Copyrighted Material. For use only by 20021. Reproduction prohibited.

Usage subject to PEP terms & conditions (see terms.pep-web.org).

JicaP voi. 2, N ~ 4,2002

.

ATTACHMENTREPRESENTATIONS IN SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN:

THE EARLYDEVELOPMENT OF THE CHILD ATTACHMENT INTERVIEW (CAI)
Mary Target, Ph. D., Yael Shmueli-Goetz, Ph. D., Peter Fonagy, Ph. D.

INTRODUCTION
The development of attachment measures began with the assessment of
infant behavior, in the Strange Situation Paradigm. This procedure and the
establishment of its validity led to the “move to the level of representations”
(Ma“in et al. 1985), in the assessment of attachment patterns later in devel-
opment. The greatest achievement here was the Adult Attachment Interview
(AAI; George et al. 1985, Main 1995). The measure described in this chap-
ter has drawn on both the infant and the adult paradigms and coding strate-
gies, in an effort to produce an assessment of attachment in the middle
school years.
Measures designed to assess attachment organization in infancy and
adulthood have been widely applied and thus well established; the study of
attachment in early and middle childhood has proven more problematic.
The measurement of attachment in infancy has been rightly restricted to
the behavioral level, while in adulthood it has been measured through lan-
guage and representations. As Ainsworth (1990) argued, the chief concern
in using a separation-reunion procedure comparable to the Strange Situa-
tion beyond infancy is that with increasing age, the degree of stress induced
decreases as the child is gradually exposed to everyday separations of greater
length.
In parallel, a plethora of instruments designed to elicit mental represen-
tations of attachment in early and middle childhood have been developed,
all sharing the assumption that inferred mental representations reflect
children’s attachment organization. Semi-projective measures eliciting men-
tal representations through drawings (Separation Anxiety Test SAT; Shouldice
and Stevenson-Hinde 1992, Slough and Greenberg 1990), family photos and
drawings (Main et al. 1985), story stems (Bretherton et al. 1990), and doll
91
 Copyrighted Material. For use only by 20021. Reproduction prohibited. Usage subject to PEP terms & conditions (see terms.pep-web.org).

Mary Target, Yael Shrnueli-Goetz, and Peter Fonaa

play (Solomon et al. 1995) have also been employed with mixed results. While
these studies demonstrated associations between classifications derived behav-
iorally and representationally, the need to replicate such findings (Main 1995),
low test-retest reliability (Wright et al. 1995), and questions of validity (Bow-
ers et al. 1994) highlight the need for further work.
Hence we were interested in trying to develop age appropriate measures
for assessing how attachment patterns are manifested in middle childhood.
Hitherto, there has been an assumption that children would not respond
meaningfully when asked directly about attachment experiences. However,
Ammaniti and colleagues (1990, in press) have extensive experience in ad-
ministering a slightly modified version of the AAI protocol to early adoles-
cents and preadolescents, and the interview material is coded using the usual
AAI coding procedure. Similarly, Trowell (personal communication) has
used the AAI in an important London study of sexually abused preadoles-
cent girls, and found it acceptable. Adopting a representational approach,
most measures have derived attachment classifications based solely upon
an analysis of children’s verbal responses. However, nonverbal communi-
cation, not limited to separation-reunion behavior, may be a very useful
source of information in identifying distinct attachment patterns, and would
go some way toward integrating representational and behavioral approaches
to the study of attachment.
The Child Attachment Interview (CAI) was thus developed in an attempt
to complement existing attachment measures. Independent of the present
authors, Dante Cicchetti (personal communication) and his colleagues de-
veloped a similar protocol, and have been administering it for a period of
ten years, but without a coding system. The present paper reports the de-
velopment of our CAI protocol and coding and classification system and
presents the results of a pilot study conducted to establish the psychomet-
ric properties of the newly developed measure.

PARTICIPANTS
The sample comprised 2 independent groups, of 20 (Sample 1) and 28
(Sample 2). All were children without known mental health problems, of ages
7-13. Sample 1 was recruited from a predominantly middle class area and
Sample 2 from a low income group. Analyses showed no significant differ-
ences between these groups on age, gender, ethnicity, and parental status, and
the two samples are therefore combined for this paper. The age of children
92
 Copyrighted Material. For use only by 20021. Reproduction prohibited. Usage subject to PEP terms & conditions (see terms.pep-web.org).

REPRESENTATIONS IN SCHOOL-AGE
ATTACHMENT CHILDREN

ranged from 7 years and 2 months to 12 years and 6 months (M = 10.2;

SD = 1.2). The gender distribution was 25 girls (52 percent) and 23 boys
(48 percent) with all but 4 children being white. Children came from pre-
dominantly middle class (79.2 percent), 2-parent households (87.5 percent).

PROCEDURE

ADMINISTRATION
Two interviewers with experience in the administration of the interview
conducted the assessments. The CAI formed part of a larger battery of
measures including, among others, measures of expressive language and IQ,
administered over 1-2 sessions. The CAI was completed first and conducted
in a private room with interviewer and child sitting face to face. Before the
beginning of each assessment, the interviewer explained the nature of the
study and ensured that the child felt at ease and consented to take part.
The duration of the interview ranged from 20 minutes to 1 hour, and the
sessions were videotaped. For the 28 children in Sample 2, the AAI was
also administered to the mother, to examine predictive validity. All parents
were asked to complete the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach
and Edelbrock 1983). Following an interval of approximately 2 months,
children in Sample 2 were assessed again by the same interviewer, when
only the CAI was completed, for evaluation of test-retest reliability.

CODING
There were three independent judges familiar with current attachment assess-
ment methodologies, and involved in developing the current coding system.
The first (YSG), earned her Ph.D. co-developing the Child Attachment In-
terview and collecting, coding, and producing the first analyses of the child
attachment data described; the second and third judge, final year clinical
psychology trainees, each coded one sample. Coding was based on the video-
recorded interviews, to allow a behavioral as well as a linguistic analysis.

MEASURES

THE CAI PROTOCOL

The development of the interview protocol was conceptually based on the
Adult Attachment Interview (George et al. 1985), with several criteria in
93
 Copyrighted Material. For use only by 20021. Reproduction prohibited. Usage subject to PEP terms & conditions (see terms.pep-web.org).

Mary Target, Yael Shmueli-Goetz, and Peter Fonagy

mind. First, akin to the AAI, the CAI needed to activate the attachment
system so as to elicit attachment-related information. Second, while the
interview needed to be constructed so as to reveal structural variations in
presentation, it also needed to be flexible enough to help children with the
demands placed upon them, but without compromising validity. Third, in
contrast to the AAI, we decided that the CAI should focus on recent at-
tachment-related events and how the current relationships with each par-
ent were represented.
Guided by the above criteria, the questions comprising the interview were
initially taken from the Berkeley Autobiographical Interview (Main et al. 1985)
and the AAI, and adapted for use with children in the 7-12 years age range.
The version of the interview reported on below (a second version, extensively
modified following piloting) comprised 14 questions plus probes:

1. Tell me who is in your family (lives with you in your house).

2 . Tell me three words that describe yourself (examples).
3. Can you tell me three words that describe what it’s like to be with
your mom (examples)?
4. What happens when mom gets upset with you?
5. Can you tell me three words that describe what it’s like to be with
your dad (examples).
6 . What happens when dad gets upset with you?
7. Can you tell me about a time when you were upset and wanted help?
8. What happens when you’re ill?
9. What happens when you hurt yourself?
10. Has anyone close to you ever died?
11. Is there anyone that you cared about who isn’t around anymore?
12. Have you ever been away from your parents for the night or for
longer than a day?
13. Do your parents sometimes argue?
14. In what ways do you wandnot want to be like your m o d d a d ?

THE CAI CODINGAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

We adopted several principles in developing the CAI coding and classifica-
tion system. First, we would not assume that the existing AAI coding sys-
tem would be appropriate to the CAI. Second, we should assign attachment
classifications separately for mother and father, and assess whether there
94
 Copyrighted Material. For use only by 20021. Reproduction prohibited. Usage subject to PEP terms & conditions (see terms.pep-web.org).

REPRESENTATIONS IN SCHOOL-AGE
ATTACHMENT CHILDREN

were singular or multiple internal working models within this age range.
Third, we segmented the interview into descriptions of interactions with
parents, termed Relationship Episodes (REs). The concept of REs was in-
formed by Luborsky’s (Luborsky and Crits-Christoph 1990) Core Conflic-
tual Relationship Theme method, in which REs identified from psychothera-
peutic sessions were studied. Identifying REs revealed the richness of the
information elicited and highlighted the importance of not only the linguistic
content and form of the narrative, but also nonverbal communication as a
key source of information.
The majority of the scales aimed to assess the child’s overall current state
of mind with respect to attachment, a state of mind which is assumed to be
reflected in the narrative as a whole. However, three of the scales, namely
Preoccupied Anger, Idealization, and Dismissal, were rated separately for
mother and father and all ranged from 1, denoting a low score, to 9, de-
noting a high score.
Emotional Openness. The Emotional Openness scale was developed in
order t o assess the child’s ability t o express and label emotions, and to
ground them in descriptions of interactions with attachment figures. We were
influenced by Sroufe and Fleeson’s (1986) affect-regulation model, and stud-
ies that have identified emotional openness as an important aspect of chil-
dren’s attachment-related narratives and a marker of security of attachment
(Oppenheim 1997, Slough and Greenberg 1990, Wright et al. 1995).
Preoccupied Anger. The CAI Preoccupied Anger scale was developed as
an age-appropriate modified version of the Involved/Preoccupying Anger
scale of the AAI (Main and Goldwyn 1994). We found that it was vital to
underline the involving nature of the anger, and (in contrast to the AAI) to
include involving denigration or contempt, as well as anger itself.
Idealization. The CAI Idealization scale was also conceptually based
upon the AAI Idealization scale but was modified to reflect the responses
given by children. It aimed t o measure the extent to which the child at-
tempted to present an unsupported picture of an “ideal” parent.
Dismissal. This scale was used to assess active denial of attachment and
the presentation of parents and attachment experiences as unimportant.
Self-Organization. This scale attempted to capture the child’s internal
representation of self-efficacy, based on the presence of self-initiated and
constructive conflict resolutions (Cassidy 1988, Oppenheim 1997, Sroufe
et al. 1983).
95
 Copyrighted Material. For use only by 20021. Reproduction prohibited. Usage subject to PEP terms & conditions (see terms.pep-web.org).

Mary Target, Yael Shmueli-Goetz, and Peter Fonagy

Balance of PositivelNegative References to Attachment Figures. This

scale was based on the assumption that secure children would more readily
recognize and integrate positive and negative aspects of parental figures, thus
presenting a better integrated and more balanced description of attachment
figures.
Use of Examples. Children’s ability to provide relevant and elaborated
examples was also considered a possible marker of security of attachment,
as in the AAI where this is a key aspect of coherence.
Resolution of Conflicts. Children’s ability to describe constructive reso-
lutions to conflicts has been closely linked to attachment security (Oppenheim
1997) and was thus included in the CAI.
Overall Coherence. While no a priori assumptions were established
concerning the centrality of the coherence of transcript in determining the
child’s attachment classification, it was considered an important dimension.
The scale was rated on the basis of scores for “Idealization,” “Preoccupied
Anger,” “Dismissal,” and the “Use of Examples,” together with a consid-
eration of the overall qualities of consistency, development, and reflection.
Alongside the linguistic analysis, a simple behavioral analysis of children’s
responses to the interview situation and questions was included. Maintenance
of eye contact, changes in tone of voice, marked anxiety, changes of posture
in relation to the interviewer, and contradictions between verbal and non-
verbal expressions were considered when assessing emotional openness,
coherence, idealization, preoccupied anger, and so forth.
Attachment classifications with respect to mother and to father inde-
pendently were arrived at using an algorithm for combining the scale rat-
ings. For instance, to obtain a Secure classification, the child must have
been assigned a rating of approximately 5 or above on all CAI scales with
the exception of the Idealization, Dismissal, and Preoccupied Anger Scales
where a score of 3 or less was expected. In our first coding scheme, the
results of which are reported in the present paper, we further assigned a
level of security: SecureNery SecurelInsecureNery Insecure, with respect
to mother and father. Again, we specified algorithms for making this judg-
ment. (Since the analyses reported below, and others, we have developed
the classification scheme, incorporating qualitative differences within this
basic framework.)
A copy of the complete CAI Protocol and Coding and Classification can
be obtained from the first author.
96
 Copyrighted Material. For use only by 20021. Reproduction prohibited. Usage subject to PEP terms & conditions (see terms.pep-web.org).

REPRESENTATIONSIN SCHOOL-AGE
ATTACHMENT CHILDREN

RESULTS
The results are presented in four main sections. First, descriptive results re-
lating to the CAI scales, intra-correlations, and the internal consistency of
the coding and classification system are reported. In the second section, inter-
rater reliabilities for scales and main and subclassifications are presented. In
the third section, test-retest reliability over a 2-month period is presented,
followed by an examination of AAI-CAI concordance for a subsample.

DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS
Ratings on all CAI scales with the exception of Anger ranged from 1 to 8
or 9, suggesting that ratings were not restricted to a narrow band of low
or high scores. ( M ranged from 2.5 to 5.6; SD ranged from 1.4 to 2.0.)
Ratings on the Anger scale for both mother and father ranged from 1 to
4.5 ( M = 1.2, SD = 0.6), and the modal rating was 1 (no preoccupied anger),
showing a much narrower use of the scale.

CORRELATIONS BETWEENCAI SCALES

In order to examine the relationship between ratings on the 9 CAI scales,

correlations were computed. Positive correlations ranged from rf = .039
to 3 8 4 and negative correlations ranged from rs = .-0.39 to -.767 (see
Table 1), with all correlations in the theoretically expected directions.

INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF CAI SCALES

Internal consistency between the 9 CAI scales was calculated, and found to
be very high: Cronbach’s alpha of .912 for mother and .898 for father.

INTER-RATER RELIABILITY FOR CAI SCALES

Inter-rater reliability was computed between YSG who rated all 48 interviews
and AD (n = 20), and TP (n = 28). As shown in Table 2, Spearman’s corre-
lations ranged from .670 to .925 and were all highly significant. Percent of
agreement within 1 scale-point ranged from 83 percent to 98 percent.

INTER-RATERRELIABILITY FOR CAI MAINCLASSIFICATIONS

Main classifications, namely, Secure or Insecure with respect to mother and
father respectively, were assigned. Agreement was very high (95.8 percent,
k = .906, p < .001 with respect to mother; 97.9 percent, k = .955, p < .001
with respect to father).
97
Copyrighted Material. For use only by 20021. Reproduction prohibited. Usage subject to PEP terms & conditions (see terms.pep-web.org).

Table 1. Correlations of CAI scales using Spearman's rho (rs).

EO Bal UOE PA-F PA-M ID-F ID-M DS-F DS-M RES SO'

Bal ,549"
UoE .526* .612
PA-F -.138 -.112 .034
PA-M -.143 .011 -.133 .128
ID-F -.306 -.497* -.415' -.005 .003
ID-M -.409* -58' -.510* -.042 -.034 .741'
DS-F -.696* -.279 -521' .201 .349' .010 .120
DS-M -.788' -.377' -.605' .127 .223 .071 .190 .889"
RES .763* .241 .687* -.043 -.169 -.175 -.274 -.652" -.708*
SO .785' .465' .800" -.003 -.150 -.233 -.409' -.618* -.709*
.787'
COH .887' 566' .883' -.030 -.275 -.381" -.470" -.715' -.757*
-.747' .812'
'p < .01
'Key to scale abbreviations: EO-Emotional Openness; Bal-Balance of Positive/Negative References to Attachment Figures; UoE-Use of
Examples; PA-FIM-Preoccupied Anger with Respect to FathedMother; ID-FIM-Idealization with Respect to FathdMother; DS-F/M-Dis-
missal with Respect to FatherIMother; RES-Resolution of Conflicts; SO-Self-organization; COH-Overall Coherence.
 Copyrighted Material. For use only by 20021. Reproduction prohibited. Usage subject to PEP terms & conditions (see terms.pep-web.org).

REPRESENTATIONS IN SCHOOL-AGE
ATTACHMENT CHILDREN

Table 2. Spearman’s correlation coefficients and percentage of agreement

within 1 scalepoint.
Spearman’s % Agreement within
CAI Scales Correlation (rJ 1 scale-point

Emotional Openness .925* 94

Balance of PositiveNegative References .828* 83
Use of Examples .783* 85
Preoccupied Anger with Respect to Mother .857* 98
Preoccupied Anger with Respect to Father .670* 94
Idealization with Respect to Mother .883* 92
Idealization with Respect to Father .731* 83
Dismissing with Respect to Mother .873* 83
Dismissing with Respect to Father .904* 87
Resolution of Conflict .810* 90
Self-organization .844* 8.5
Overall Coherence .889* 92

P < ,001

INTER-RATER RELIABILITY FOR CAI SUBCLASSIFICATIONS

Inter-rater reliability for attachment subclassifications (four levels of security)
was computed using Kendall’s tau-b coefficient (i). Again, high agreement was
obtained (85.4percent, tau = 3 7 8 , p < .001 with respect to mother; 87.2
percent, tau = 393, p < .001 with respect to father).

INTER-RATER RELIABILITY FOR CAI SCALES WITH A NAIVE RATER

Because the three judges reported on above had all been involved in dis-
cussions of the coding strategy, a naive rater (CB, an undergraduate with
no previous training in attachment measures) was trained in CAI coding
by YSG. Inter-rater reliability between YSG and CB was computed for 20
further interviews. It was found to be lower than reported above: Spearman’s
correlations for scale ratings ranged from .400 to .816 (all statistically sig-
nificant); percent of agreement within 1 scale-point ranged from 59 percent
to 93 percent and was satisfactory with the exception of Idealization with
respect to both parents, Dismissal of father, Self-organization, and Balance
(taking 70 percent as a cut-off point).
Inter-Rater Reliability for CAI Classifications with a Naive Rater Agree-
ment for classifications was very high: 90 percent, k = .795, p < .001 with
respect to mother; 90 percent, k = .794, p < .001 with respect to father for
99
 Copyrighted Material. For use only by 20021. Reproduction prohibited. Usage subject to PEP terms & conditions (see terms.pep-web.org).

Mary Target, Yael Shmueli-Goetz, and Peter Fonagy

securitylinsecurity; 70 percent, tau = .644, p < .001 and 62 percent, tau = .674,
p c .001 for the four levels of security, for mother and father respectively.
Test-Retest Reliability Test-retest reliability was assessed for Sample 2
(n = 28). Each child was seen on two occasions with an interval of approxi-
mately 8 weeks between the two sessions. CAIs for the two time periods were
coded independently by two judges, YSG for time 1 and Tp for time 2. Al-
though this confounded test-retest and inter-rater reliability, it was felt to be
necessary to avoid the inflation of reliability likely to be introduced if a single
judge coded both interviews.
Test-Retest Reliability for Scales Spearman’s correlations ranged from
.383 to 1 and were all significant with the exception of Idealization of both
parents, and Resolution of Conflict. Percent of agreement within 1 scale-
point ranged from 46 percent to 100 percent. Except in the cases of Emo-
tional Openness, Preoccupied Anger with respect to both parents, Resolu-
tion of Conflict, and Self-organization, percent of agreement did not reach
an acceptable level using conservative criteria.
Test-Retest reliability for Main Classifications Concordance between
time 1 and time 2 was very high (85.7 percent, k = .684, p c .001 with
respect to mother; 82.1 percent, k = .620. p < .001 with respect to father).
Test-Retest reliability for Subclassifications Concordance between at-
tachment sub-classifications at time 1 and time 2 with respect to mother
was very high (71.4 percent, tau = 746, p < .001) as was the concordance
with respect to father (67.8 percent, tau = .735, p < .001).

PREDICTIVEVALIDITY
The relationship between mothers’ current state of mind with respect to
attachment as assessed by the AAI and their children’s attachment status
as assessed by the CAI was examined (n = 28). The correspondence between
main attachment classifications for mother-child dyads was highly signifi-
cant (75 percent, k = 510, p < .004). Twelve of the 18 children rated as
Secure as assessed by the CAI had Secure mothers as assessed by the AAI
(67 percent). Nine of the 10 children classified as Insecure by the CAI had
Insecure mothers as classified by the AAI (90 percent).

DISCUSSION
In addressing the existing “measurement gap” in measures of attachment
for middle childhood, the current study had three aims: first, to construct
1 00
 Copyrighted Material. For use only by 20021. Reproduction prohibited. Usage subject to PEP terms & conditions (see terms.pep-web.org).

ATTACHMENT
REPRESENTATIONSIN SCHOOL-AGE
CHILDREN

a developmentally sensitive interview protocol for the assessment of attach-

ment in middle childhood; second, to develop a coding and classification
system; third, to establish the psychometric properties of the newly devel-
oped system. The summary and discussion of findings will therefore be
presented in this order.

THE CAI PROTOCOL

Underpinning the development of the CAI interview protocol was the as-
sumption that children would be able to comprehend and thus respond to
direct questions concerning attachment experiences and relationships, and
that variations in the presentation of these experiences would reflect their
internal attachment organization. While piloting Version I of the CAI in-
terview protocol clearly demonstrated that children could understand and
respond coherently to direct questions concerning attachment-related themes,
it also highlighted the need for refinements. Version I1 of the CAI protocol
was subsequently devised and included more focused prompts used as scaf-
folding to assist children in producing attachment-related narratives.

THE CAI CODINGAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

This system is still in development. The version reported here involved a set
of nine-point scales adapted from the AAI for this age range, a binary secure-
insecure distinction, and four levels (subclassifications) of security-insecurity.
The correlations between CAI Scales were much as expected on theo-
retical and empirical grounds: Coherence was strongly positively correlated
with Emotional Openness, Balance, Use of Examples, Resolution of Con-
flict, and Self Organization, and negatively with Idealization, Derogation,
and Preoccupied Anger. This follows to an extent from the rating proce-
dure, but other associations confirm that this was not simply an artifact:
strong negative correlations were demonstrated between Dismissal and Ide-
alization, with respect to mother and father, and Emotional Openness, Use
of Examples, Balance, Self Organization, and Resolution of Conflicts. Not
surprisingly, the Preoccupied Anger scale failed to show any significant
associations because it was found very rarely in the present sample. Inter-
nal consistency was very high, and did not rise with the exclusion of any
one of the scales. However, these results might reflect the measurement of
a construct associated with security of attachment such as psychopathol-
ogy, and therefore warrant further investigation.
101
 Copyrighted Material. For use only by 20021. Reproduction prohibited. Usage subject to PEP terms & conditions (see terms.pep-web.org).

Mary Target, Yael Shmueli-Goetz, and Peter Fonagy

The first step in examining the psychometric properties of the CAI cod-
ing and classification system was to establish the degree of agreement be-
tween raters. The percentage of agreement within 1 scale-point between
skilled judges for all CAI scales was very high (83 percent to 98 percent).
Inter-rater agreement for main attachment category placement (95.8 per-
cent and 97.9 percent) and subclassification placement (85.4 percent and
87.2 percent), in addition, was shown to be high for both mother and fa-
ther, showing that the current CAI coding and classification system allows
experienced raters consistently to distinguish between Secure and Insecure
interview responses. Interrater reliability with a naive rater was consider-
able lower on scale scores, though all correlations were statistically signifi-
cant. Agreement for main classifications with respect to both mother and
father was very high, and acceptable for subclassifications.
Test-retest reliability across a 2-month period, using a different coder
for the two time points, produced somewhat mixed results. Percentage of
agreement within 1 scale-point was adequate overall (46 percent to 100
percent); test-retest reliability for main attachment classifications (Secure
vs. Insecure) with respect to both mother and father were very high (85.7
percent and 82.1 percent respectively) and somewhat lower for subclassifi-
cations (71.4 percent and 67.85 percent). This stability of the secure-inse-
cure distinction was comparable with reported infant and adult data (in
adulthood, Bakermans-Kranenburg and van lJzendoorn [ 19931 reported
stability across 1-15 months ranging from 77 percent to 90 percent; Lamb
and colleagues [1985] found 77.1 percent; Waters [1978] found 96 percent
stability in infants across a 6-month interval). Stability of scales has been
scarcely reported. Waters (1978) reported that reliability of discrete-behavior
variables in the Strange Situation was very low across a 6-month period.
Wright and colleagues (1995) reported that test-retest reliability for the SAT
following a 4-week interval did not reach statistical significance. AAI data
is unavailable, to our knowledge.
Predictive validity for mother-child dyads (AAI-CAI) was shown to be
high (75 percent), based on this preliminary data, and comparable to that
reported for infant-mother concordance rates based on the Strange Situa-
tion (e.g., van IJzendoorn found 70 percent concordance across 18 stud-
ies). Discriminant validity, in relation to IQ and verbal fluency, seems to
be satisfactory.

102
 Copyrighted Material. For use only by 20021. Reproduction prohibited. Usage subject to PEP terms & conditions (see terms.pep-web.org).

REPRESENTATIONSIN SCHOOL-AGE
ATTACHMENT CHILDREN

The findings presented here suggest that it is unnecessary to adopt a

projective approach in assessing attachment status in middle childhood.
Children can respond to direct questioning concerning attachment-related
experiences and their responses appear to reflect their internal attachment
organization.
There are many further refinements that we are working on, particu-
larly to the coding procedure. We have space here for only one example.
One of our aims in the development of the CAI coding and classification
system was to integrate both linguistic and behavioral information. How-
ever, the attachment coding reported here was based primarily upon a lin-
guistic analysis of the content and form of attachment-related narratives,
and the integration of nonverbal information was, although guided by theory
and by the behavioral coding of attachment behavior in preschool children,
still largely intuitive. The need to develop a coding system that incorpo-
rates detailed behavioral information is central not only because such in-
formation will potentially illuminate differences in attachment organization
that may otherwise not be detected but also because such an approach would
go some way to bridge the gap between the study of attachment in infancy
and adulthood. The CAI could be a unique tool in that the child’s behav-
ior during the interview forms the background against which the child’s
linguistic representation of attachment figures and relationships can be as-
sessed. Since the presentation summarized here, we have begun to incorpo-
rate some principles from facial-action coding and from mother-infant in-
teraction studies (the work of Rainer Krause and Beatrice Beebe respectively).
Although beyond the scope of the present report, we are undertaking a
qualitative analysis of the material elicited by the CAI in an attempt to
enhance our understanding of how particular patterns of attachment are
manifested in middle childhood, and to clarify which aspects are best rep-
resented dimensionally and which categorically. The CAI also allows us to
consider the relationship between self-representation and attachment rela-
tionships; the self-concept question that opens the interview suggests that-
as one might expect from the developmental and clinical literature-secure
children differ from their insecure counterparts in describing the self.
We are hopeful that, taking the above findings and considerations to-
gether, we are on the track of a useful new assessment for research and
theory in both the developmental and the clinical realms.

103
 Copyrighted Material. For use only by 20021. Reproduction prohibited. Usage subject to PEP terms & conditions (see terms.pep-web.org).

Mary Target, Yael Shmueli-Goetz, and Peter Fonagy

REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M., and Edelbrock, C. S. (1983). Manual for the Child
Behavior Checklist and Revised Child Behavior Profile. Burlington, VT:
University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Ainsworth, M. D. 5. (1990). Epilogue: some considerations regarding theory
and assessment relevant to attachment beyond infancy. In Attachment
in the Pre-School Years: Theory, Research, and Intervention, ed. M. T.
Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, and E. M. Cummings, pp. 463-488. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Ammaniti, M., Candelori, C., Dazzi, N., et al. (1990). Intervista sull’at-
taccamento nella latenxa. Unpublished manuscript.
Ammaniti, M., Speranza, A. M., and Tambelli, R. (in press). Intervista
sull’attaccamento nella latenza. Attachment and Human Development.
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., and van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1993). A psy-
chometric study of the Adult Attachment Interview: reliability and dis-
criminant validity. Developmental Psychology 29:870-879.
Bowers, L., Smith, P. K., and Binney, V. (1994). Perceived family relation-
ships of bullies, victims, and bullyhictims in middle childhood. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships 11:215-232.
Bretherton, I., Ridgeway, D., and Cassidy, J. (1990). Assessing internal
working models of the attachment relationship: an attachment story
completion task. In Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Re-
search, and lntervention, ed. M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, and E. M.
Cummings, pp. 273-308. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cassidy, J. (1988). Child-mother attachment and the self in six-year-olds.
Child Development 59:121-134.
George, C., Kaplan, N., and Main, M. (1985). The Adult Attachment ln-
terview. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University
of California at Berkeley.
Lamb, M. E., Thompson, R. A., Gardner, W., and Charnov, E. (1985).
Infant-Mother Attachment: The Origins and Developmental Significance
of Individual Differences in Strange Situation Behavior. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Leach, C. (1979). Introduction to Statistics. New York: Wiley.
Luborsky, L., and Crits-Christoph, P. (1990). Understanding Transference:
The CCRT Method. New York: Basic Books.

104
 Copyrighted Material. For use only by 20021. Reproduction prohibited. Usage subject to PEP terms & conditions (see terms.pep-web.org).

ATTACHMENT
REPRESENTATIONSIN SCHOOL-AGE
CHILDREN

Main, M. (1995). Recent studies in attachment: overview, with selected

implications for clinical work. In Attachment Theory: Social, Develop-
mental, and Clinical Perspectives, ed. s. Goldberg, R. Muir, and J. Kerr,
pp. 407-474. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
Main, M., and Goldwyn, R. (1994). Adult Attachment Rating and Classi-
fication System, Manual in Draft, Version 6.0. Unpublished manuscript,
University of California at Berkeley.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., and Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, child-
hood, and adulthood: a move to the level of representation. In Grow-
ing Points of Attachment Theory and Research. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 50, ed. I. Bretherton
and E. Waters, pp. 66-104. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Oppenheim, D. (1997). The attachment doll-play interview for preschoolers.
International lournal of Behavioral Development 20:68 1-697.
Shouldice, A., and Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1992). Coping with security dis-
tress: the separation anxiety test and attachment classification at 4.5
years. journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 33:331-348.
Slough, N. M., and Greenberg, M. T. (1990). Five-year-olds’ representa-
tions of separations from parents: responses from the perspective of self
and other. New Directions for Child Development 48:67-84.
Solomon, J., George, C., and Dejong, A. (1995). Children classified as con-
trolling at age six: evidence of disorganized representational strategies
and aggression at home and at school. Development and Psychopathol-
ogy 7:447-463.
Sroufe, L. A., and Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the construction of
relationships. In Relationships and Development, ed. W. Hartup and
Z. Rubin, pp. 51-71. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sroufe, L. A., Fox, N., and Pancake, V. (1983). Attachment and dependency
in developmental perspective. Child Development 54: 1615-1627.
Waters, E. (1978). The reliability and stability of individual differences in
infant-mother attachment. Child Development 49:483-494.
Wright, J. C., Binney, V., and Smith, P. K. (1995). Security of attachment
in 8-22 year olds: a revised version of the Separation Anxiety Test, its
psychometric properties and clinical interpretation. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry 36:757-774.

105
PEP-Web Copyright

Copyright. The PEP-Web Archive is protected by United States copyright laws and international treaty provisions.
1. All copyright (electronic and other) of the text, images, and photographs of the publications appearing on PEP-Web is retained by
the original publishers of the Journals, Books, and Videos. Saving the exceptions noted below, no portion of any of the text, images,
photographs, or videos may be reproduced or stored in any form without prior permission of the Copyright owners.
2. Authorized Uses. Authorized Users may make all use of the Licensed Materials as is consistent with the Fair Use Provisions of
United States and international law. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to limit in any way whatsoever any Authorized User’s
rights under the Fair Use provisions of United States or international law to use the Licensed Materials.
3. During the term of any subscription the Licensed Materials may be used for purposes of research, education or other
non-commercial use as follows:
a. Digitally Copy. Authorized Users may download and digitally copy a reasonable portion of the Licensed Materials for their own use
only.
b. Print Copy. Authorized Users may print (one copy per user) reasonable potions of the Licensed Materials for their own use only.

Copyright Warranty. Licensor warrants that it has the right to license the rights granted under this Agreement to use Licensed
Materials, that it has obtained any and all necessary permissions from third parties to license the Licensed Materials, and that use of
the Licensed Materials by Authorized Users in accordance with the terms of this Agreement shall not infringe the copyright of any third
party. The Licensor shall indemnify and hold Licensee and Authorized Users harmless for any losses, claims, damages, awards,
penalties, or injuries incurred, including reasonable attorney's fees, which arise from any claim by any third party of an alleged
infringement of copyright or any other property right arising out of the use of the Licensed Materials by the Licensee or any Authorized
User in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. This indemnity shall survive the termination of this agreement. NO LIMITATION
OF LIABILITY SET FORTH ELSEWHERE IN THIS AGREEMENT IS APPLICABLE TO THIS INDEMNIFICATION.

Commercial reproduction. No purchaser or user shall use any portion of the contents of PEP-Web in any form of commercial
exploitation, including, but not limited to, commercial print or broadcast media, and no purchaser or user shall reproduce it as its own
any material contained herein.