suess, Grossman, & Sroufe, 1992;
Turner, 1991; Verschueren & Marcoen, 1999).
Social initiative and prosocial orientation are two aspects of peer competence found to be
of considerable importance for peer acceptance (Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993;
Rydell, Hagekull, & Bohlin, 1997). Prosocial orientation refers to a propensity to be helpful,
empathic, and generous towards others, and social initiative denotes behaviours that
promote active participation in peer interactions. According to attachment theory, secure
attachment should be associated with both these aspects. Secure children should feel that
the social world is a safer place to explore and also be more prone to empathic and helping
behaviour compared with insecure children (Elicker, Egeland, & Sroufe, 1992). Support
seems somewhat more substantial for links to social initiative than to prosocial orientation
(e.g., Bohlin, Hagekull et al., 2000), but the issue has not been sufficiently studied, the
dimensions have often been included in the same competence measures (e.g., Cohn, 1990;
Verschueren & Marcoen, 1999). Further, in previous studies, associations between types of
insecure attachment or attachment representations and deficits in specific competence or
skills aspects have, in contrast to problem aspects, received little attention.
Turning to teacher relationships, aspects of family relations (e.g., communication patterns
and a sense of relatedness) have been related to child – teacher relations (Lynch & Cicchetti,
188 A.-M. Rydell et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 01:
45 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
1992; Page & Bretherton, 2001; Pianta & Nimetz, 1991; Pianta, Nimetz, & Bennett, 1997).
Little concordance has been shown, however, between attachment to mothers and
attachment to caregivers/teachers (DeMulder et al., 2000; Goossens & van IJzendorn,
1990; Howes & Hamilton, 1992), which has been taken to indicate that attachment quality is
a product of the interaction history within a given dyad (Goossens & van IJzendorn, 1990).
When child – teacher relationships have been evaluated with regard to aspects such as
conflicts, dependency, or openness, parent attachment has seemed to play a role. Sroufe,
Fox and Pancake (1983) and Sroufe (1989) performed the first study to assess links between
infant attachment to mothers and relations with preschool and elementary school teachers.
Insecure children had more dependent relationships with preschool teachers and less
positive relationships with elementary school teachers than did secure children. In the
preschool setting, the dependence of insecure/avoidant and insecure/ambivalent children
took somewhat different forms. Ambivalent children seemed to be constantly and openly
contact seeking, while avoidant children were more indirect in their strategies to get the
attention from their teacher. In school, insecure-ambivalent children evoked control but also
nurturing behaviours, whereas insecure-avoidant children received less warmth than did
others and even anger at times. In another prospective study, insecure, particularly avoidant
infants, were found, later on, to be more negative and dependent in relation to teachers, and
less likely to turn to teachers for help than were secure infants (Vondra et al., 1999). Besides
these longitudinal relations, concurrent relations have also been demonstrated between
parent attachment and teacher relationships. Cohn (1990) found that insecure 6-year-old
boys were less liked by teachers than were secure boys of the same age. Turner (1993) found
that, at 4 years of age, insecure children were more help-seeking than were secure children,
but that insecure boys had the most negative teacher relationships, exemplified by less
positive teacher interactions and more opposition to and strong control from teachers. To
date, however, studies relating parent attachment to teacher relationships have been
relatively few.
Shyness and social relationships
A second strong tradition addressing individual differences in children’s social functioning is
found in temperament research. In the present study, we focused on shyness or behavioural
inhibition. Behavioural inhibition is regarded as a biologically based, fairly stable disposition
entailing wariness of the unknown, and leading to withdrawn and non-exploratory
behaviour in the face of novel situations and new people (Fordham & Stevenson-Hinde,
1999; Kagan, Reznick, & Gibbons, 1989; Reznick, Kagan, Snidman, Gersten, Baak, &
Rosenberg, 1986). Shy children have been found to be less involved, active, prosocial, and
accepted in peer interactions than are uninhibited children (e.g., Bohlin, Bengtsgard, &
Andersson, 2000; Fordham & Stevenson-Hinde, 1999; Phillipsen, Bridges, McLemore, &
Saponaro, 1999; Reznick et al., 1986; Rubin, 1993).
Shyness is also relevant in interactions with new adults in that inhibited preschoolers have
been shown to demonstrate wariness with an examiner in a lab situation (Reznick et al.,
1986). Shy children may be ill-prepared to get close to and develop warm, trusting
relationships with teachers. Alternatively, a shy child may take shelter from anxiety-
provoking situations in the new context and perhaps become overly dependent on the
teacher. Withdrawal has been shown to be both concurrently and prospectively associated
with dependent relationships with teachers, although withdrawn children have also been
found to develop healthy teacher relationships over time (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Ladd &
Burgess, 1999). However, the extent to which truly inhibited, shy children participated in
Predictors of children’s preschool relationships 189
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 01:
45 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
these studies is uncertain, therefore very little is known about shy children’s teacher
relations.
The literature has primarily regarded shyness as a negative factor for development, but
shyness could also serve a protective role. Because fear and anxiety are conceived of as
regulators of the motivational approach system, they may play a role in constraining
aggressive behaviours (Derryberry & Rothbart, 1997). Kagan (1994) has suggested that
behavioural inhibition may decrease the risk for antisocial behaviour. Support for this notion
has been found in lower adolescent delinquency rates among boys who were inhibited in
middle childhood compared to those who were non-inhibited (Kerr, Tremblay, Pagani, &
Vitaro, 1997). Similar suggestions have been made by Wangby and coworkers who studied
childhood shyness and adult criminality among women (Wangby, Bergman, & Magnusson,
1999). Following this thinking, shy children should be less likely than their non-shy peers to
get into conflicts with teachers.
The interaction of attachment and shyness
There is an ongoing debate about the relative importance of attachment and temperament
for adaptation (e.g., Vaughn & Bost, 1999). In some models, temperament and family
experiences have been hypothesized to interact in forming development. Interaction effects
of inhibition, or fearfulness, and attachment security have been demonstrated in a few
studies. Especially strong stress reactions were found among insecure inhibited toddlers,
and little internalization of rules was prominent among insecure, fearless toddlers
(Kochanska, 1995; Nachmias, Gunnar, Mangelsdorf, Hornik Parritz, & Buss, 1996). In a
laboratory assessment procedure among 4-year-olds, an interaction between attachment
quality and inhibition was also found regarding heart period (Stevenson-Hinde &
Marshall, 1999). A recent study of the predictive relations from attachment security and
behavioural inhibition/shyness in infancy to peer social competence at school-age showed
an interactive effect, meaning that the effect of attachment was larger for children who had
been inhibited as infants (Bohlin, Hagekull, & Andersson, 2005). Thus, there is some,
although so far limited support for the idea that shyness and attachment security interact
in forming the child’s social relationships. To our knowledge, however, teacher relations
have not been studied from this angle. One might speculate that children who are shy as
well as insecure should be particularly at risk for negative relations with people outside the
family circle.
The present study
The aim of the study was to investigate representations of attachment to parents and
shyness as predictors of child – teacher relationships and competence with peers in
preschool. We also wanted to investigate the interaction between attachment representa-
tions and shyness as predictors of social relationships in preschool. Children with
representations of the relationship as insecure were expected to have less positive teacher
relationships and show less peer competence than were children with secure
representations. Current knowledge does not allow for predictions of associations
between type of insecurity in the representations and specific aspects of teacher relations/
peer competence. Shy children were expected to have less positive relationships in terms
of closeness and intimacy with teachers than were uninhibited children, and shy children,
especially those with insecure attachment representations, were expected to show less
initiative with peers.
190 A.-M. Rydell et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 01:
45 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Method
Participants
Participants were 112 children (46% boys) living in, or in the vicinity of, Uppsala, a Swedish
university town and the country’s fourth largest city. The children are participants in an
ongoing prospective study beginning at age 5 and following 151 children for 4 years. The
sample of 112 children comprises all children with a complete set of the data used in the
present paper. At the time of recruitment, maternal age was M=35 years (SD=5) and
paternal age was M=37 years (SD=7). As might be expected in a university town, parental
education level was high. Fifty-three percent of the mothers and 50% of the fathers held a
college or a university degree, 45% of the mothers and fathers had completed secondary
school or had vocational training, and 2% of the mothers and 5% of the fathers had the 9-
year compulsory school as their only schooling. Most children, 63%, had one sibling, while
9% were the only child in the family, and 28% had two or more siblings.
The recruitment base was parent ratings (79% by mothers, 6% by fathers, and 15% by
both parents jointly) of socio-emotional functioning, including behavioural inhibition for
705 children, 70.5% of a random sample of 1000 children born between January and
September 1993 (M=4 years 10 months, SD=2 months). A sample of 151 children was
drawn and, in order to secure variation in inhibition, we over-sampled at the tails of the
distribution, balancing for sex. Thus, one-third of the sample (50 children) was randomly
recruited from the top 20% ratings and one third was recruited from the bottom 20%. There
was no mean difference in inhibition between the subsample and the present study sample of
112 children, t(135.5) = 7 .47, ns. The present sample was normally distributed, tests for
skewness and curtosis being non-significant, p4 .05 (Tabachnik & Fidell, 1996). The large
sample was positively skewed (more children at the uninhibited tail), p5 .001. There were
no differences in sex distribution, parental age, parental education, or number of siblings
between the study sample and the large sample, all p4 .10.
At the age of 5 years 3 months (SD=1 month) the 151 children visited the department
laboratory. At 6 years (SD=3 months), 124 of the children’s preschool teacher or day-care
provider receiving children in her home (16% of the respondents) completed questionnaires
regarding social functioning and the teacher – child relationship. Day-care providers
receiving children in their home usually care for several children, thus the child is provided
with a group setting roughly comparable to preschool, although the group is generally
smaller in size. Reasons for attrition for the teacher ratings were that the family had moved/
the child did not have out-of-home care (4 children), parents did not consent to contacts
with the child’s preschool (13 children), and questionnaires were not returned despite two
reminders (10 children). At 6 years 6 months (M=6 years 6 months, SD=1 month) 133
children came for a second visit to the laboratory. Six families had moved, four children or
families declined participation, and eight parents claimed having a time shortage.
Procedures
Parent questionnaire. A few months before the child’s fifth birthday, parents received a mailed
questionnaire covering several aspects of the child’s socio-emotional functioning including
shyness. Initial non-responders received two reminders.
Laboratory visit. At age 5, the children made a first visit to the department laboratory, during
which shyness and attachment to parents were assessed. The visit lasted about 1 hour.
During most of the visit, child and tester were alone. Before starting the procedure, the
Predictors of children’s preschool relationships 191
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 01:
45 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
parent and child were informed that the session was going to be videotaped and a signed
consent form was obtained from all parents. The camera was placed in a corner of the room
behind a drapery. At the end of the procedure, the child received a small gift as an
appreciation of his/her participation.
The visit included an Attachment Story Completion Task designed to measure the child’s
representations of attachment to parents; this was an adaptation of the Verschueren,
Marcoen, and Schoefs (1996) procedure. The story stems used by Verschueren and
coworkers build on stories developed by Bretherton and coworkers (1990). In the present
procedure, the child was asked to use a doll family (Mom, Dad, male/female child) and props
(car, toy furniture, lawn) to complete the stories. There was one warm-up story, four stories
from Verschueren and Marcoen (1994), and one separation and one reunion story. The
stories from Verschueren and Marcoen were: child’s bike is stolen by an unfamiliar child;
child gives Mom a present; child, having done something forbidden, says ‘‘I’m sorry Mom’’;
and child wakes up seeing a monster in the bedroom. The monster story is also part of the
Bretherton and coworkers procedure. Because separations and reunions are central in
activating the attachment system, the separation-reunion sequence from Bretherton and
coworkers (1990) was added. In this sequence, which was introduced as the last two stories,
parents were depicted as going away for a few days, the child would remain with grandmother
and, after a couple of days, the parents would return. The procedure was introduced about
halfway through the lab visit, so the child would have time to warm up to the tester.
The idea behind story stems is that the child, by completing attachment-related story
stems, will reveal his/her internal representations of the relationship with the parent(s). The
material is designed to elucidate the extent to which (a) the child sees him/herself as
participating in a secure relationship (feels safe, protected, and valued), (b) parents are
depicted as accessible and supportive, and (c) conflictual and stressful situations are
acknowledged and solved (Cassidy, 1988). The validity of the story stems that were first
developed has been demonstrated through associations with Strange Situation security
classifications, made at 18 months, and through concurrent security assessments, made at
age 3, of observed separations and reunions (Bretherton et al., 1990). There was also
agreement between doll-play classifications in a procedure including a separation-reunion
sequence, and attachment classifications based on behaviour in a reunion episode among 6-
year-olds (Solomon, George, & de Jong, 1995). The security score derived from the
Verschueren and coworkers procedure has been related to security scores based on the
Slough and Greenberg 1990 version of the Separation Anxiety Test, which is another
representational attachment measure, (Verschueren & Marcoen, 1996), and a secure
classification was associated with the child’s positive self representation (Verschueren et al.,
1996). According to attachment theory, the secure child’s internal working model should
include a perception of the self as valuable and competent.
The lab procedure also included a Stranger Encounter Situation (Klein, Plunkett, &
Meisels, 1988; Plunkett, Klein, & Meisels, 1988). Towards the end of the visit, while child
and parent were together in the room, a stranger, blind to the child’s inhibition classification
(see description above), entered the room and tried to make contact with the child in five
consecutive episodes with duration of 30 – 60 seconds. In the first episode, the stranger
entered the room ignoring the child and his/her parent. Over the episodes, the stranger
became more active in trying to relate to the child; before leaving the room, the stranger had
become intrusive.
Teacher questionnaire and second laboratory visit. At age 6, the child’s preschool teacher/day-
care provider completed a mailed questionnaire concerning the child’s social functioning in
192 A.-M. Rydell et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 01:
45 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
the preschool setting and the child – teacher relationship. The ratings were made during the
last months of the school year. Approximately 6 months later, the children visited the
department laboratory a second time. This time, an assessment of the child’s verbal ability
was included in the procedure.
Measures
Representations of attachment. The doll story stem completions were transcribed verbatim
from the videotapes and used as the data source for the classification. The four story stems
from Verschueren and Marcoen (1994) were coded by two people not otherwise involved in
the study. One person coded all the data and one person coded the data for 24 children so
that interrater reliability could be computed for 17% of the 145 children who completed the
story stem task. As described above, the 112 children for whom there was a complete set of
the data relevant to the present paper were included in further analyses. The coding was
done in accordance with the coding manual, which had been translated from Dutch to
Swedish. Each story was rated on a 5-point scale for attachment security. Stories receiving a
score of 3 – 5 were considered to reflect representations of attachment as secure and stories
receiving a score of 1 or 2 were considered as reflecting insecure representations. Secure
answers were those that reflected a responsive parent, open interaction, and little hesitation
in responding. There were two types of insecure responses. An ‘‘avoidant’’ score was based
on minimal child – parent interactions, and reluctance to complete the story or to answer
probes. A ‘‘bizarre-ambivalent’’ score reflected negative, hostile, or chaotic interactions with
parents, sometimes alternating with harmonic episodes. Stories receiving a score of 1
contained the most avoidant (only ‘‘don’t know’’ answers or no parent – child interactions at
all) or bizarre-ambivalent (severely disorganized or ending in hostility, injury, destruction, or
death) narratives. Stories with elements of parent – child interactions or less catastrophic and
more coherent content received scores of 2 for avoidant or bizarre-ambivalent representa-
tions, respectively. Reliability amounted to r (24) = .93 for attachment security score across
situations.
The separation and reunion stories were coded by two of the authors (G.B. and A.M.R.).
Reliability estimates were computed on independent codings of 39 children, 27% of the
children who completed the story stem task. We used the 5-point scale from the
Verschueren and Marcoen (1994) system but were inspired also by the Slough, Goyette, and
Greenberg (1988) system for coding the Separation Anxiety Test. In the separation
sequence, secure (3 – 5) narratives contained acknowledgement of the separation, openness
about feelings, for instance sadness or anger, adequate motivation of feelings (should be due
to the separation), and at least some element of coping with the situation, such as doing
things with grandmother. A coding of the narrative as avoidant (1 or 2) was based on lack of
acknowledgement of the separation psychologically or physically, no emotions or
inadequately motivated feelings, and reluctance or refusal to respond. A bizarre-ambivalent
narrative (1 or 2) contained incoherence, negative interactions, or bizarre/catastrophic
events (e.g., accidents, deaths), although positive episodes could exist in the narrative.
Narratives regarding the reunion episode were coded as secure (3 – 5) if a psychological
reunion and at least some positive interaction between child and parents took place. A
coding of the narrative as avoidant (1 or 2) was based on either absent reunion, that is, no
greetings, no interactions, or hesitance (many ‘‘don’t know’’ answers) or refusal to answer
probes. A coding of the narrative as bizarre-ambivalent (1 or 2) indicated negative
interactions or emotions (e.g., ‘‘too bad they came home’’), or bizarre, irrelevant, or
incoherent elements. As was the case with the first four stories, a score of 1 indicated the
Predictors of children’s preschool relationships 193
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 01:
45 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
most insecure narratives. Interrater reliability for the 5-point security rating was r (39) = .91
and r (39) = .88 for the separation and the reunion stories, respectively. Kappa for the
separation story (classification of the narrative as secure, avoidant or bizarre) was .77, and
for the reunion story kappa was .87.
The classification of children followed Verschueren and Marcoen (1994). Scores 4 3
were considered as indicating secure representations, and scores 5 2 were considered as
indicating insecure representations. The classification of each child as having secure,
insecure-avoidant, or insecure-bizarre/ambivalent representations of the attachment
relationship was based on five stories. ‘‘Child gives Mom a present’’ showed little variation
in this sample (72% secure) and was excluded. Because separation-reunion themes are
thought of as particularly potent in activating the child’s attachment system, these two
stories were given most weight (cf., George & Solomon, 2000). Between these two, we gave
the reunion story most weight. The other three stories were used to reach a scoring decision
for disparate separation and reunion sequences. To be scored as having secure
representations, both the separation and reunion had to be scored 5 3. However, one
child whose narrative was secure only in the reunion story was scored as having secure
representations due to secure scores on two of the three other stories. Eighty-eight percent of
the scorings according to these principles were confirmed in the remaining three stories. To
establish type of insecure representations, the separation-reunion stories were again used as
guidelines. In case of disagreement between the two, the scoring followed that of the
majority of the narratives. Type of insecure representation scored from the separation-
reunion stories was confirmed by other stories for 79% of the children with insecure
representations.
Shyness. Shyness was assessed in two ways. Rated shyness was measured with 7 items,
a= .90, from the questionnaire at recruitment. The shyness measure consisted of four items
from the Buss and Plomin (1984) EAS inventory and three items constructed by the
research group (e.g., ‘‘my child becomes reserved upon entering a room full of strangers’’;
see Bohlin, Bengtsgard et al., 2000).
An experienced coder, not involved in the study and blind to the child’s initial inhibition
classification, coded observed shyness from the videotapes of the stranger encounter
situation. A second coder who was not involved in the study independently coded 27
children, 18% of the sample, in order to establish reliability. A global scale based on the
child’s contacts with the stranger, spontaneous utterances, responses, and general
demeanour was used. The scale ranged from 1= ‘‘child is not at all uncomfortable with
the stranger or with the situation’’ to 5= ‘‘child actively avoids all contacts with stranger
(e.g., turns away when spoken to, turns to mother)’’. Intercoder reliability was high, r
(27) = .92. To obtain a multi informant-based shyness measure, the rated shyness scale
score and the observed shyness scale score were standardized and aggregated to form a
shyness scale, a= .65. The correlation between the two scales was r (151) = .49.
The child – teacher relationship. The child – teacher relationship was assessed with a Swedish
version and adaptation of the Student –Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 1996).
The STRS has well-established psychometric properties and reflects ‘‘teachers’ internal
working models of the relationships they share with students’’ (Pianta & Nimetz, 1991, p.
381). Most of the 5-step items (1= ‘‘does not apply at all’’; 5 = ‘‘applies very well’’) refer to
children’s relationship-relevant behaviours towards teachers. The STRS has three
dimensions: closeness (e.g., ‘‘I share an affectionate, warm relationship with this child’’),
dependency (e.g., ‘‘this child reacts strongly to separations from me’’), and conflict (e.g.,
194 A.-M. Rydell et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 01:
45 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
‘‘this child and I always seem to be struggling with each other’’). The STRS was translated
to Swedish, but to reduce the length of the questionnaire, six items that were deemed less
ecologically valid for preschoolers were dropped (e.g., ‘‘I’ve noticed this child copying my
behaviour or ways of doing things’’). Scales were computed as the mean of items. The
closeness scale had eight items, a= .75 and the conflict scale had 10 items, a= .89. Because
of a very low alpha, a= .41, the 4-item dependency scale was dropped from the analyses.
From the closeness scale, we extracted four items, which seemed to reflect security and
closeness on the part of the child and were reminiscent of secure attachment-related
behaviours, and computed a secure behaviour scale. The items were ‘‘if upset, this child will
seek comfort with me’’, ‘‘this child spontaneously shares information about him/herself’’, ‘‘
it is easy to be in tune with what this child feels’’, and ‘‘this child openly shares his/her
feelings and experiences with me’’, a= .69.
Peer competence. Peer competence was assessed with the Social Competence Inventory (SCI;
Rydell et al., 1997). A 5-step response format was used with scale endpoints stated for each
item (1= ‘‘doesn’t apply at all’’; 5 = ‘‘applies very well to my child’’), and scale scores were
computed as the mean of items. The prosocial orientation scale captures the ability to
actively engage in positive peer interactions (e.g., ‘‘usually shares/lends his/her belongings’’,
‘‘often able to find solutions or compromises when involved in a conflict’’). Three items
were added to the original social initiative scale, which taps the ability to initiate and take
part in social interactions (e.g., ‘‘suggests activities and games to play’’, ‘‘leader in play
activities’’). Two items capturing competence with adults were excluded, resulting in a 16-
item prosocial orientation measure, a= .92, and a 9-item social initiative measure, a= .83.
High scores indicate high degrees of prosocial orientation and social initiative, respectively.
Verbal ability. As a measure of the child’s verbal ability, a Swedish translation of the Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT; Dunn & Dunn, 1981) was used as a control variable.
There are no Swedish norms, so the child’s raw score, reflecting his/her ceiling, was used.
Statistical analyses
The SAS package was used. Relations between attachment representations, shyness and
outcome variables were tested in an overall two-way GLM MANOVA and in two-way
GLM-ANCOVAs controlling for sex and verbal ability. Planned comparisons between each
of the insecure attachment representation groups and the group with secure attachment
representations were conducted to test differences in outcome variables. Regression analyses
were used to test interaction effects of shyness, using the continuous measure, and
attachment representation security. w2 tests, t-tests, one-way GLM ANOVAs and Pearson
product moment correlations were used to test sex differences and relations between verbal
ability and other variables.
Results
The attachment classification resulted in 60 (54%) children with secure representations, 32
(29%) children with avoidant representations, and 20 (18%) children with bizarre-
ambivalent representations. The distribution of attachment representations did not differ,
w2 = .25, ns, from the distribution for those children (n=33) assessed during the lab
procedure but not included in the present data set, nor was there a difference in shyness, t
(149) = .09. The children with different kinds of attachment representations did not differ in
Predictors of children’s preschool relationships 195
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 01:
45 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
shyness, F (2, 109) = 1.47, ns, or in verbal ability, F (2, 109)= 2.14, ns, but shyness was
negatively related to verbal ability, r (112) = 7 .20, p5 .05. Verbal ability was unrelated to
all other variables, all r 5 .10, ns. The shyness scale was used to form shyness groups. The
shy group comprised children scoring in the upper third of the shyness scale distribution in
the sample of 151 children and the remaining children comprised the non-shy group.
As seen in Table I, there were a few sex differences in the sample. There was a trend
towards a significant sex by attachment representation interaction, such that more girls than
boys had secure representations, w2 = 4.66. The difference was due to more boys having
avoidant representations while the proportion of girls and boys with bizarre/ambivalent
representations was rather similar. There was no sex difference in shyness score or in terms
of classification into shyness groups. Girls were more prosocial in preschool and showed
somewhat more secure behaviour towards the teacher than did boys, while boys had
somewhat higher verbal ability than did girls.
As seen in Table I, the preschool teachers described the children’s relationship with them
as generally close, secure, and non-conflictual, and the children as competent in the
preschool setting. Regarding relations between preschool variables, there were no relations
between closeness or its subscale secure behaviour and conflict, r 5 .10, ns. Prosocial
orientation and social initiative with peers were modestly related, r= .40, p5 .001, and both
these variables were positively related to closeness and secure behaviour, r= .34 to r= .44,
p5 .01. Prosocial orientation was negatively related to conflicts, r= 7 .56, p5 .001,
whereas social initiative was completely unrelated to this variable, r= 7 .00.
Attachment representations and shyness as predictors of social relationships in preschool
The overall MANOVA revealed significant main effects of attachment representation
category F (10, 222) = 1.92, p5 .05, and of shyness, F (5, 111) = 3.47, p5 .01, on the three
teacher relationship variables and the two peer competence variables. The overall interaction
Table I. Descriptive data for all variables (n=112).
PossibleBoys Girls
p for boy/girl
Variable range M(SD) Freq (%) M(SD) Freq (%) difference
Attachment representations 5 .10
Secure 24 (47) 36 (60)
Avoidant 20 (38) 12 (20)
Bizarre/ambivalent 8 (15) 12 (20)
Shyness a 70.01 (.87) 0.02 (.81) ns
Groups: Shy 35 (67) 38 (.63) ns
Non-shy 17 (33) 22 (.37)
Child – teacher relationship
Closeness 1 – 5 3.99 (.71) 4.19 (.66) ns
Secure behaviour 1 – 5 3.99 (.88) 4.26 (.75) 5 .10
Conflicts 1 – 5 1.49 (.65) 1.35 (.69) ns
Peer competence
Prosocial orientation 1 – 5 3.42 (.82) 3.95 (.81) 5 .001
Social initiative 1 – 5 3.97 (.69) 3.82 (.90) ns
Peabody score 76.3 (12.9) 81.4 (15.4) 5 .10
a standardized values
196 A.-M. Rydell et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 01:
45 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
effect was not significant, F (10, 222)= 1.26, ns. Consequently, we performed two-way
GLM ANOVAs in order to explore these relationships in detail. Sex and verbal ability were
included as covariates in all analyses.
The child-teacher relationship. There were main effects of type of attachment representation
on all three child – teacher relationship scales. The planned comparisons (see Table II, top)
showed that both groups with insecure representations had lower closeness and secure
behaviour scores, but the difference in closeness reached significance only for the children
with avoidant representations. Children with bizarre-ambivalent representations tended to
behave less securely with the teacher than did children with secure representations. Children
with insecure-avoidant representations also had more conflicts with teachers than did
children with secure representations. There were also main effects of shyness on secure
behaviour and on conflicts (see Table III, top). Shy children showed less secure behaviours
with teachers than did non-shy children, and they also had fewer conflicts. There were no
interaction effects of type of attachment representations and shyness on any aspect of the
child-teacher relationship, t 5 1.20, ns. However, to pursue the issue of interaction effects
further, we performed two regression analyses, one including children with insecure/
avoidant representations and children with secure representations, and one including
children with insecure bizarre/ambivalent representations and children with secure
representations on each of the three child-teacher relationship scales. In these analyses we
used the continuous shyness scale, type of attachment representations, and an interaction
term as predictors. In no case was the interaction significant, b 5 .10.
Peer competence. As seen at the bottom of Table II, the planned contrasts revealed that
children with both types of insecure attachment representations differed from the group with
secure representations in peer competence, although the pattern of associations was
somewhat different. Children with avoidant representations had significantly lower prosocial
orientation scores, and children with bizarre/ambivalent representations had significantly
lower social initiative scores. There was also a close to significant main effect of shyness on
one peer competence aspect. In line with predictions, shy children were somewhat lower in
social initiative than were non-shy children (see Table III, bottom), while there was no
difference in prosocial orientation. As above, there were no significant interaction effects in
the ANOVAs, t 5 .99. However, in the regression analyses using the continuous shyness
measure and including the two groups with insecure representations in separate analyses,
Table II. Least square means and standard error of child – teacher relationship and peer competence and planned
comparisons of children with secure (S, n=60), children with insecure-avoidant (Ins/A, n=32) and children with
insecure-bizarre/ambivalent attachment representations (Ins/BA, n=20).
S Ins/A Ins/BA S 4 Ins/A S 4 Ins/BA
Variable M(SE) M(SE) M(SE) t t
Child – teacher relationship
Closeness 4.20 (.10) 3.87 (.12) 3.94 (.15) 2.10** 1.44
Secure behaviour 4.29 (.11) 3.81 (.14) 3.94 (.18) 2.64*** 1.69*
Conflicts 1.27 (.10) 1.61 (.12) 1.31 (.15) 2.16** 0.22
Peer competence
Prosocial orientation 3.87 (.12) 3.40 (.15) 3.71 (.19) 2.44** 0.72
Social initiative 4.03 (.11) 3.82 (.14) 3.52 (.18) 1.13 2.43**
* p5 .10 **p5 .05 ***p5 .01
Predictors of children’s preschool relationships 197
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 01:
45 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
the interaction effect on social initiative of the secure representations group versus the
insecure avoidant representations group and shyness was marginally significant, b= 7 .23,
p5 .10. The interaction indicated that children with avoidant representations who were
high in shyness had the lowest social initiative scores.
Discussion
The present study confirmed predictions from theory and prior research that representations
of attachment to parents and shyness predict children’s interpersonal relationships in
preschool. Children with insecure representations had less positive teacher relationships and
showed less peer competence than did children with secure representations. Shy children
had less secure teacher relationships and somewhat lower peer competence in terms of social
initiative compared to non-shy children, but they also had less teacher conflicts. There was
only one marginally significant effect of the interaction between the type of attachment
representations and shyness.
Attachment representations and social relationships in preschool
First, the codings of attachment representations need to be commented on. Story stem
measures presumably tap aspects of the child’s internal working models of the relationship
with parents, and thus reflect the child’s attachment organization. Separation-reunion
stories, which were given most weight in the classifications, have been validated in relations to
behavioural assessments of attachment (Bretherton et al., 1990; Solomon et al., 1995), and
the coding scheme we adopted has shown relations to children’s representations of self and to
other representational measures (see Methods). Thus, we feel there is sufficient ground to
consider the children’s responses as reflections of their thinking about attachment themes.
The separation and reunion stories were added to the doll procedure we used. For these
two stories we developed a coding system that relied heavily on Verschueren and Marcoen
(1994). Our adaptation of this coding system has not been validated. However, psychometric
data give credibility to the coding system as a reliable instrument. Intercoder agreement was
good. Further, using this new system, we obtained a distribution of attachment
representation categories (54% with secure representations, 29% with avoidant, and 18%
with bizarre-ambivalent representations) that is similar to those obtained earlier. Verschueren
and Marcoen (1999) and Verschueren and coworkers (1996) found 44 – 53% children with
Table III. Least square means and standard error of child – teacher relationship and peer competence of non-shy
(n=73) and shy children (n=39).
Non-shy children Shy children
Variable M(SE) M(SE) t
Child – teacher relationship
Closeness 4.11 (.10) 3.90 (.11) 1.45
Secure behaviour 4.24 (.10) 3.79 (.13) 2.68***
Conflicts 1.54 (.09) 1.25 (.11) 2.01**
Peer competence
Prosocial orientation 3.61 (.11) 3.71 (.14) 0.55
Social initiative 3.93 (.11) 3.65 (.14) 1.67*
* p5 .10 **p5 .05 ***p5 .01
198 A.-M. Rydell et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 01:
45 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
secure, 20 – 30% children with avoidant, and 26 – 29% children with bizarre-ambivalent
representations. Neither is the sex difference found here (more boys with insecure/avoidant
representations) unique. Verschueren and coworkers (1996) also reported more boys with
insecure representations, and more boys than girls with avoidant representations have been
found in middle childhood (Granot & Mayseless, 2001). Sex differences are not found in
infant attachment (e.g., Bohlin, Hagekull, et al., 2000); perhaps boys are at a disadvantage
when verbal assessments of representations are used, especially when doll play is involved.
However, our analyses of group differences controlled for sex and for verbal ability, and thus
the associations found are not artefacts of the proportion of boys and girls with different types
of attachment representations, nor are they an effect of verbal ability.
Children with avoidant representations had more non-close, conflictual teacher relation-
ships and also low levels of prosocial orientation in preschool, compared with children with
secure representations. These results confirm those of other studies in that children who
were avoidant as infants have been shown to have more negative relationships with teachers,
and to be unlikely to turn to teachers for support (Sroufe, 1983, 1989; Vondra et al., 1999).
Avoidant children have also been found to be low in social participation and initiative (e.g.
Bohlin, Hagekull, et al., 2000; Sroufe, 1983; Suess et al., 1992), but particularly
characteristic have been low levels of empathy, prosocial behaviour and cooperation (Suess
et al., 1992; Vondra et al., 1999). In a preschool sample, children with avoidant
representations of the relationship with mother (but not children with avoidant
representations of the relationship with father) had low peer competence using a measure
including prosocial behaviour, but they had not higher levels of withdrawn behaviour
(Verschueren & Marcoen, 1999). Thus, avoidant attachment and avoidant attachment
representations in children have been related to a low social profile as well as to somewhat
antisocial relations and to aggression (e.g., Renken, Egeland, Marvinney, Mangelsdorf, &
Sroufe, 1989) a complicated pattern that parallels reports of both internalizing and
externalizing problem behaviours among children with avoidant representations (Goldberg,
Gotowiec, & Simmons, 1995; Granot & Mayseless, 2001).
Children with bizarre-ambivalent attachment representations did not have more teacher
conflicts or lower levels of prosocial orientation, but bizarre-ambivalent representations were
marginally associated with low levels of secure behaviour with teachers, and significantly
associated with low initiative with peers. Children with bizarre-ambivalent representations
with regard to father but not to mother were rated high in withdrawn/anxious behaviour and
low in a composite measure of peer competence in another study on preschool children
(Verschueren & Marcoen, 1999). Intriguingly, this kind of insecure attachment representa-
tions, which is characterized by hostile, violent, and chaotic interactions mixed with
harmonious episodes, has associations with outcomes also found for children with resistant/
ambivalent attachment assessed with behavioural methods. According to the theory,
resistant-ambivalent attachment could lead to withdrawal and other internalizing behaviours
(e.g., Renken et al., 1989), and resistant-ambivalent infants have been reported to show a
mixture of moodiness, unhappiness, clingy behaviour, and anger/frustration (e.g., Cassidy &
Berlin, 1994; Sroufe, 1983). Compared to secure children, they have been rated less
prosocial but above all lower in social initiative/participation and as socially inept in middle
childhood (Bohlin, Hagekull, et al., 2000; LaFreniere & Sroufe, 1985). In concurrent
assessments in middle childhood, children with ambivalent representations have also been
found to be socially less competent, in measures that included participation and leadership,
than were children with secure representations (Granot & Mayseless, 2001). Speculatively,
children with bizarre-ambivalent representations and the resistant-ambivalent attachment
group, although topographically not particularly similar, may have anxiety, poor behavioural
Predictors of children’s preschool relationships 199
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 01:
45 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
organization and emotional instability in common, making these children prone to
withdrawal. These are merely speculations, but they do point to the importance of trying
to understand the theoretical meaning of new methods to study attachment and attachment
representations in relation to more well-researched attachment categories.
Interestingly, the new subscale from the STRS (see Measurement), designed to capture
attachment-like behaviours of a child who is very confident with the teacher, proved the
most sensitive with respect to discriminating between children with insecure and secure
attachment representations. This result fits well with data that link attachment security more
clearly to child friendships, relationships that are characterized by intimacy and trust, than to
popularity and peer status (Schneider et al., 2001). Perhaps working models of early
relationships will prove more relevant to explaining intimate personal bonds than to
explaining less emotionally charged social relations.
In summary, our results regarding representations of attachment to parents and preschool
relationships support the claim of attachment theory that internal representations of
relationships with primary care givers may set the stage for relationships in other contexts.
The present study also gives some support to speculations (e.g., Cohn, 1990) that avoidant
children are most at risk for poor relationships. The children with avoidant representations
had a wider range of non-optimal teacher relationships and competence deficits than did
children with bizarre-ambivalent representations, and these results are in line with findings
from middle childhood that peer rejection was more frequent among children with avoidant
than with ambivalent representations (Granot & Mayseless, 2001). Our data as well as
results from some prior studies (e.g., Suess et al., 1992; Vondra et al., 1999) suggest that
avoidant attachment may be most strongly associated with conflicts and weak propensities
for prosocial behaviour, while ambivalent-bizarre (and ambivalent-resistant) attachment and
attachment representations may be mainly associated with withdrawal and low initiative.
However, one shortcoming of the present study is that the coding system we used does not
include disorganized representations. The above speculations concerning relations from
specific types of insecurity to specific social competence deficits need to be studied in
designs allowing the coding of disorganized representations, especially since there has often
been cross-classification of avoidant and disorganized infants (Lyons-Ruth, Easterbrooks, &
Davidson Cibelli, 1997). It may also be mentioned that George and Solomon (2000)
consider ‘‘don’t know’’ answers, which in the coding system presently used indicate
avoidant representations, as signs of mental constriction typical of disorganized attachment
representations. Separating out children with disorganized representations would probably
further clarify the picture of how attachment representations and social relationships are
connected.
Shyness and social relationships in preschool
Shy children showed somewhat less social initiative with peers than did non-shy children,
again (e.g., Bohlin, Bengtsgard, et al., 2000; Rubin, 1993) pointing to shy children’s lower
involvement with peers. Shy children also had less intimate and close relationships with
teachers. This is a new finding, since shy children’s teacher relationships have not been
studied before, and demonstrates that these children’s low-keyed social style is not
confined to relationships with peers. Because of the low consistency of our version of the
dependency scale (one item was missing), we did not include dependency in our analyses,
thus a relationship between shyness and dependency, which could be expected (e.g., Birch
& Ladd, 1998; Ladd & Burgess, 1999), remains to be tested. A positive result was that shy
children had less conflictual relationships with teachers, thus confirming suggestions (e.g.,
200 A.-M. Rydell et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 01:
45 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Kagan, 1994) that an inhibited disposition may work as a protective factor against
aggression and conflicts. In sum, shy children seemed to show lower social involvement in
the preschool context than did non-shy children. It should be pointed out that this can not
be understood as a warm-up effect in a new environment, since the ratings were made at
the end of the school year, when the children had acquired at least 7 – 8 months’
experience with peers and teacher. Rather, the effects indicate that shy children may, as
proposed by Rubin (1993), enter a circle of low involvement that could be self-perpetual.
In these analyses, we used categorical data, as advocated by Kagan (1994). This policy
proved fruitful, and our results1 support findings from other studies (e.g., Stevenson-
Hinde & Glover, 1996) that comparing extremely shy children with non-shy children can
reveal effects of shyness that might not be seen in analyses that build on assumptions of a
linear relationship.
One issue was whether shyness and attachment representations interacted in affecting
preschool functioning. There was no interaction effect in the overall MANOVA, but one
marginally significant effect in the expected direction appeared in the regression analyses
using a continuous shyness measure. Shy children with avoidant attachment representations
had the lowest levels of social initiative with peers, which is in line with results form the
recent Bohlin and coworkers study (2005) of stronger effects of attachment on peer
competence for children who were inhibited in infancy. Still, in the present study,
attachment representations and shyness mainly came forward as two independently working
factors affecting children’s interpersonal relationships.
Conclusions
The quality of a child’s attachment representations and shyness stand out as two largely
independent pathways to children’s social relationships in preschool. First, we may
conclude that the same predictors appear relevant for child – teacher relationships as have
previously been identified in peer relation’s research. Second, there seem to be
differences in the patterns of associations between types of insecure attachment
representations and types of relationship problems, an issue that should be pursued
further. Lastly, we found only a marginal interaction between shyness and the quality of
attachment representations, but the effect of the interplay of temperament and
relationship experiences on social functioning should certainly remain on the agenda
for developmental researchers.
Endnote
1 Relations between shyness and the five outcome variables were also tested using the continuous shyness measure.
Controlling for verbal ability, one association was marginally significant, that between shyness and secure
behaviour with teacher, r= 7 18, p5 .10.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a grant from the Axel and Margret Ax:son Johnson
Foundation and by the Swedish Mayflower Charitable Foundation for Children
References
Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlsbaum.
Predictors of children’s preschool relationships 201
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 01:
45 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Asher, S. R., Parkhurst, J. T., Hymel, S., & Williams, G. (1990). Peer rejection and loneliness in childhood. In S. R.
Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood. Cambridge studies in social & emotional development
(pp. 253 – 273). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher – child relationship and children’s early school adjustment. Journal
of School Psychology, 35, 61 – 79.
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1998). Children’s interpersonal behaviours and the teacher – child relationship.
Developmental Psychology, 34, 934 – 946.
Bohlin, G., Bengtsgard, K., & Andersson, K. (2000). Social inhibition and overfriendliness as related to
socioemotional functioning in 7 and 8 year old children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 414 – 423.
Bohlin, G., Hagekull, B., & Andersson, K. (2003). Behavioral inhibition as a precursor of peer social competence in
early school age: The interplay with attachment and non-parental care. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51, 1 – 19.
Bohlin, G., Hagekull, B., & Rydell, A.-M. (2000). Attachment and social functioning: A longitudinal study from
infancy to middle childhood. Social Development, 9, 24 – 39.
Bretherton, I., Ridgeway, D., & Cassidy, J. (1990). Assessing internal working models of attachment relationships:
An attachment story completion task for 3-year olds. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings
(Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research and intervention (pp. 273 – 308). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Buss, A., & Plomin, R. (1984). A temperament theory of personality development. New York: Wiley.
Cassidy, J. (1988). Child –mother attachment and self in six-year-olds. Child Development, 59, 121 – 134.
Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. (1994). The insecure/ambivalent pattern of attachment: Theory and research. Child
Development, 65, 971 – 991.
Cohn, D. A. (1990). Child –mother attachment of six-year-olds and social competence at school. Child
Development, 61, 152 – 162.
DeMulder, E. K., Denham, S., Schmidt, M., & Mitchell, J. (2000). Q-sort assessment of attachment security
during the preschool years: Links from home to school. Developmental Psychology, 36, 274 – 282.
Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1997). Reactive and effortful processes in the organization of temperament.
Development and Psychopathology, 9, 633 – 652.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody picture vocabulary test—revised. Manual for forms L and M. Circle
Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
Elicker, J., Egeland, M., & Sroufe, L. A. (1992). Predicting peer competence and peer relationships in childhood
from early parent – child relationships. In R. Parke & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Family and peer relationships: Modes of
linkage (pp. 77 – 106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fordham, K., & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1999). Shyness, friendship quality and adjustment during middle childhood.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 757 – 768.
Fox, N. A., & Calkins, S. D. (1993). Pathways to aggression and social withdrawal: Interactions among
temperament, attachment and regulation. In H. K. Rubin & J. B. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition
and shyness in childhood (pp. 81 – 99). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
George, C., & Solomon, J. (2000). Six-year attachment doll play classification system. Unpublished classification
manual, Mills College, Oakland, CA.
Goldberg, S., Gotowiec, A., & Simmons, R.J. (1995). Infant –mother attachment and behaviour problems in
healthy and chronically ill preschoolers. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 267 – 282.
Goossens, F. A., & van IJzendorn, M. H. (1990). Quality of infants’ attachments to professional caregivers: Relation
to infant – parent attachment and day-care characteristics. Child Development, 61, 832 – 837.
Granot, D., & Mayseless, O. (2001). Attachment security and adjustment to school in middle childhood.
International Journal of Behavioural Development, 25, 530 – 541.
Hamilton, C. E., & Howes, C. (1992). A comparison of young children’s relationships with mothers and teachers.
In R.C. Pianta (Ed.), Beyond the parent: The role of other adults in children’s lives. New Directions for Child
Development, 57 (pp. 41 – 59). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher – child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school
outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625 – 638.
Howes, C. (2000). Socio-emotional classroom climate in child care, child – teacher relationships and children’s
second grade peer relations. Social Development, 9, 191 – 204.
Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1992). Children’s relationships with child care teachers: Stability and concordance
with parental attachment. Child Development, 63, 867 – 878.
Howes, C., Hamilton, C. E., & Matheson, C. (1994). Children’s relationships with peers: Differential associations
with aspects of the teacher – child relationship. Child Development, 65, 253 – 263.
Howes, C., Matheson, C. C., & Hamilton, C. (1994). Maternal, teacher and child care history correlates of
children’s relationships with peers. Child Development, 65, 264 – 273.
202 A.-M. Rydell et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 01:
45 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Howes, C., Phillipsen, L. C., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (2000). The consistency of perceived teacher – child
relationships between preschool and kindergarten. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 113 – 132.
Howes, C., & Ritchie, S. (1999). Attachment organizations in children with difficult life circumstances. Development
and Psychopathology, 11, 251 – 268.
Kagan, J. (1994). Galen’s prophecy: Temperament in human nature. New York: Basic Books.
Kagan, J., Reznick, J. S., & Gibbons, J. (1989). Inhibited and uninhibited types of children. Child Development, 60,
838 – 845.
Kerr, M., Tremblay, R. E., Pagani, L., & Vitaro, F. (1997). Boys’ behavioural inhibition and the risk of later
delinquency. Archives of General Psychiatry, 54, 809 – 816.
Klein, T., Plunkett, J. W., & Meisels, S. J. (1988). Training guide and scoring procedures for the stranger sociability
procedure. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan.
Kochanska, G. (1995). Children’s temperament, mothers’ discipline, and security of attachment: Multiple
pathways to emerging internalization. Child Development, 66, 597 – 615.
Ladd, G. W., & Burgess, K. B. (1999). Charting the relationship trajectories of aggressive, withdrawn, and
aggressive/withdrawn children during early grade school. Child Development, 70, 910 – 929.
Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. (1997). Classroom peer acceptance, friendship and victimization:
Distinct relational systems that contribute uniquely to children’s school adjustment? Child Development, 68,
1181 – 1189.
LaFreniere, P. J., & Sroufe, L. A. (1985). Profiles of peer competence in the preschool: Interrelations between
measures, influences of social ecology, and relation to attachment history. Developmental Psychology, 21, 56 – 69.
Lyons-Ruth, K., Easterbrooks, M. A., & Davidson Cibelli, C. (1997). Infant attachment strategies, infant mental
lag, and maternal depressive symptoms: Predictors of internalizing and externalizing problems at age 7.
Developmental Psychology, 33, 681 – 692.
Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1992). Maltreated children’s reports of relatedness to their teachers. In R. C. Pianta
(Ed.), Beyond the parent: The role of other adults in children’s lives. New Directions for Child Development, 57
(pp. 81 – 107). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Main, M., & Cassidy, J. (1987). Assessment of child – parent attachment at six years of age. Unpublished scoring
manual, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkley.
Mitchell-Copeland, J., Denham, S. A., & DeMulder, E. K. (1997). Q-sort assessment of child – teacher attachment
relationships and social competence in preschool. Early Education and Development, 8, 27 – 39.
Nachmias, M., Gunnar, M., Mangelsdorf, S., Hornik Parritz, R., & Buss, K. (1996). Behavioural inhibition and
stress reactivity: The moderating role of attachment security. Child Development, 67, 508 – 522.
Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children’s peer relations: A meta-analytic review of
popular, rejected, neglected, controversial and average social status. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99 – 128.
Page, T., & Bretherton, I. (2001). Mother – and father – child attachment themes in the story completions of
preschoolers from post-divorce families: Do they predict relationships with peers and teachers? Attachment and
Human Development, 3, 1 – 29.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk?
Psychological Bulletin, 102, 375 – 389.
Phillipsen, L. C., Bridges, S. K., McLemore, T. G., & Saponaro, L. A. (1999). Perceptions of social behaviour and
peer acceptance in kindergarten. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 14, 68 – 77.
Pianta, R. C. (1996). Manual and scoring guide for the Student –Teacher Relationship Scale. Charlottesville: University
of Virginia.
Pianta, R. C. (1997). Adult – child relationship processes and early schooling. Early Education and Development, 8,
11 – 26.
Pianta, R. C., & Nimetz, S. L. (1991). Relationships between children and teachers: Associations with classroom
and home behaviour. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 12, 379 – 393.
Pianta, R. C., Nimetz, S. L., & Bennett, E. (1997). Mother – child relationships, teacher-child relationships and
school outcomes in preschool and kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 263 – 280.
Pianta, R. C., & Steinberg, M. S. (1992). Teacher – child relationships and the process of adjusting to school. In R.
C. Pianta (Ed.), Beyond the parent: The Role of other adults in children’s lives. New Directions for Child Development,
57 (pp. 61 – 80). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Pianta, R. C., Steinberg, M. S., & Rollins, B. (1995). The first two years of school: Teacher – child relationships and
deflections in children’s classroom adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 295 – 312.
Plunkett, J. W., Klein, T., & Meisels, S. J. (1988). The relationship of preterm infant –mother attachment to
stranger sociability at 3 years. Infant Behaviour and Development, 11, 83 – 96.
Renken, B., Egeland, B., Marvinney, D., Mangelsdorf, S., & Sroufe, L. A. (1989). Early childhood antecedents of
aggression and passive-withdrawal in early elementary school. Journal of Personality, 57, 257 – 281.
Predictors of children’s preschool relationships 203
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 01:
45 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Reznick, J. S., Kagan, J., Snidman, N., Gersten, M., Baak, K., & Rosenberg, A. (1986). Inhibited and uninhibited
children: A follow-up study. Child Development, 57, 660 – 680.
Rubin, K. H. (1993). The Waterloo longitudinal project: Correlates and consequences of withdrawal from
childhood to adolescence. In H. K. Rubin & J. B. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition and shyness in
childhood (pp. 291 – 310). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rydell, A.-M., Hagekull, B., & Bohlin, G. (1997). Measurement of two social competence aspects in middle
childhood. Developmental Psychology, 33, 824 – 833.
Schneider, B. H., Atkinson, L., & Tardif, C. (2001). Child – parent attachment and children’s peer relations: A
quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 37, 86 – 100.
Slough, N. M., Goyette, M., & Greenberg, M. T. (1988). Scoring indices for the Seattle version of the Separation
Anxiety Test. University of Washington.
Solomon, J., George, C., & de Jong, A. (1995). Children classified as controlling at age six: Evidence of
disorganized representational strategies and aggression at home and school. Development and Psychopathology, 7,
447 – 463.
Sroufe, L. A. (1983). Infant – caregiver attachment and patterns of adaptation in preschool: The roots of
maladaptation and competence. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Minnesota Symposium in Child Psychology, 16, 41 – 81.
Sroufe, L. A. (1989). Relationships, self, and individual adaptation. In A. J. Sameroff & R. N. Emde (Eds.),
Relationship disturbances in early childhood. A developmental approach (pp. 70 – 93). New York: Basic Books.
Sroufe, L. A., Fox, N. E., & Pancake, V. R. (1983). Attachment and dependency in developmental perspective.
Child Development, 54, 1615 – 1627.
Stevenson-Hinde, J., & Glover, A. (1996). Shy girls and boys: A new look. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
37, 181 – 187.
Stevenson-Hinde, J., & Marshall, P. J. (1999). Behavioural inhibition, heart period and sinus arrhythmia: An
attachment perspective. Child Development, 70, 805 – 816.
Suess, G. J., Grossman, K. E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1992). Effects of infant attachment to mother and father on quality
of adaptation in preschool: From dyadic to individual organization of self. International Journal of Behavioural
Development, 15, 43 – 65.
Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics, (3rd ed.). NY: HarperCollins College
Publishers.
Turner, P. (1991). Relations between attachment, gender, and behaviour with peers in preschool. Child
Development, 62, 1475 – 1488.
Turner, P. (1993). Attachment to mother and behaviour with adults in preschool. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 11, 75 – 89.
Vaughn, B. E., & Bost, K. K. (1999). Attachment and temperament. Redundant independent or interacting
influences on interpersonal adaptation and personality development? In J. Cassidy and P. R. Shaver (Eds.),
Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications (pp. 198 – 225). New York: Guilford.
Verschueren, K., & Marcoen, A. (1994). Test med gehechtheids verhalen. classificatiesystem. Aanpassing van der Doll
Stories Completion Task van Cassidy (1986) voor gebruik bih 4.5 tot 6-jarigen. Center for Developmental
Psychology, University of Louvain.
Verschueren, K., & Marcoen, A. (1996, August). Correlates of the overall attachment representation in five-year-
olds. In U. Ziegenhain & T. Jacobsen (Chair), Assessing and validating the inner working models of attachment in
young school children. Symposium conducted at the XIVth Biennial ISSBD Conference, Quebec City, Canada.
Verschueren, K., & Marcoen, A. (1999). Representation of self and socio-emotional competence in kindergartners:
Differential and combined effects of attachment to mother and to father. Child Development, 70, 183 – 201.
Verschueren, K., Marcoen, A., & Schoefs, V. (1996). The internal working model of the self, attachment and
competence in five-year olds. Child Development, 67, 2493 – 2511.
Vondra, J. I., Shaw, D. S., Swearingen, L., Cohen, M., & Owens, E. B. (1999). Early relationship quality from
home to school: A longitudinal study. Early Education and Development, 10, 163 – 190.
Wangby, M., Bergman, L. R., & Magnusson, D. (1999). Development of adjustment problems in girls: What
syndromes emerge? Child Development, 70, 678 – 699.
204 A.-M. Rydell et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 01:
45 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014