Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome 2012, Vol. 15, No. 2, 8 !

"5

# 2012 $talian %rea &roup o' the (ociety 'or Psychotherapy Research $((N 22)"*80)1 +O$: 10. ,11-RP.2012.00"

Measuring Attachment and Reflective Functioning in Early Adolescence: An Introduction to the Friends and Family Interview
%le.ander /riss1 , 0o1ard (teele1, 2 3iriam (teele1

Abstract. $nternal 1or4ing models 5$63s7 8o1l9y, 1":"-1"82; de<elop 9e'ore lan* guage and are, initially at least, pre*sym9olic, non<er9al notions. 6ith re'lecti<e 'unc* tioning 5R=7 =onagy, (teele, (teele, 3oran, 2 0iggitt, 1""1; 1e ha<e the possi9ility to re'ashion $63s 9ased on language, 9ut linguistic s4ills only de<elop 9et1een 18*2, months, and then steadily o<er time. Relia9le instruments are a<aila9le to assess these constructs in in'ancy and adulthood: >he (trange (ituation o9ser<ational measure 5%ins1orth, 8lehar, 6aters, 2 6all, 1" 8; re<eals the in'ant?s $63s o' his caregi<ers, 1hile the %dult %ttachment $nter<ie1 5%%$7 3ain, 0esse, 2 &old1yn, 20087 &eorge, /aplan, 2 3ain, 1"85; e.poses the adult spea4er?s capacity 'or R=. >his paper address* es the middle ground o' early adolescent children 1ho are not yet mature enough to re* spond to a 'ull %%$, 9ut are too old to e.pect that an o9ser<ational attachment measure 1ould re<eal much a9out their inner thoughts, 'eelings, and 9elie's a9out attachment. 6e outline an inter<ie1 protocol designed 'or " to 1:*year old children, as4ing a9out sel', 'riends, teachers, and 'amily, 1ith the aim o' elucidating 9oth $63s, regarding ear* lier e.perience, and the e.tent o' R= concerning past and present e.periences. >he pro* tocol is the =riends and =amily $nter<ie1 5==$7 (teele 2 (teele, 2005;, 1hich has a mul* tidimensional scoring system to 9e ela9orated 1ith <er9atim e.amples o' response 'rom 9oth lo1*ris4 community samples, and higher*ris4 samples o' youth. Keywords: attachment measures, re'lecti<e 'unctioning, early adolescence

6hen measuring attachment across the li'espan, di'* 'erent methods are re@uired to match the increasingly sophisticated cogniti<e and a''ecti<e systems that emerge and mature o<er the course o' de<elopment. $n the early years o' li'e, primacy is placed on assessing the largely pre*sym9olic, pre*<er9al internal 1or4ing models 5$63s7 8o1l9y, 1":"-1"82; through 9eha<* ioral o9ser<ation. %s linguistic s4ills come online and the child can 9egin to thin4 a9out thin4ing, re'lecti<e 'unctioning 5R=7 =onagy, (teele, (teele, 3oran, 2 0iggitt, 1""1; 9ecomes an important concept that can help to moderate or re'ashion the child?s early* esta9lished $63s. %t present, researchers and clini* cians interested in attachment phenomena ha<e relia*

>he Ne1 (chool 'or (ocial Research, Ne1 Aor4, B(%. Correspondence concerning this article should 9e addres* sed to %. /riss, >he Ne1 (chool 'or (ocial Research, +e* partment o' Clinical Psychology, 80 =i'th %<enue, :th =loor, Ne1 Aor4, NA 10011. Dmail: ale.4rissEgmail.com

9le and popular measures at their disposal 'or 1or4ing 1ith in'ants and adults: >he (trange (ituation o9ser* <ational measure 5%ins1orth, 8lehar, 6aters, 2 6all, 1" 8; re<eals the in'ant?s $63s o' his or her caregi<* ers, 1hile the %dult %ttachment $nter<ie1 5%%$7 &eorge, /aplan, 2 3ain, 1"85; e.poses the adult spea4er?s capacity 'or R=. >his paper addresses the middle ground o' as* sessing early adolescent children 1ho are not yet ma* ture enough to respond to a 'ull %%$, 9ut are too old to e.pect that an o9ser<ational measure 1ould re<eal much a9out their inner thoughts, 'eelings, and 9elie's a9out attachment. =irst, 1e re<ie1 the theoretical and empirical literature around $63s and R=, con* structs central to understanding any attachment in* strument. 6e then pro<ide a comprehensi<e o<er<ie1 o' our measure, the =riends and =amily $nter<ie1 5==$7 (teele 2 (teele, 2005;, 1hich has a multi*dimensional scoring system to 9e ela9orated 1ith <er9atim e.amples o' response 'rom 9oth lo1*ris4 community samples, and higher*ris4 samples o' youth.

88 Introduction to the FFI

Internal Wor ing Models 8eginning in in'ancy, o9ser<ation can 9e used in con* trolled conditionsFas in the (trange (ituationFto as* sess 9eha<iors such as the child?s e.ploration o' the en* <ironment, pro.imity*see4ing o' caregi<er, and a9ility to 9e soothed. >hese concrete <aria9les are considered to 9e deri<ati<es o' the in'ant?s $63s, the su9Gecti<e representations that 'orm in the in'ant according to ho1 caregi<ers respond to his or her needs. >he $63 ser<es as a template 'or 'uture relationships7 it deter* mines in large part 1hat the child e.pects 'rom am9ig* uous interpersonal e.periences. $63s are considered to sta9iliHe as early as 12 months o' age 53ain, /aplan, 2 Cassidy, 1"85;, and though they are not 1holly 'i.ed, they are also not easily changed 58o1l9y, 1" )7 8rether* ton, 1"85;. Pre<ious studies ha<e sho1n that e<en 1hen initially depri<ed children go on to de<elop healthier $63s 9ased on ne1 relational e.periencesFsuch as in adoption casesFthese representations do not eradicate the older, pro9lematic $63s 50odges, (teele, 0illman, 0enderson, 2 Neil, 20007 (teele, 0odges, /aniu4, 0illman, 2 0enderson, 200)7 (teele et al., 2008;. Ra* ther, the old and ne1 coe.ist in the child?s mind and continue to in'luence his or her e.pectations and 9e* ha<ior to greater or lesser degrees 53ain, 1""1;. $n'ants and children 1ho ha<e IsecureJ $63s are a9le to conceptualiHe caregi<ers as 9oth a secure base and a safe haven: their models stem 'rom early o9Gec* ti<e e.periences o' 9eing a9le to con'idently e.plore the en<ironment in the presence o' caregi<ers, and also 'rom 'inding the caregi<ers to 9e a<aila9le and sensiti<e 1hen a threat is percei<ed 5i.e., 1hen the attachment system is acti<ated;. (ecure $63s are a signi'icant protecti<e 'actor during the challenges o' normal de<elopment 5+e 6ol'' 2 <an $KHendoorn, 1"" ;, 1hile in'ants 1ho de<elop IinsecureJ $63s are less protected 'rom de<elopmental challenges, and can e.perience adGustment pro9lems 5Daster* 9roo4s 2 %9eles, 2000;. Children 1hose early li<es are mar4ed 9y especial* ly unpredicta9le and 'rightening caregi<er 9eha<ior de<elop $63s that are 'ragmented, chaotic, and disorganiHed. >hese children are o'ten the <ictims o' maltreatment, and they are at ris4 'or long*term pathological outcomes, including a''ect dysregula* tion, dissociation, and <iolence in intimate adult rela* tionships 5Carlson, 1""87 0esse 2 3ain, 20007 <an $KHendoorn, (chuengel, 2 8a4ermans*/ranen9urg, 1"""7 6est 2 &eorge, 1""";. 0o1e<er, solely considering $63s as a predictor o' normal or pathological de<elopment paints an in* complete picture, particularly as the child gro1s old* er. >hough disorganiHed $63s are a strong indica* tor o' poor psychosocial outcome, =onagy and col* leagues point out that insecure $63s are commonly 'ound in community and clinical populations ali4e 5=onagy et al., 200);. >his is 1hy as the child de<el* ops, increasing emphasis is placed on R= in addition to $63s 1hen assessing attachment.

Reflective Functioning R= is a collecti<e term 'or the psychological processes that allo1 children to Imind*readJFthat is, appreciate the e.istence and nature o' other people?s mental states, as 1ell as their o1n 5=onagy 2 >arget, 1"" ;. >his ap* preciation ma4es 9eha<ior Imeaningful and predicta* 9le,J 5p. : ", original emphasis; and 'acilitates the de* <elopment o' more comple. internal representations o' sel' and other than are possi9le in in'ancy and early childhood. >he a9ilities to hold am9iguous or mi.ed 'eelings a9out important interpersonal relationships, speculate on the moti<ations o' sel' and others, and consider intrapsychic and interpersonal changes o<er time are all e.amples o' the ad<anced modes o' thin4* ing inherent in the de<elopment o' R=. Bnli4e $63s, R= does not de<elop and solidi'y ear* ly, 9ut emerges o<er time according to normati<e de* <elopmental milestones and the particular characteris* tics and circumstances o' the child 5=onagy 2 >arget, 1"":;. %round age ), a normal child can readily distin* guish internal e.perience 'rom the outside 1orld, 1hich 'acilitates an a9ility to shi't 4no1ingly 9et1een modes o' 'antasy and reality, such as in games o' pretend. 8y age ,, a Itheory o' mindJ typically 9ecomes e<ident, 1herein the child demonstrates a cogniti<e apprecia* tion that his or her perspecti<e is distinct 'rom the per* specti<es o' others. 8eha<iors o' sel' and others 9egin to Ima4e senseJ as the child sees that they are dictated 9y mental states. %t this stage, ho1e<er, the child still <ie1s these states as concrete and a9solute. $t is not un* til the 'i'th year that the normal child comes to under* stand mental states as representations, including the im* portant appreciation that they Imay 9e 'alli9le and change, 9ecause they are 9ased on 9ut one o' a range o' possi9le perspecti<esJ 5=onagy 2 >arget, 1"":, p. 221;. >his mar4s the 9eginning o' a more nuanced, 'le.i9le, and a9stracted stance on the 9eha<ior and thoughts o' sel' and others that continues to gro1 and in'orm o<er the course o' normal de<elopment. % dearth o' R= in childhoodFin 1hich limited dis* tinction is esta9lished 9et1een the o9Gecti<e and su9Gec* ti<e, and the 9eha<iors o' sel' and others remain unpre* dicta9leFhas 9een theoriHed to relate to poor social* emotional outcomes, including 9orderline pathology 5=onagy, 1""57 =onagy et al., 200);. %lternati<ely, R= has 9een proposed as a protecti<e 'actor against de<el* opmental pro9lems and psychopathology in children 'rom a9usi<e or depri<ed 9ac4grounds, 1ho 1ould 9e e.pected to ha<e de<eloped insecure or disorganiHed $63s in the 'irst year o' li'e 5=onagy et al., 1"",, 1""57 =onagy 2 >arget, 1""87 3ain, 1""1;. =or this reason in particular it is important to ha<e methods o' measuring 9oth $63s and R= 1ithin the de<eloping child. !he Friends and Family Interview >he ==$ 1as 'irst de<eloped and tested 9y 3iriam and 0o1ard (teele in the conte.t o' the 11*year 'ol* lo1*up o' the London Parent*Child ProGect 5(teele 2

A. Kriss et al. 8"

(teele, 2005;. >hat 1or4 sho1ed that relia9le ratings o' coherence 5a construct detailed 9elo1; in 11*year* olds? narrati<es a9out themsel<es, their si9lings, par* ents, 9est 'riend, and 'a<orite teacher 1ere lin4ed 9ac41ard in time to their attachment status as in* 'ants 1ith mother and 'ather, and to parents? %%$ responses. >hese lin4s held e<en a'ter ta4ing into ac* count <er9al $M o' children and their parents. >he ==$ is deemed appropriate 'or children aged "* 1: years, a historically di''icult age range in 1hich to relia9ly measure attachment 5%ins1orth, 1"85;. >hough the %%$Ftypically considered the Igold standardJ narrati<e attachment inter<ie1 'or adultsF has 9een <alidated 1ith adolescent samples in the past 5e.g., %llen, 3cDlhaney, /uperminc, 2 Kodl, 200,;, it has also produced inconsistent results 5/iang 2 =ur* man, 200 ;. &i<en the %%$?s emphasis on Iloo4ing 9ac4J at the respondent?s 'irst 12 years o' li'e, it lea<es something to 9e desired 1hen assessing attachment in early adolescence. >he ==$ is theoretically guided 9y the %%$, 9ut scaled to the de<elopmental a9ilities o' its intended age group. >he ==$ also 'eatures e.plicit @uestions on si9ling, peer, and teacher relationships, 1hich are incredi9ly salient to the young adolescent, 9ut understanda9ly a9sent 'rom the %%$ protocol. "verview >he ==$ 9egins 1ith the inter<ie1er stating that our strongest 'eelings and 1ishes tend to arise in the con* te.t o' our closest relationships. =or e.ample, there are things a9out our relationships 5to parents or si9* lings, 9est 'riends, and perhaps teachers; that 1e 1ant to stay the same, and things 1e 1ould li4e to see change. =ollo1ing this introduction, the ==$ pro* ceeds 1ith some 9asic in'ormation gathering. >he child is as4ed to descri9e 1ith 1hom he li<es, and 1hether there are other 'amily or 'riends that li<e else1here 1ith 1hom he is especially close. >he in* ter<ie1er then in@uires o<er the child?s 'a<orite ho9* 9ies, and attempts to elicit speci'ic e.amples con* cerning these acti<ities. >his phase is intended to help esta9lish a rapport 9et1een the inter<ie1er and the child, as 1ell as acculturate the child to the 'or* mat o' the inter<ie1, 1hich 're@uently demands gen* eral statements to 9e ela9orated 1ith rele<ant e.am* ples. %s such, the 'irst 'e1 minutes o' the inter<ie1 contri9ute relati<ely little to the coding process. >he su9stanti<e portion o' the ==$ 9egins 1hen the child is as4ed to re'lect on himsel', 'irst 9y con* sidering 1hat he li4es 9est and least a9out himsel' 5accompanied 9y speci'ic e.amples;, and then 9y an* s1ering the important @uestion, I6hat do you do 1hen you are upsetNJ >his @uestion is 9orro1ed di* rectly 'rom the %%$, and the child?s response is high* ly re<ealing as to 1hether or not he 'eels there is a sa'e ha<en and secure 9ase in his li'e. >he ==$ then proceeds to in@uire a9out the child?s important rela* tionships in turn. 3ost and least 'a<orite @ualities in his relationship 1ith teachers, 'riends, parents, and

si9lings are elicited, and discussion o' each relation* ship concludes 1ith the @uestion, I6hat do you thin4 X thin4s a9out youNJ. $n this 1ay, respondents are prompted to sho1 the e.tent to 1hich they can re'lect on relationships ongoing among 'amily and 'riends. >he child is ne.t as4ed to thin4 9ac4 to his earliest memory o' separation 'rom caregi<ers, 'irst in terms o' his o1n 9eha<ior, thoughts, and 'eelings, and then in terms o' ho1 he imagines his caregi<ers might ha<e 'elt at the time. $n@uiry then shi'ts to1ard the child?s impressions o' ho1 his caregi<ers relate to one another, including @uestions a9out 1hether they ar* gue, 1hat a9out, and ho1 the child percei<es and re* acts to such moments o' con'lict. Lastly, the child is as4ed to thin4 into the past and 'uture in considering himsel' and his relationship 1ith his caregi<ers. 0e is as4ed ho1 things ha<e changed in the last 'i<e years, and ho1 he 9elie<es things might change in the 'ollo1ing 'i<e years. >he ==$ concludes 1ith a 'e1 de9rie'ing @uestions, intended to clari'y ho1 the child e.perienced the inter<ie1 itsel', as 1ell as to o''er some Icool do1nJ time in the e<ent o' a challenging or stress'ul inter<ie1. Collected inter<ie1s are recorded, transcri9ed, and then independently rated according to a standardiHed coding manual 5(teele, (teele, 2 /riss, 200";. Li4e in the %%$, ==$ raters assign 9road attachment classi'ica* tions to an entire inter<ie1Fnamely, secure or insecure 51ith su9types dismissive, preoccupied, or other;, 1ith an additional speci'ier i' a child appears disorganized/disoriented in his or her narrati<e. >he coding process also yields dimensional scores across numer* ous domains. $n the present paper, 1e 'ocus on three important constructs, descri9ing in detail ho1 coher* ence o' narrati<e, $63s, and R= are coded in the ==$. #oherence in the FFI % central concept in narrati<e assessments o' at* tachment, particularly the ==$ and %%$, is coherence. Primacy is placed on the process o' language7 as Op* penheim and 6aters 51""5; point out, what is said is usually less in'ormati<e than how the content is communicated 1hen see4ing to re<eal largely uncon* scious attachment representations. >his is particular* ly salient 1hen considering the <aria9ility in ho1 ac* ti<ation o' the attachment system mani'ests depend* ing on the le<el at 1hich $63s are a9stracted 53ain et al., 1"85;. %s indi<iduals mo<e 'rom 9eha<ioral to representational le<els o' a9straction, there is a com* ple. shi't in their strategies 'or coping 1ith the pres* sures o' internal and e.ternal realities. +e<elopmen* tally, early adolescents are 9et1een in'ant and adult le<els o' a9straction, and may o''er mi.ed presenta* tions o' 9eha<ioral and somatic <ersus cogniti<e and a''ecti<e e.pressions o' ho1 they ha<e internaliHed their $63s. =or instance, a child 9eing administered the ==$ descri9es ho1 she 're@uently 'ights 1ith her sister, 9ut these supposedly heated 9outs are re'erred to 1ith a cool detachment. 0o1 do 1e understand

"0 Introduction to the FFI

such an incongruityN (hould 1e priHe the description o' aggression and ina9ility to 9e consoled 59eha<ior associated 1ith an insecure*preoccupied stance in in'ants;, or the palpa9le sense o' distance 9et1een the spea4er and her e.perience 5indicati<e o' an in* secure*dismissi<e position in adults;N $n ma4ing in'erences regarding the child?s internal representations, content of speech is interpreted in the conte t of the here-and-now process of the interview. Coherence o' speech 5as 1ell as non<er9al 9eha<iors; in'orms our understanding o' 1hat the child de* scri9es. >here'ore, in the a9o<e e.ample, 1e 1ould 9e inclined to consider the child?s 'ighting as a con* te.t*speci'ic mani'estation o' her o<erall dismissi<e orientation, rather than e<idence o' preoccupation. Coherence in the ==$ is rated according to &rice?s 51" 5; ma.ims: truth, the degree to 1hich con<inc* ing e<idence is pro<ided to support the appraisal o' sel' and others7 econom!, the degree to 1hich the Iright amountJ o' in'ormation is gi<en, neither too much nor too little7 relation, the degree to 1hich gi<* en e.amples are rele<ant7 and manner, the degree to 1hich an age*appropriate le<el o' attention, polite* ness, and interest is maintained. $nterruptions in the 'lo1 speech, unela9orated e.amples, unmonitored rants, e.cessi<e use o' 'iller 1ords, guardedness, dis* sociation, and so on, are all considered in assigning Li4ert*type numerical scores to these dimensions. Coherence is a glo9al construct and may 9e con* sidered to re'lect the indi<idual?s o<erall organiHation across le<els o' representation. $n other 1ords, an es* pecially coherent or incoherent narrati<e does not stand in 'or IsecureJ or IinsecureJ $63s, or high or lo1 R=, 9ut rather suggests a certain constellation o' these and other 'actors. >he more speci'ic scales ela9orated 9elo1, 1hen ta4en in consideration 1ith the glo9al coherence ratings, pro<ide a detailed pic* ture o' the child?s psychic reality. Internal Wor ing Models in the FFI $63s are coded according to the child?s narrati<e portrayal o' caregi<ers as a safe haven and secure base, as 1ell as the child?s ela9oration o' his or her adaptive response to distress. $afe haven%secure base. % core attachment as* sumption is that the child?s mental health continues to depend, as it did during in'ancy, on the sense that a secure 9ase 5'rom 1hich autonomy can 9e e.plored; and a sa'e ha<en 5to return to in times o' distress; are a<aila9le 'rom mother, 'ather, or others. Raters pay special attention to the @uestions that pro9e 1hat the young person does 1hen he or she is upset, as 1ell as those as4ing 'or most and least 'a<orite aspects o' each parent. +oes the child e.press the importance o' the attachment relationship, the need to rely on oth* ers, and does he or she ac4no1ledge past and-or pre* sent dependence on parentsN %t the lo1est end o' the spectrum, no e<idence is

gi<en to suggest that the respondent see4s out or e.* pects instrumental or emotional support 'rom the caregi<er, 1ho may 9e minimally re'erred to in the narrati<e. =or instance, one child 'rom a community sample, 1hen as4ed a9out his relationship 1ith his 'ather, responded I$ don?t see him muchJ and did not 1ant to ela9orate 'urther. %nother respondent 'rom a higher*ris4 group o' inner*city youth, 1hen as4ed a9out his mother 1ith 1hom he 1as recently es* tranged, simply said, IPass.J %9o<e this le<el 9ut still on the lo1er end, the caregi<er is portrayed as an occasional or unrelia9le source o' support. (upport gi<en is largely instru* mental, and e.amples o' emotional support may seem idealiHed, untruth'ul, or seem to other1ise lea<e the respondent dissatis'ied.
$nter<ie1er: +o you remem9er a time 1hen you 'elt li4e you could as4 your mother a9out anythingN Respondent: $t?s Gust 1hen $?m upset, really, and uh OPQ she Gust tries the 9est she can and then, 1ho 4no1s, 1e see 1hat happens.

%lternati<ely, an e.plicit longing or desire 'or a closer relationship may 9e e.pressed. (uch a response may 9e couched in angry, preoccupied 'eelings o' 9e* ing unlo<ed or uncared 'or, or in dismissi<e, guarded 'eelings o' not needing parental care, as emphasiHed 9elo1.
Respondent: (ometimes 1hen $ 1ant to tal4 to my mom a9out things $ canRt, but it doesn"t bother me O#Q itRs Gust that $ 1onder i' it 1ould 9e di''erent i' $ could do that 1ith my mother.

On the higher end o' this dimension, the caregi<er is portrayed as a positi<e resource, one 1ho readily 9esto1s a''ection and is a<aila9le to pro<ide instru* mental and emotional support. D.amples gi<en should support the respondent?s appraisal 1ith little to no sense o' idealiHation or untruth'ulness. $n the later years o' adolescence, con<incing $nowledge o' such a<aila9ility, 1ithout necessarily utiliHing it, is su''icient.
Respondent: >hese days $ don?t really ha<e much in common 1ith my mom, she?s not a 9ig 'oot9all 'an 5laughs;. 8ut i' something 1as really 1rong at school or e<en 9et1een me and my 'riends or something, $ 4no1 $ could tal4 to her. (he?d hear me out and 9e on my side.

Ada&tive res&onse. 6hen 1or4ing 1ith adoles* centsF1ho are 9eginning to grapple 1ith the im* portant de<elopmental challenges o' independence and autonomyFit is incorrect to e@uate $63s 1ith the degree to 1hich the child o<ertly e.presses IneedingJ his or her caregi<ers. 0o1 the respondent reacts to distress in general is an important 'actor to consider alongside ho1 he or she speci'ically tal4s a9out caregi<ers 1hen attempting to assess internal representations. Certain strategies that do not in*

A. Kriss et al. "1

<ol<e interpersonal dependenceFsuch as engaging in a 'a<orite acti<ity 'or relie<ing unhappinessFmay 9e age*appropriate and highly adapti<e, and there'ore indicati<e o' ho1 the child?s $63s ha<e, o<er the course o' de<elopment, helped to shape his or her a9il* ity to regulate pain'ul and upset 'eelings. On this scale, raters loo4s most care'ully at responses to the @uestion as4ing 1hat the respondent does 1hen distressed. Lo1est scores are gi<en 1hen there is a mar4ed lac4 o' strategy, such as I'ight or 'lightJ approaches. >hese are e.empli'ied respecti<ely in the 'ollo1ing t1o responses to the @uestion, I6hat do you do 1hen you?re upsetNJ
Respondent: $' $ had gotten in a 'ight 1ith someone $ 1ould 'ight them and Gust 4eep 'ighting until someone loses or someone goes home. Respondent: $ 1ould push my head against a pillo1 and not react in any 1ay at all.

iHe her e.perience. %lso important to note is that the child?s initial am9iguity 5IOh, $ don?t 4no1J; is not counted against her in rating adapti<e response. 0ere and throughout the inter<ie1 our interest is to gi<e respondents the 9ene'it o' the dou9t and ha<e the 'i* nal coding re'lect their 9est capacity in all domains. Reflective functioning in the FFI $n the ==$, R= is operationaliHed across three su9* domains associated 1ith high R= capacity: de<elop* mental perspecti<e, theory o' mind, and di<ersity o' 'eeling. %evelopmental perspective represents the child?s a9ility to contrast current thoughts and 'eel* ings concerning important relationships or his or her sel'*<ie1 1ith past attitudes. &heor! of mind is the a9ility to assume the mental or emotional perspec* ti<e o' another person. %iversit! of feeling is de'ined as the child?s a9ility to sho1 an understanding o' di* <erse 5negati<e and positi<e; 'eelings 9eing present in signi'icant relationships. %s appropriate, these di* mensions are scored 'or each relationship in<estigat* ed during the inter<ie1, including caregi<ers, si9* lings, peers, teachers, and sel'. 'evelo&mental &ers&ective. >o demonstrate de<elopmental perspecti<e, the respondent contrasts his or her current thoughts and 'eelings on a matter o' su9stance 5i.e., something other than tastes in 'ood or sporting acti<ities; 1ith past attitudes or styles o' response. >his pertains particularly to a pair o' @ues* tions in the inter<ie1, I0o1 has your relationship 1ith your parents changed since you 1ere littleNJ and I6hat do you thin4 the relationship 1ith your par* ents 1ill 9e li4e 'i<e years 'rom no1NJ. D<idence 'or de<elopmental perspecti<e may come 'rom other portions o' the inter<ie1, as 1ell, such as 1hen one child 'rom a community sample oriented his e.peri* ence 9y re'lecting on a si9ling:
Respondent: $?<e seen that in the last year or so, my parents gi<e my 9rother a lot more 'reedom, you 4no1, they let him do his thing. (o $ e.pect, $ don?t 4no1, it 'eels li4e they?re <ery o<er*protecti<e o' me no1, 9ut $ e.pect that once $?m his age, they?ll ease 9ac4, as 1ell.

Responses can 9e either highly aggressi<e or highly a<oidant to 9e gi<en lo1est scores7 the central 'ea* ture is the respondent?s ina9ility to e''ecti<ely adapt to and reco<er 'rom 'eeling upset. Lo1 mar4s may also result 1hen respondents re'use to pro<ide a strategy, either 9ecause they claim they don?t 4no1 1hat they do or 9ecause they claim that they ne<er 'eel upset. $n the latter case, the child?s response 1ould also indicate poor truth'ulness. 0igh scores are gi<en 1hen the respondent dis* plays a clear adapti<e strategy, 1hich appears con* sistent 5i.e., high in truth; and is accompanied 9y a rele<ant e.ample 5i.e., high in relation;.
$nter<ie1er: 6hen you?re upset, 1hat do you do usual* lyN Respondent: Oh, $ don?t really 4no1. $' $ can, $ go out 'or a 1al4 and i' $?m at school, $ 1ill Gust go and sit some1here @uiet, and Gust 9e satis'ied listening to music, i' $?m mad or upset, up or do1n. $nter<ie1er: %nd can you tell me a9out a time 1hen you 1ere upsetN Respondent: $ had a 1hole day 1hen my 9rother 1as going 9ac4 to Dngland, and $ 1anted to go 9ac4, as 1ell. >here really 1asnRt enough time, 9ut $ 1anted to go 9ac4 1ith him and thought it 1as really un* 'air. $nter<ie1er: %nd 1hat did you do thenN 6hat hap* penedN Respondent: $ Gust 1ent inside my 9edroom and thre1 a 'e1 pillo1s or something. $ stayed in there a1hile till $ calmed do1n. $ realiHed it 1asn?t so 9ad, $ 1ould go 9ac4 soon enough.

Dspecially impressi<e are responses that ac4no1ledge that the relationship has 9oth changed and stayed the same in di''erent 1ays o<er time, and 1ill continue to do so in the 'uture.
$nter<ie1er: Can you thin4 9ac4 and tell me i' you thin4 that your relationship 1ith your parents has changed since you 1ere littleN Respondent: Bm, yes and no. >he 'act that they can sort o' trust me no1 and they 4no1 that $ 1ill 9e a9le to loo4 a'ter mysel', um, 9ut not really, no, 9e* cause 1e still get along really 1ell li4e 1e did 1hen $ 1as younger. $nter<ie1er: >hin4ing ahead to the 'uture, say, in 'i<e years, can you thin4 ho1 your relationship 1ith

$n the a9o<e e.ample, the pseudo*aggressi<e com* ponent o' her e.ample 5Ithre1 a 'e1 pillo1sJ; is still considered adapti<e, as she presents it in a conte.t that demonstrates her secure $63s. 8y telling the in* ter<ie1er that she IrealiHed it 1asn?t so 9adJ, she is sho1ing her internal representation o' the 1orld as coherent and sel'*righting, and that she 5unconscious* ly; uses that representation to calm do1n and organ*

"2 Introduction to the FFI your parents might 9e di''erentN Respondent: Bm, 1e might not see each other as much 9ecause $?ll 9e o'' at sort o' uni<ersity or 1hate<er, 9ut pro9a9ly still the sameFget on really 1ell and 9e a9le to tell them 1hate<er.

an understanding o' those di<erse 'eelings. Bnsurprisingly, total re'usal to ac4no1ledge either 'a<orite or least 'a<orite @ualities, in response to spe* ci'ic prompts as 1ell as any1here else in the narra* ti<e, yields lo1est scores.
$nter<ie1er: 6hat?s the 9est part o' your relationship 1ith your momN Respondent: >he 9est partN $?m going to s4ip that one.

R= is a4in to an Ias*i'J mode o' thin4ing in 1hich multiple perspecti<es can 9e considered 1ithout 9e* ing ta4en as concrete and o9Gecti<e truths. %s such, 1hen children are a9le to tolerate am9iguous Iyes and noJ states 1ithout 9ecoming con'used, dis* tressed, or contradictory, it is usually indicati<e o' high R=. 6hen rating theory o' mind, descri9ed 9e* lo1, appreciation o' the opa@ueness o' the mental states o' others is a similar indicator o' the child?s a9ility to hold se<eral possi9ilities in mind at once. !heory of mind. $n coding theory o' mind, raters loo4 'or e<idence o' the respondent?s a9ility to as* sume the mental and emotional perspecti<e o' an* other person, paying special attention to responses to the @uestions, I6hat do you thin4 your Omoth* er-'ather-si9ling-9est 'riend-teacherQ thin4s o' youNJ, 1hich appear periodically throughout the in* ter<ie1. Responses need not 9e lengthy or o<erly de* tailedFone clear and compelling statement a9out 1hat the other person thin4s and 'eels merits the highest score. %s mentioned pre<iously, the most so* phisticated responses o'ten sho1 appreciation 'or the opacity o' anotherRs mental state. >his may in* <ol<e the respondent e.pressing 1hat he or she IhopesJ or IimaginesJ the other person to thin4 and 'eel, or ac4no1ledging the di''iculty o' the @uestion 9ut then going on to ans1er it as clearly as possi9le.
Respondent 5re 9est 'riend;: $ hope she thin4s $?m a good and trust1orthy 'riend. $ guess you ne<er 4no1, 9ut $ mean 1e tell each other e<erything, so $ imagine she thin4s o' me that 1ay.

Lo1 scores also result 1hen 'a<orite and least 'a* <orite responses display mar4ed contradiction 1ith one another, so that no di<ersity o' 'eeling is actually present. >his may also in'luence o<erall truth'ulness o' the narrati<e. =or instance:
$nter<ie1er: 6hat?s the 9est part o' your relationship 1ith your momN Respondent: (heF, that she listens to me. $ go on 'or ages a9out something and she Gust sits and listens to me.

>he child goes onto contradict hersel' later in the same inter<ie1, suggesting that 9oth her responses are an.iety*laden and dri<en 9y an idealiHing de'en* si<eness rather than genuine re'lection:
$nter<ie1er: %nd 1hat?s the one thing you li4e least a9out your relationship 1ith your momN Respondent: $F, 1ell she doesn?tF, $ don?t 4no1. (he, she gets 9ac4 @uite late 'rom 1or4 and she?s not there in the morning, she?s at 1or4 as 1ell, so*, it?s Gust I don"t reall! tal$ to her a lot and 1hen she gets home she has to do dinner and 1or4 and e<ery* thing so I don"t tal$ with her a lot.

6hen loo4ing at a 'ully scored protocol, it can 9e clinically in'ormati<e to consider consistency o' theory o' mind across relationships. % child 1ith all lo1 scores may, 'or one reason or another, 9e de<elopmentally in* capa9le o' assuming a mentaliHing stance. >his is @uite di''erent 'rom a child 1ho gi<es clear responses in re'* erence to si9ling and 9est 'riend, 9ut then cannot pro* <ide or gi<es an incoherent response in regard to moth* er. >his pattern 1ould indicate that there is not a glo9al de'icit in R=, 9ut rather that the relationship 1ith mother in particular inhi9its re'lection. 'iversity of feeling. >his dimension co<ers e<i* dence o' the respondent?s a9ility to sho1 an under* standing o' di<erse 5negati<e and positi<e; 'eelings 9eing present in signi'icant relationships. >he guid* ing @uestion 'or raters is ho1 easily the child can thin4 o' 9oth negati<e and positi<e aspects o' rela* tionships in<ol<ing sel' and other people. 0igher scores re@uire that the respondent not only sho1 that he or she holds di<erse 'eelings, 9ut also demonstrate

(till on the lo1 end are instances 1hen di<ersity o' 'eelings is sho1n 9ut the respondent does not ha<e a clear understanding o' it. One or 9oth statements re* garding most and least 'a<orite aspects are instrumental in nature, 'ocusing on 9eha<ior o<er emotion. %ccompanying e.amples are a9sent, or contain some contradiction or incoherence, damaging the credi9il* ity o' the di<ersity o' 'eeling o''ered.
$nter<ie1er: 6hat?s the 9est part o' your relationship 1ith your dadN Respondent: 6ell, usually 1hen 1e?re going to 1atch a 'ilm on =riday he gets ta4e*out, he might get a Chinese ta4e*a1ay or something. $nter<ie1er: %nd 1hat?s the one thing you li4e least a9out your relationship 1ith your dadN Respondent: 0e is a <ery, <ery deep sleeper OPQ $t Gust can 9e irritating i' you 1ant, i' there?s something you?<e done 'or him and he Gust can?t 9e 9othered.

6hen positi<e and negati<e @ualities are descri9ed in a thought'ul 1ay that demonstrates not only their pres* ence, 9ut the respondent?s understanding o' his or her o1n comple. 'eelings regarding sel' or others, highest scores are granted. %ccompanying e.amples are concise and rele<ant illustrations o' the di<erse 'eelings, 1ith no e<idence o' an.iety, contradiction, or incoherence.

A. Kriss et al. ")

Method of analysis %nalysis o' an ==$ transcript demands consideration o' multiple constructs that in<ol<e 9oth the content and process o' narrati<e speech. D<en those dimen* sions that are strongly in'luenced 9y 1hat is said 5e.g., does the respondent pro<ide a I'a<oriteJ and Ileast 'a<oriteJ @uality a9out himsel'; must also 9e e<aluated in terms o' ho1 the in'ormation is pre* sented 5e.g., presence o' idealiHation, an.iety, or dis* organiHation;. %s such, 1e ad<ocate a Idou9le readJ method 'or analyHing ==$ te.ts. On 'irst read, raters can ma4e pro<isional notes pertaining to content*related scores, 9ut should 'ocus predominantly on the process o' speech and o9tain* ing a general I'eelJ o' the inter<ie1, 1hich 1ill con* tri9ute to the glo9al coherence ratings. $s the re* spondent concise and on point throughout, or does he or she regularly Ilose the thread,J gi<e 'lat mono* sylla9ic responses, or 'all into o<er1helming, preoc* cupied tiradesN >he 'ualit! o' digressions into inco* herence should 9e noted in terms o' &rice?s 51" 5; ma.ims, 9ut so should the temporal flow and range o' those digressions. $n other 1ords, 1hat is the ma.i* mum coherence achie<ed 9y the respondent, and 1hat is the minimumN %re the oscillations mild or se<ere, 're@uent or rareN $n this 'irst read 1e are hop* ing to deri<e some sense o' the Itug o' 1arJ going on 9et1een the respondent?s early*esta9lished $63s, 1hich are deep*seeded and automatic, and the re* spondent?s R=, 1hich de<eloped later and is chal* lenged 9y some o' the ==$?s more cogniti<ely and emotionally demanding @uestions. >he e99 and 'lo1 o' coherence is our glo9al pro.y o' this $63*R= dy* namic, and once 1e ha<e a sense o' it, 1e return to the 9eginning 'or a closer read. >he second time through, 1e engage in a slo1er, more content*speci'ic analysis and start to assign num9ers to the ==$?s <arious scales. 0a<ing already 'amiliariHed oursel<es 1ith the inter<ie1 on the 'irst read, 1e are less li4ely to ma4e coding errors that 1ould typically result in under*representing the re* spondent?s capacity. =or instance, a 9raHen or impa* tient rater may see on 'irst read*through that, 1hen as4ed I6hat do you thin4 your mother thin4s o' youNJ the respondent replied, I$ don?t 4no1,J and the rater 1ill immediately gi<e >heory o' 3ind 'or mother the lo1est score o' I1.J 6ith this already committed to paper, the rater may gloss o<er a later statement made spontaneously 9y the respondent, in 1hich he says, I(ometimes $ thin4 my mother 1ants to me to care a9out school more than $ really do,J 1hich clearly indicates an a9ility to consider his mother?s mental state. 8y only attending to the @ues* tion that e.plicitly demanded theory o' mind, the rater is no longer measuring the respondent?s R= ca* pacity, 9ut simply his capacity to pro<ide a speci'ic ans1er at a speci'ic point in the inter<ie1. Final classification. %ssigning an attachment classi'ication to an inter<ie1 is the last step o' the

==$ coding process, and represents an integration o' the constructs discussed a9o<e. 8e'ore a 'inal classi'i* cation is made, transcripts are rated 'or the presence o' security, dismissi<eness, preoccupation, and disor* ganiHation on Li4ert*type scales. >his approach re* 'lects our contention that attachment patterns are dimensional, and that a child may e.hi9it di<erse strategies 1hen the attachment system is acti<ated, some healthier or more adapti<e than others. % child?s rating in security is directly tied to the coherence o' his transcriptFan inter<ie1 cannot 9e considered high in attachment security i' it is lo1 in o<erall coherence. %dapti<e response and de<elop* mental perspecti<e codes are also regarded as partic* ularly indicati<e o' the 9alanced, open, and re'lecti<e style typical o' secure adolescents. >he insecure and disorganiHed ratings, con<ersely, demand corre* spondingly lo1 o<erall coherence scores. % high dis* missi<e rating is considered 1hen the child is lo1 in relation and economy 5on the side o' pro<iding too little in'ormation;, as 1ell as 1hen di<ersity o' 'eel* ing is restricted, either 9ecause the child is inclined to1ard idealiHation or derogation in his <ie1 o' the sel' or others. >he preoccupied rating is highest 1hen relation and economy 5on the side o' pro<iding too much in'ormation; are lo1, and the child?s capaci* ties to re'lect on sel' and others are restricted 9y e.ces* si<e anger, 9laming, and indecisi<eness. +isorganiHed transcripts are mar4ed 9y poorly monitored speech and incompati9le strategies, in 1hich the narrati<e 'eels disoriented and the child appears mani'estly 'rightened or dissociati<e during the inter<ie1. %s a result, signi'icant impairment is typically o9ser<ed across all coherence, R=, and $63 codes 1hen assign* ing the highest disorganiHation score to an ==$. Dach dimensional classi'ication code is made inde* pendently 9e'ore a categorical determination is con* sidered. >he 'inal attachment classi'ication repre* sents the dominant strateg! o9ser<ed in the tran* script. $n cases 1here multiple strategies are present, a su9type o' IotherJ may 9e assigned to the o<erall classi'ication o' secure or insecure. =or instance, a child?s transcript may 9e scored as e.hi9iting high security, mild dismissi<eness, no preoccupation, and no disorganiHationFthe 'inal classi'ication is secure* autonomous, as this represents the dominant strate* gy o' the inter<ie1. %nother child?s transcript may 9e rated 1ith mild security, moderate dismissi<eness, high preoccupation, and no disorganiHation. $n this instance, coders must decide i' the inter<ie1 pre* dominantly 'eatures a preoccupied strategyFresulting in a classi'ication o' insecure*preoccupiedFor a sig* ni'icant com9ination o' preoccupied and dismissi<e strategiesFresulting in a classi'ication o' insecure* other. =inally, a third transcript may 9e gi<en codes o' no security, mild dismissi<eness, mild preoccupa* tion, and high disorganiHation. $n this case, coders 1ould li4ely determine that the transcript is mar4ed 9y a lac$ o' strategy, thus earning the classi'ication o' disorganiHed-disoriented.

", Introduction to the FFI

#onclusion $63s and R= de<elop and solidi'y at di''erent peri* ods o<er the course o' de<elopment, and they dy* namically interact 1ithin and 9et1een generations to in'orm an indi<idual?s o<erall attachment. 6hile the 'ield has 1ell*esta9lished methods o' measuring $63s in in'ancy and R= in adulthood, there are 'e1 1ays o' e.ploring ho1 these t1o <ital constructs co* e.ist in the de<eloping child. $n this paper 1e pro* <ided an introduction to the =riends and =amily $n* ter<ie1, 1hich attempts to 'ill that gap 9y catering its design and scoring approach to the de<elopmental capacities o' early adolescents. 6e ela9orated in de* tail three constructs central to using and understand* ing the ==$Fcoherence, $63s, and R=F1hile plac* ing special emphasis on care'ully considering 9oth content and process o' speech 1hen analyHing tran* scripts. >o date, the ==$ has appeared in 'e1 pu9lished re* search articles, and more data is needed to esta9lish its psychometric properties and cement it is as a standard 'or measuring attachment and R= in early adolescent populations. 0o1e<er, our 1or4 thus 'ar has demonstrated ro9ust inter*rater relia9ility and construct <alidity in 9oth community 5/riss, (teele, 2 (teele, 20117 (teele 2 (teele, 2005; and at*ris4 5/riss, (teele, 2 (teele, 2012; samples, and 1e hope the current and 'uture 1or4 o' other researchers uti* liHing the ==$ 1ill uphold and e.pand these early 'indings across a di<erse range o' populations. >he ==$ holds signi'icant research and clinical <alue in its uni@ue approach to eliciting and systematically rat* ing auto9iographical narrati<es 'rom an age group that has 9een notoriously di''icult to assess 'rom an attachment perspecti<e. References
%ins1orth, 3. +. (. 51"85;. %ttachments across the li'e span. (ulletin of the )ew *or$ Academ! of +edicine, ,-5";, "2! 812. %ins1orth, 3. +. (., 8lehar, 3. C., 6aters, D. 2 6all, (. 51" 8;. .atterns of attachment/ A ps!chological stud! of the strange situation. 0illsdale, NK: Darl9aum. %llen, K. P., 3cDlhaney, /. 8., /uperminc, &. P., 2 Kodl, /. 3. 5200,;. (ta9ility and change in attachment security across adolescence. 0hild %evelopment, 125:;, 1 "2!805. doi: 10.1111-G.1,: *8:2,.200,.0081 ... 8o1l9y, K. 51"82;. Attachment and loss/ Attachment 5Vol. 1; 52nd ed.;. Ne1 Aor4: 8asic 8oo4s. 5Original 1or4 pu9lished 1":";. 8o1l9y, K. 51" );. Attachment and loss/ 3eparation 5Vol. 2;. Ne1 Aor4: 8asic 8oo4s. 8retherton, $. 51"85;. %ttachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. +onographs of the 3ociet! for 4esearch in 0hild %evelopment, 2551-2;, )!)5. Carlson, D. %. 51""8;. % prospecti<e longitudinal study o' at* tachment disorganiHation-disorientation. 0hild %evelopment, ,65,;, 110 !1128. doi: 10.1111-G.1,: *8:2,.1""8.t90:1:).. +e 6ol'', 3. (., 2 <an $KHendoorn, 3. 0. 51"" ;. (ensiti<ity and attachment: % meta*analysis on parental antecedents o' in'ant attachment. 0hild %evelopment, ,75,;, 5 1!5"1.

doi: 10.1111-G.1,: *8:2,.1"" .t90,218.. Daster9roo4s, 3. %., 2 %9eles, R. 52000;. 6indo1s to the sel' in 8*year*olds: 8ridges to attachment representation and 9eha<ioral adGustment. Attachment 8 9uman %evelopment, :51;, 85!10:. =onagy, P. 51""5;. Playing 1ith reality: >he de<elopment o' psychic reality and its mal'unction in 9orderline personali* ties. International ;ournal of .s!choanal!sis, 1,, )"!,,. =onagy, P., (teele, 3., (teele, 0., 0iggitt, %., 2 >arget, 3. 51"",;. >he theory and practice o' resilience. ;ournal of 0hild .s!cholog! and .s!chiatr!, <252;, 2)1!25 . doi: 10.1111-G.1,:"* :10.1"",.t9011:0.. =onagy, P., (teele, 3., (teele, 0., Leigh, >., /ennedy, R., 3at* toon, &., 2 >arget, 3. 51""5;. %ttachment, the re'lecti<e sel', and 9orderline states: >he predicti<e speci'icity o' the %dult %ttachment $nter<ie1 and pathological emotional de<elopment. $n (. &old9erg, R. 3uir, 2 K. /err 5Dds.;, Attachment theor!/ 3ocial, developmental and clinical perspectives 5pp. 2))!2 8;. Ne1 Aor4: %nalytic Press. =onagy, P., (teele, 3., (teele, 0., 3oran, &. (., 2 0iggitt, %. C. 51""1;. >he capacity 'or understanding mental states: >he re'lecti<e sel' in parent and child and its signi'icance 'or se* curity o' attachment. Infant +ental 9ealth ;ournal, -:5);, 201!218. doi: 10.1002-10" *0)5551""12);12:)S201::%$+* $30K2280120)0 T).0.CO72* =onagy, P., >arget, 3., &ergely, &., %llen, K. &., 2 8ateman, %. 6. 5200);. >he de<elopmental roots o' 8orderline Per* sonality +isorder in early attachment relationships: % the* ory and some e<idence. .s!choanal!tic In'uir!, :<5);, ,12! ,5". doi:10.1080-0 )51:"2)0"),"0,2 =onagy, P., 2 >arget, 3. 51"":;. Playing 1ith reality: $. >he* ory o' mind and the normal de<elopment o' psychic reali* ty. International ;ournal of .s!choanal!sis, 11, 21 !2)). =onagy, P., 2 >arget, 3. 51"" ;. %ttachment and re'lecti<e 'unc* tion: >heir role in sel'*organiHation. %evelopment and .s!chopatholog!, 6, : "! 00. %<aila9le 'rom http:--Gournals.cam* 9ridge.org-a9stractU(0"5,5 "," 001)"" =onagy, P., 2 >arget, 3. 51""8;. 3entaliHation and the changing aims o' child psychoanalysis. .s!choanal!tic %ialogues, 751;, 8 !11,. doi: 10.1080-10,8188"80"5)"2)5 &eorge, C., /aplan, N., 2 3ain, 3. 51"85;. Adult Attachment Interview protocol 5)rd ed.;, Bnpu9lished manuscript, Bni* <ersity o' Cali'ornia, 8er4eley. &rice, 0. 51" 5;. Logic and con<ersation. $n P. Cole 2 K. 3o* ran 5Dds.;, 3!nta and semantics, 5Vol. ), pp. ,1!58;. Ne1 Aor4: %cademic Press. 0esse, D., 2 3ain, 3. 52000;. +isorganiHed in'ant, child, and adult attachment: Collapse in 9eha<ioral and attentional strategies. ;ournal of the American .s!choanal!tic Association, =75,;, 10" !112 . 0odges, K., (teele, 3., 0illman, (., 0enderson, /., 2 Neil, 3. 52000;. D''ects o' a9use on attachment representations: narra* ti<e assessments o' a9used children. ;ournal of 0hild .s!chotherap!, :,5);, ,))!,55. doi:10.1080-00 5,1 001000): , /iang, L., 2 =urman, 6. 5200 ;. Representations o' attach* ment to parents in adolescent si9ling pairs: Concordant or discordantN )ew %irections for 0hild and Adolescent %evelopment, --1, )!8". doi: 10.1002-cad. /riss, %., (teele, 0., 2 (teele, 3. 52011, %ugust;. Attachment concordance and discordance in sibling relationships/ &owards a new theoretical model. Poster presentation at the 9iannual $nternational %ttachment Con'erence, Oslo, Nor1ay. /riss, %., (teele, 0., 2 (teele, 3. 52012, =e9ruary;. &hin$ing laterall!/ 3ibling and peer relationship 'ualit! predicts academic success in minorit! children at ris$ for school dropout. Poster presentation at the (ociety 'or Research in Child +e<elopment >hemed 3eeting: Positi<e +e<elopment o' 3inority Children, >ampa, =lorida. 3ain, 3. 51""1;. 3etacogniti<e 4no1ledge, metacogniti<e

A. Kriss et al. "5

monitoring, and singular 5coherent; <s. multiple 5incoher* ent; models o' attachment: =indings and directions 'or 'u* ture research. $n P. 0arris, K. (te<enson*0inde, 2 C. Par4es 5Dds.;, Attachment across the lifec!cle 5pp. 12 !15";. Ne1 Aor4: Routledge. 3ain, 3., 0esse, D., 2 &old1yn, R. 52008;. (tudying di''er* ences in language usage in recounting attachment history: %n introduction to the %%$. $n 0. (teele 2 3. (teele 5Dds.;, 0linical applications of the Adult Attachment Interview 51st ed., pp. )1!:8;. Ne1 Aor4: >he &uil'ord Press. 3ain, 3., /aplan, N., 2 Cassidy, K. 51"85;. (ecurity in in'an* cy, childhood, and adulthood: % mo<e to the le<el o' repre* sentation. +onographs of the 3ociet! for 4esearch in 0hild %evelopment, 2551-2;, ::!10,. Oppenheim, +., 2 6aters, 0. (. 51""5;. Narrati<e processes and attachment representations: $ssues o' de<elopment and assessment. +onographs of the 3ociet! for 4esearch in 0hild %evelopment, ,552-);, 1" !215. (teele, 3., 0odges, K., /aniu4, K., 0illman, (., 2 0enderson, /. 5200);. %ttachment representations and adoption: %ssocia* tions 9et1een maternal states o' mind and emotion narrati<es in pre<iously maltreated children. ;ournal of 0hild .s!chotherap!, :652;, 18 !205. doi:10.1080-00 5,1 0)10001)8,,2 (teele, 3., 0odges, K., /aniu4, K., (teele, 0., 0illman, (., 2 %s@uith, /. 52008;. =orecasting outcomes in pre<iously maltreated children: >he use o' the %%$ in a longitudinal adoption study. $n 0. (teele 2 3. (teele 5Dds.;, 0linical Applications of the Adult Attachment Interview 5pp. ,2 ! ,51;. Ne1 Aor4: >he &uil'ord Press. (teele, 0., 2 (teele, 3. 52005;. >he construct o' coherence as an indicator o' attachment security in middle childhood: >he =riends and =amily $nter<ie1. $n /. /erns 2 R. Rich* ardson 5Dds.;, Attachment in +iddle 0hildhood 5pp. 1) ! 1:0;. Ne1 Aor4: &uil'ord Press. (teele, 0., (teele, 3., 2 /riss, %. 5200";. &he Friends and Famil! Interview >FFI? coding guidelines. Bnpu9lished manuscript, >he Ne1 (chool 'or (ocial Research, Ne1 Aor4, NA. <an $KHendoorn, 3. 0., (chuengel, C., 2 8a4ermans* /ranen9urg, 3. K. 51""";. +isorganiHed attachment in ear* ly childhood: 3eta*analysis o' precursors, concomitants, and se@uelae. %evelopment and .s!chopatholog!, --52;, 225!2,". 6est, 3., 2 &eorge, C. 51""";. %9use and <iolence in inti* mate adult relationships: Ne1 perspecti<es 'rom attach* ment history. Attachment and 9uman %evelopment, -, 1) !15:. doi: 10.1080-1,:1: )""001),201

Recei<ed Kuly ", 2012 Re<ision recei<ed Octo9er 5, 2012 %ccepted No<em9er ), 2012