IMHJ (Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

top of AH
A R T I C L E

EARLY RELATIONSHIPS AND THE DEVELOPMENT

OF CHILDREN

L. ALAN SROUFE
University of Minnesota

Freud had hit upon a great truth about the human mind: It is from start to finish incapable
of separating itself from its own experience and can only build upon that (Rosen, 1989).

One of the central issues in the field of infant mental health concerns the emergence of
the self, in both robust and distorted forms. Various perspectives on when and how the self
emerges have been proposed, with different investigators proposing a range of time tables and
varying roles for innate capacities. Yet, all have agreed that, although a self cannot be proposed
in the newborn, it somehow emerges as an organized structure in the early months or years of
life. Moreover, there is agreement concerning a critical role for the caregiving matrix.
Sander (e.g., 1975; 2000) proposed a most profound and compelling resolution of this
paradoxical developmental emergent; namely, that the self is an outgrowth of the dyadic or-
ganization that preceded it. Sander allows a role for early emerging infant characteristics, which
in dynamic systems terminology he describes as part of the “initiating conditions” of devel-
opment. At the same time, he moves the spotlight to the nature and organization of early primary
relationships; that is, the broader “system of which that individual is but a part” (Sander, 2000,
p. 3). The organized self is a derivative of the organized complexity in which the infant par-
ticipates, setting forth “enduring themes of organization” for personality development. Sander
traces the process of this normative phenomenon and points the way to an understanding of
early disturbance.
At the turn of the century Freud, of course, had also stressed the importance of early
relationships. However, he began with disturbance and worked backwards to normal devel-
opment. Partly because of this, and partly because of the science of his times, he argued that
there was inherent conflict in parent-child relationships, and he emphasized the negative drives
and urges of the child. Healthy development, he thought, entailed minimizing frustration and
curbing the negative impulses of children. In the relationships framework proposed by Sander,
in contrast, the starting point is an understanding of normal development. Disturbance is seen
as deviation, a derailment from typical pathways to be expected given reasonable supports for

This work was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (MH 40864). Address correspondence
to Dr. Alan Sroufe, Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, 51 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN
55455.

INFANT MENTAL HEALTH JOURNAL, Vol. 21(1– 2), 67– 74 (2000) short
䊚 2000 Michigan Association for Infant Mental Health standard

67 base of drop
IMHJ (Wiley) LEFT BATCH

top of rh
68 ● L.A. Sroufe base of rh

cap height
development. Not the strength of the child’s drives and negative urges, but the qualities of the base of text
infant-caregiver relationship are the critical features influencing the course of development.

THE RELATIONSHIPS FRAMEWORK

Sander, along with Bowlby, Mahler, Winnicott, and others, argues that human infants can
function properly only within a supportive caregiving relationship. The prolonged period of
infant helplessness is, in fact, an adaptive advantage of humans. As Sander summarizes, it
allows great flexibility in the development of our complex brains, which are functionally struc-
tured by environmental input.
At the same time, this extreme helplessness in the early months, and relative dependence
throughout the juvenile period, means that humans must rely heavily on the support of others.
Within a supportive caregiving matrix, the adaptive capacities of young human infants are
indeed impressive, but they are, in fact, not very able to regulate their own arousal or emotional
states independent of this context. To be well regulated they require ample assistance from
caregivers. To be sure they can express distress and contentment early on, and within a few
months they can express a greater range of feelings and needs. By the end of the first year they
can signal many wishes with intention (raising their arms to be picked up, calling for caregivers
when frightened, offering a toy for inspection). But throughout this time they rely on caregivers
to read these “signals,” whether intended or not. Infants are equipped to play a primative role
in their own regulation, but they cannot regulate themselves. They are not capable of self-
regulation, but only “co-regulation” (Fogel, 1993) or “mutual regulation” (Tronick, 1989). To
be well-regulated, to be competent as infants, they require sensitive, responsive caregivers
(Ainsworth & Bell, 1974).
Thus, what will become functional self-regulation, or various forms of dysregulation, be-
gins as caregiver-infant regulation. Researchers have now described this initial dyadic (two
person) regulation process in great detail, including its changing form over time, as well as
variations between particular infant-caregiver pairs (e.g., Brazleton, Koslowski, & Main, 1974;
Fogel, 1993; Stern, 1985). At first, caregivers are almost solely responsible for maintaining
smooth regulation. They attend to the infant’s changes in alertness or discomfort and signs of
need, imbuing primative infant behaviors with meaning. In the typical course of events, care-
givers quickly learn to “read” the infant and to provide care that keeps distress and arousal
within reasonable limits (Sander, 1975). And they do more. By effectively engaging the infant
and leading him or her to ever longer bouts of emotionally charged, but organized behavior,
they provide the infant with critical training in regulation. Within the secure, “holding” frame-
work of the relationship, infants learn something vital about holding themselves, about con-
taining behavior and focusing attention (Brazelton et al., 1974).
In time, routine patterns of interchange are established into which the infant is fitted. As
the infant’s capacities for engagement and repertoire of behaviors increase, a semblance of
partnership, of back and forth communication, emerges. This period of development, roughly
3 – 6 months, has been particularly well described. Sander (1975) refers to this time as the
period of “reciprocal exchange,” because it marks the very beginnings of coordination with
regard to the regulation process. Caregiver and infant may, for example, engage in a series of
mutual exchanges, characterized by increasingly positive emotion expressed by both partners
and a waxing and waning of engagement that helps the infant stay organized. Daniel Stern
(1985) describes a scenario in which the caregiver, having attracted the infant’s attention with
voice and face, now talks with widened eyes, drawing forth smiling and circling movements
of the arms. In response to this, the caregiver shimmies her own body, amplifying the infant’s short
standard
IMHJ (Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

top of rh
Early Relationships and the Development of Children ● 69 base of rh

cap height
emotion and leading to an exuberant gurgling. While such “attunement,” to use Stern’s word, base of text
marks the origins of reciprocity and mutual regulation (Tronick, 1989), such exchanges are
best seen as “pseudo-dialogues” at this phase (Fogel, 1993). In the early months it is the
caregiver that is adjusting behavior purposefully, always fitting to the infant and creating space
for the infant to fit in as well (Hayes, 1984). But such patterns of caregiver-orchestrated reg-
ulation set the stage for more truly dyadic regulation as the infant’s capacities for intentional
participation emerge in the second half year.
By the second half year, the infant exhibits more purposeful, goal-directed behavior. In-
fants at this age do behave in order to elicit a particular response from the caregiver (a process
Sander refers to as “initiative”), for example calling to the parent and raising their arms to
indicate that they want to be picked up. They now actively participate in the regulation process.
We know this because if the caregiver misreads a signal, this older infant will adjust its be-
havior, often until the desired response is received (for example, crawling to the parent if they
don’t come to them). Thus, dyadic regulation follows inevitably upon the heels of caregiver-
orchestrated regulation. It requires only the growth of intentional capacity, which occurs in all
normal infants during this age period. The form and structure of dyadic regulation was already
in place from the preceding period; it represents an “enduring theme of organization” for later
behavior. What changes is the role of the infant, from reflexive or automatic signalling to
active, intentional signalling, but the patterning is based on what was established previously.
In time, this patterning will be carried forward, becoming the core of self-regulation.

From Early Regulation to Attachment

This research on the origins of dyadic regulation proposed by Sander harmonizes well with
the framework provided by Bowlby’s (1969/1982) attachment theory. Indeed, attachment has
been described in terms of the dyadic regulation of infant emotion (Kobak & Sceery, 1988;
Sroufe, 1979,1996), and Bowlby’s stages of attachment involve the progressively more active
role of the infant. Attachment refers to the special relationship between infant and caregiver
that emerges over the first year of life. Based on their history of interaction, by the time they
are 10 or 12 months old virtually all infants form a specific, “preferential” relationship with
one or a small number of caregivers. This means that in certain circumstances (for example,
when they are distressed) they specifically require contact with this person in order to be readily
settled. Likewise, they are more comfortable in novel situations and play more freely when
these caregivers are present and attentive, and they reserve their most exuberant greetings for
them. They are eager to share positive affective experiences with their caregiver, and they draw
support and reassurance from them when they are threatened or stressed. In short, their attach-
ment figure is central in their regulation of emotions.
Bowlby argued that the tendency to become attached is strongly built into human biology,
as essential to human survival as honey making for bees, nest building for birds, or thick fur
for polar bears. In ancient times, humans lived to adulthood only because they were disposed
to stay close to a protective adult who was also disposed to protect them. Because of this
biological foundation, all human infants are attached if there is someone there who interacts
with them, even if treatment is harsh or intrusive. But not all attachments are the same. In the
usual case, Bowlby’s starting point, infants develop what he called a “secure attachment.”
Because their caregivers have been routinely available to them, sensitive to their signals, and
responsive with some degree of reliability (though by no means is perfect care required), these
infants develop a confidence that supportive care is available to them. They expect that when
a need arises, help will be available. If they do become threatened or distressed, the caregiver short
standard
IMHJ (Wiley) LEFT BATCH

top of rh
70 ● L.A. Sroufe base of rh

cap height
will help them regain equilibrium. Such confident expectations are precisely what is meant by base of text
attachment security. They are secure in their attachment. It is this security that supports con-
fident exploration of the environment and ease of settling when distressed.

Anxious Attachment Relationships

In other cases, where care is chaotic, notably inconsistent, neglectful, or rejecting, or where
the caregiver behaves in frightening or incoherent ways toward the infant, an anxious attach-
ment relationship will evolve. Infants facing inadequate care have few options (Main & Hesse,
1990). In the face of inconsistency, they may maximize the expression of attachment behaviors,
hovering near the caregiver, emitting high intensity signals, “punishing” the caregiver for non-
responsiveness. Such a pattern is known as anxious/resistant attachment, because these infants
often mix strong seeking of contact with pushing away from the caregiver, squirming, or angrily
pouting when they are distressed. Alternatively, in the face of chronic rebuff, infants may learn
to minimize or cut off the expression of attachment behaviors. This “strategy” characterizes
anxious/avoidant attachment, so called because these infants turn away from, rather than go to,
caregivers in the face of moderate stress (such as following a separation of a few minutes in an
unfamiliar setting). Such avoidance may help to not alienate further an already rejecting caregiver,
but, of course, it may initiate a pattern of rigid over-control in which real needs cannot be met.
Finally, according to Main and Hesse (1990), when caregivers are themselves the source of
threat or fear, infants are placed in an irresolveable approach-avoidance conflict. Infants are
strongly disposed to approach attachment figures when threatened, but if the attachment figure
is the source of threat they are simultaneously disposed to stay away from them. If routine,
such conflict leads to what Main & Hesse (1990) call disorganized/disoriented attachment.
Each of these patterns of anxious attachment has been well described, with consequences for
later dysregulation and emotional disturbance confirmed by long-term longitudinal research.
This is consistent with Sander’s theme of the enduring impact of early experience.

THE INTERNALIZATION OF RELATIONSHIP

EXPERIENCES
Early relationship experiences are important because they are the first models or prototypes for
patterns of self-regulation. Sander’s arguments make clear that this cannot be otherwise. The
caregiving system plays a “powerful role in defining the context to which each infant must
adapt . . . (Sander, 200, p. 4).” The process of internalization or appropriation of experience
is an inevitable outgrowth of the infant’s continuous participation in the caregiving relation-
ship — from the outset but with an ever expanding and ever more active role. Infants cannot
help but incorporate their experience and generalize from it. If they have experienced within
their caregiving relationships that distress is routinely followed by recovery, that behavior can
stay organized in the face of even strong emotion, that positive experiences are shared, and
that the caregiver is central to all of this, they will come to expect that this is the way things
work. One can turn to others when in need, and they will respond. At the same time, in a
complementary manner, they will come to believe in their own effectiveness in maintaining
regulation and, because their needs are routinely met, in their own self worth. The infant can’t
know that needs are met only at the pleasure of the caregiver; it can only know that it signaled
to the caregiver, it expressed a need, it sought contact, and these actions were effective. A
sense of personal effectiveness follows automatically from routinely having one’s actions short
achieve their purpose. So positive expectations toward others and a sense of connectedness standard
IMHJ (Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

top of rh
Early Relationships and the Development of Children ● 71 base of rh

cap height
with them, as well as self-confidence and a sense of self-worth all are logical outcomes of base of text
experiencing routinely responsive care. This provides an important motivational and attitudinal
base for later self-regulation. Believing your actions will be effective inspires strong, persistent,
and flexible actions. Confidently seeking support allows you to meet challenges that exceed
your own abilities. Together, such attitudes enable the child to maintain behavioral organization
even in the face of difficulty.
Sander describes all of this as a kind of behavioral or emotional understanding of “fitting
together” with others, a “procedural knowledge” that is available long before the child achieves
a conscious understanding of relationship goals. Early “recognition” of emotional connection
with others comes simply from experiences of emotional sharing. In short, the infant is able to
maintain a “coherent state of organization” within the relationship.
A history of responsive care and secure attachment does more than promote positive
attitudes with regard to coping. In a well-regulated dyadic system, stimulation is appropriate
to the capacities of the infant, disorganizing arousal is infrequent, and episodes of distress are
short-lived. Within such a system the infant is entrained into a pattern of modulated, flexible
emotional responding, at both the behavioral and the physiological levels (Sroufe, 1996). Re-
cent research suggests that such experiences are vital for the tuning and balancing of excitatory
and inhibitory systems in the brain itself (e.g., Schore, 1994). Thus, neither the nervous systems
nor the behavioral capacities of children experiencing responsive care are easily over-stimulated
but, rather, remain flexibly responsive to environmental challenge. Coherent state organization,
enabled by responsive care, provides the foundation for flexible self-organization.
As outlined by Sander (e.g., 1975), the movement toward self-regulation continues
throughout the childhood years, as does a vital, though changing, role for caregivers. During
the toddler period, the child acquires beginning capacities for self-control, tolerance of mod-
erate frustration, and a widening range of emotional reactions, including shame and, ultimately,
pride and guilt. Practicing self-regulation in a supportive context is crucial. Emerging capacities
are easily overwhelmed. The caregiver must both allow the child to master those circumstances
within their capacity and yet anticipate circumstances beyond the child’s ability, and help to
restore equilibrium when the child is over-taxed. Such “guided self-regulation” (Sroufe, 1996)
is the foundation for the genuine self-regulation that will follow. As the growing child’s ca-
pacities for self-regulation gradually emerge, parental tasks move toward providing optimal
contexts for mastery, establishing guidelines for expected behavior, and monitoring the child’s
regulation efforts. Each of these tasks is important. The child’s capacity for self-regulation can
be compromised or enhanced at any point in development. But the entire developmental process
builds upon the foundation that was laid out in infancy. In Sander’s terms, the self-awareness
and self-organization of the child reflects the experience of personal recognition in the reso-
lution of the sequence of adaptive tasks that mother and infant negotiate over the first three
years of life (Sander, 2000, p. 10).

LONGITUDINAL RESEARCH ON OUTCOMES OF

EARLY RELATIONSHIP EXPERIENCES
The validity of this relationship perspective lies in establishing predictive links between par-
ticular patterns of early dyadic regulation and later differences in self-regulation and dysreg-
ulation; that is, “the long term effects that each individual infant’s early experiencing has upon
the unique configuration of his or her developmental course,” (Sander, 2000, p. 3). This requires
extensive longitudinal studies, in which children are followed from early infancy throughout short
childhood and adolescence. Such studies have now been completed, with compelling results. standard
IMHJ (Wiley) LEFT BATCH

top of rh
72 ● L.A. Sroufe base of rh

cap height
Research has confirmed that those with histories of effective dyadic regulation of arousal base of text
and emotion are indeed later characterized by more effective self-regulation. For example, as
preschoolers, those with histories of responsive care and secure attachment are judged by
teachers and observers to have higher self-esteem, to be more self-reliant, and to be more
flexible in the management of their impulses and feelings (Sroufe, 1983). They can be exuberant
when circumstances permit and controlled when circumstances require. They recover quickly
following upset. They flexibly express the full range of emotions in context-appropriate ways.
Moreover, they positively engage and respond to other children, are able to sustain interactions
even in the face of conflict and challenge, and are notably empathic. Though not unduly
dependent, they are effective in using adults as resources, relating to them in an age-appropriate
manner. All of these ratings were made by independent sets of judges, having no knowledge
of the child’s early attachment history. Thus, they cannot be explained by such bias as occurs
in retrospective interview studies. The findings also are supported by detailed behavioral data.
For example, those with histories of effective dyadic regulation are observed to seek less
frequent physical contact or reassurance from teachers in everyday situations and to respond
more often with positive emotion to peer initiations than do children with histories of anxious
attachment. Moreover, the findings distinguish among those with different kinds of anxious
attachment history. For example, those with histories of anxious/resistant attachment, who have
become chronically aroused in the face of inconsistent, chaotic care, persistently hover near
teachers, are easily frustrated, fall to pieces in the face of stress, and are unable to sustain
interactions with peers, at times becoming foil to those who are aggressive. Those with histories
of avoidant attachment are disconnected from other children and/or show antipathy for them.
They also are emotionally over-controlled and/or aggressive, and they fail to seek out teachers
precisely when disappointed or distressed.
In middle childhood and adolescence, too, those with histories of secure attachment carry
forward patterns of effective emotional regulation. Such patterns enable them to meet the
challenges of autonomous functioning and successful participation in ever more complex peer
groups. In middle childhood, they are able to form close relationships with friends, as well as
to coordinate friendships with effective group functioning (Elicker, Englund, & Sroufe, 1992;
Shulman, Elicker, & Sroufe, 1994). In adolescence, this evolves to the capacity for intimacy,
self-disclosure, and successful functioning in the mixed-gender teenage peer group (Sroufe,
Carlson, & Shulman, 1993; Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson, 1999). They are peer leaders, noted
for their interpersonal sensitivity.
Moreover, throughout childhood and adolescence, research has now established a firm
relationship between established patterns of early dyadic regulation and later behavior problems
and emotional disturbance (Carlson, 1998; Sroufe, 1997; Warren, Huston, Egeland, & Sroufe,
1997). At each age assessed, those with secure attachment histories have been found to have
fewer emotional problems. Those with anxious attachment histories have been found with
greater frequency to have problems of one kind or another. Again, these results often are quite
specific. Anxiety disorders have been found in particular to be associated with histories of early
dysregulation manifested in anxious/resistant attachment. Aggression, and conduct disturbances
more generally, have been found to be related to chronic rejection, emotional unavailability,
and anxious/avoidant attachment. Both resistant and avoidant attachment appear to be related
to depression, probably for different reasons (passivity and helplessness on the one hand;
alienation on the other). Finally, disorganized/disoriented attachment, a manifestation of an
extreme form of dyadic dysregulation, shows the strongest overall relationship to disturbance
(correlating .40 with a global index of pathology at age 17 1/2). The disorganized pattern also
is related specifically to dissociative symptoms, that is, with disruptions in orientation to short
the environment and with failures to integrate various aspects of emotional and cognitive standard
IMHJ (Wiley) RIGHT BATCH

top of rh
Early Relationships and the Development of Children ● 73 base of rh

cap height
experience (Carlson, 1998; Ogawa, Sroufe, Weinfield, Carlson, & Egeland, 1997). All of these base of text
findings strongly point to the formative influence of early patterns of dyadic regulation.

EARLY EXPERIENCE AND LATER DEVELOPMENT

A modern developmental viewpoint emphasizes early experience as the foundation for later
development. As Sander (this volume) has proposed, however, the strong relations between
early relationship experiences and later self-organization are best thought of in dynamic systems
terms as opposed to linear causality. Developmental trajectories may be altered at many points,
at times by what seem (from an outside perspective) as minor perturbations. All of the childhood
years are important for development. Research shows, for example, that changes in the life
stress, social support, or level of depression of caregivers may have a profound influence on
the functioning of the child (e.g., Sroufe, Carlson, Levy, & Egeland, 1999). When the life
situation of parents improves notably, children have fewer behavior problems and better peer
relationships than they had during earlier periods. This research also suggests, however, that
for most problems, the earlier circumstances improve, the earlier problems are addressed, the
more readily change in the child occurs. Some problems, such as aggressive behavior, become
very difficult to change after the early elementary school years, which again testifies to the
importance of very early experience.
The special role of early experience may be understood by considering the metaphor of
constructing a house. Early experience is the foundation. Of course, all other aspects of the
structure are also important. However solid the foundation, a house without supporting walls
or without a roof soon will be destroyed. But all rests upon the foundation. It provides the
basis for strong supporting structures and it frames the basic outlines of the house. So it is with
early experience and early self organization. They do not determine in final form the emotional
capacities of the child, but they can provide the basis for healthy development.

REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M., & Bell, S. (1974). Mother-infant interaction and the development of competence. In K.
Connolly & J. Bruner (Eds.), The growth of competence (pp. 97–118). New York: Academic Press.
Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss (Vol. 1), 2nd ed. New York: Basic.
Brazelton, T.B., Koslowski, B., & Main, M. (1974). The origins of reciprocity: The early mother-infant
interaction. In M. Lewis & L. Rosenblum (Eds.), The effect of the infant on its caretaker (pp. 49–
76). New York: Wiley.
Carlson, E. (1998). A prospective longitudinal study of attachment disorganization/disorientation. Child
Development, 69, 1107– 1128.
Elicker, J., Englund, M., & Sroufe, L.A. (1992). Predicting peer competence and peer relationships in
childhood from early parent-child relationships. In R. Parke & G. Ladd (Eds.), Family-peer rela-
tionships: Modes of linkage (pp. 77– 106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fogel, A. (1993). Developing through relationships: Origins of communication, self, and culture. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hayes, A. (1984). Interaction, engagement, and the origins of communication: Some constructive con-
cerns. In L. Feagans, C. Garney, & R. Golinkoff (Eds.), The origins and growth of communications
(pp. 136– 161). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Kobak, R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and
representation of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135–146. short
Main, M., & Hesse, E. (1990). Parents’ unresolved traumatic experiences are related to infant disorganized standard
IMHJ (Wiley) LEFT BATCH

top of rh
74 ● L.A. Sroufe base of rh

cap height
attachment status: Is frightened and/or frightening parental behavior the linking mechanism? In M. base of text
Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years (pp. 161–182).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ogawa, J., Sroufe, L.A., Weinfield, N.S., Carlson, E., & Egeland, B. (1997). Development and the
fragmented self: A longitudinal study of dissociative symptomatology in a non-clinical sample.
Development and Psychopathology, 9, 855–1164.
Rosen, N. (1989). John and Anzia: An American romance. New York: Dutton.
Sander, L. (1975). Infant and caretaking environment. In E. J. Anthony (Ed.), Explorations in child
psychiatry (pp. 129– 165). New York: Plenum.
Sander, L. (2000). Where are we going in the field of infant mental health? Infant Mental Health Journal,
21, 1–18.
Schore, A.N. (1994). Affect regulation and the origin of the self: The neurobiology of emotional devel-
opment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shulman, S., Elicker, J., & Sroufe, L.A. (1994). Stages of friendship growth in preadolescence as related
to attachment history. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 341–361.
Sroufe, L.A. (1979). Socioemotional development. In J. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development
(pp. 462– 516). New York: Wiley.
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
(Vol. 16, pp. 41– 83). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Sroufe, L.A. (1996). Emotional development: The organization of emotional life in the early years. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Sroufe, L.A. (1997). Psychopathology as an outcome of development. Development and Psychopathol-
ogy, 9, 251– 268.
Sroufe, L.A., Carlson, E., Levy, A., & Egeland, B. (1999). Implications of attachment theory for devel-
opmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 1–13.
Sroufe, L.A., Carlson, E., & Shulman, S. (1993). Individuals in relationships: Development from infancy
through adolescence. In D.C. Funder, R. Parke, C. Tomlinson-Keesey, & K. Widaman (Eds.), Study-
ing lives through time: Approaches to personality and development (pp. 315–342). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Sroufe, L.A., Egeland, B., & Carlson, E. (1999). One social world: The integrated development of parent-
child and peer relationships. In W.A. Collins & B. Laursen (Eds.), Relationships as developmental
context: The 30th Minnesota symposium on child psychology (pp. 241–262). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Stern, D. (1985). The interpersonal world of the infant: A view from psychoanalysis and developmental
psychology. New York: Basic.
Tronick, E. (1989). Emotions and emotional communication in infants. American Psychologist, 44, 112–
119.
Warren, S., Huston, L., Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L.A. (1997). Child and adolescent anxiety disorders and
early attachment. Journal for the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 637–
644.

short
standard