Infant Behavior & Development 28 (2005) 492502

Relations between behavioral reactivity at 4 months and

attachment classification at 14 months in a selected sample
Peter J. Marshall a, , Nathan A. Fox b
a

Department of Psychology, Temple University, 1701 North 13th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA
b
Department of Human Development, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
Received 21 December 2004; received in revised form 2 April 2005; accepted 13 June 2005

Abstract
Attachment at 14 months of age was examined in a sample of infants who had been selected for high or low
levels of positive or negative affective reactivity and motor activity at 4 months of age. The type of early emotional
reactivity was not clearly associated with attachment security or insecurity. The proposal of Belsky and Rovine
[Belsky, J., & Rovine, M. (1987). Temperament and attachment security in the strange situation: An empirical
rapprochement. Child Development, 58, 787795] that infants classified as B3/B4 or C1/C2 are temperamentally
more negatively reactive than those classified as A1/A2 or B1/B2 was supported. Compared with infants who
showed high levels of positive affect and infants who scored low on affective reactivity, infants who showed high
levels of negative affect in response to stimulation at 4 months of age were significantly more likely to be classified
as B3/B4 or C1/C2 in the Strange Situation at 14 months of age. These findings are discussed in the context of
prior inconsistent findings about the relations between temperament and groups of attachment sub-classifications.
The role of different methods of assessing temperament and the importance of selected samples in clarifying such
relations is discussed.
2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Infant; Attachment; Temperament; Emotion; Social development

1. Introduction
The relations between temperament and attachment in infancy have been the subject of much debate
and empirical investigation (for reviews see Fox, 1992; Goldsmith & Alansky, 1987; Mangelsdorf &

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 215 204 5744; fax: +1 206 888 0385.
E-mail address: pjmarsh@temple.edu (P.J. Marshall).

0163-6383/$ see front matter 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2005.06.002

P.J. Marshall, N.A. Fox / Infant Behavior & Development 28 (2005) 492502

493

Frosch, 2000; Sroufe, 1985; Vaughn & Bost, 1999). While some theorists have advocated a more extreme
approach (Kagan, 1984), recent attempts to clarify temperamentattachment relations have often focused
on identifying commonalities between temperament and attachment. In this sense, a behavior systems
approach has proven useful (Stevenson-Hinde, 1991). Temperament is associated with how an infant or
child reacts under stress, including the stress associated with separation (Kochanska & Coy, 2002). Therefore, a paradigm such as the Strange Situation would activate behavior systems related to temperamental
emotionality (e.g., the fear system) as well as the attachment system (Stevenson-Hinde & Shouldice,
1993).
Studies examining relations between temperamental emotionality and attachment have come from at
least two directions. Some studies have examined attachment in infancy or early childhood and reactions
to stressors such as unfamiliar people assessed contemporaneously or at a later age. As reviewed by
Stevenson-Hinde (2000), wariness to strangers in late infancy or early childhood (conceptualized as a
temperamental variable) has been associated with ambivalent attachment, while avoidant attachment
has been associated with a less fearful temperament (e.g., Burgess, Marshall, Rubin, & Fox, 2003;
Calkins & Fox, 1992; Stevenson-Hinde & Marshall, 1999; Stevenson-Hinde & Shouldice, 1990), although
these relations have not always been replicated (Nachmias, Gunnar, Mangelsdorf, Parritz, & Buss, 1996;
Stevenson-Hinde & Shouldice, 1993).
A second set of studies has examined early temperamental reactivity in relation to later attachment
classification. One of the issues in this literature is whether temperamental characteristics affect attachment
classification in a direct manner. One suggestion has been that an infant who is particularly irritable may
be more upset by separation and would therefore seek proximity and contact on reunion, and may not
sooth easily. This would make that infant more likely to be classified as having a resistant or ambivalent
attachment. Indeed, there is some support for a modest relation between infant proneness-to-distress and
ambivalent attachment (Goldsmith & Alansky, 1987). An alternative viewpoint is that a temperamental
profile reflecting a high level of proneness-to-distress and negative emotionality, while being associated
with specific behaviors in the Strange Situation such as increased crying, is not predictive of a specific
attachment classification or of attachment security or insecurity (e.g., Belsky & Rovine, 1987). Indeed,
there are a number of studies supporting the notion that individual differences in early temperamental
reactivity do not map onto the traditional attachment classifications of avoidant/secure/ambivalent in a
direct manner. Instead, such studies have suggested that temperamental characteristics may be related to
the sub-classifications within the main attachment categories. Building on the original work of Ainsworth,
Thompson and colleagues noted that infants classified as B1 or B2 tend to show less distress to separation
than those classified at B3 or B4 (Frodi & Thompson, 1985; Thompson & Lamb, 1984). In this sense,
the infants classified as B1 or B2 more closely resemble avoidant (A) infants than do infants classified as
B3 or B4. Indeed, the relatively high distress to separation shown by infants classified as B3 or B4 make
them more similar in this respect to ambivalent (C) infants. Belsky and Rovine (1987) extended these
ideas and suggested that these differences in emotional expression observed in the Strange Situation may
be related to temperament. Using longitudinal datasets, they found that the infants classified as A, B1, or
B2 (referred to here as A1B2 infants) group had exhibited greater autonomic stability as newborns and
had been rated by their mothers at 3 months of age as being easier to care for than infants subsequently
classified as B3, B4, or C (referred to here as B3C2 infants). Further support for this relation comes
from Kochanska (1998), who found that infants classified as A1B2 in the Strange Situation at 1315
months of age had been lower in ratings of temperamental fear at 810 months of age than B3C2 infants,
based on both maternal reports and laboratory observations of temperament. These findings suggest that

494

P.J. Marshall, N.A. Fox / Infant Behavior & Development 28 (2005) 492502

infant temperament may not relate specifically to attachment security or insecurity, but rather that it may
affect the manner in which security or insecurity is expressed.
One of the reasons for the lack of clarity in the temperamentattachment literature is variation between
studies in the methodologies used to assess temperament (for review see Vaughn & Bost, 1999). Much of
the research in this area has relied upon maternal report of infant temperament, although a small number
of studies have examined observer assessments of infant temperament in the first year of life in relation
to later attachment classification. Within these latter studies, there is also a diversity of methodologies
in terms of the contexts in which temperament was assessed, including during motherinfant interaction
(Mangelsdorf, Gunnar, Kestenbaum, Lang, & Andreas, 1990; Seifer, Schiller, Sameroff, Resnick, &
Riordan, 1996), during frustration episodes (Calkins & Fox, 1992; Fox, 1992), and during the presentation
of novel and/or intense stimuli (Kochanska, 1998). In the current study, we focus on the latter type of
temperament assessment (reactivity to discrete novel or intense stimuli) using a sample of infants who
had been selected for high or low levels of affective reactivity (positive and negative) in response to
a battery of stimulation at 4 months of age. As suggested by Kochanska and Coy (2002), this kind of
assessment outside of the context of the motherchild relationship may be a more appropriate index
of temperamental emotionality than assessments of infant difficulty during motherchild interaction.
Concerning the use of a selected sample, it has been suggested that the use of samples selected for high
or low levels of proneness-to-distress or irritability in early infancy (i.e., extreme groups) may reveal
more direct associations of temperament with attachment security or insecurity (Mangelsdorf & Frosch,
2000). For example, high rates of insecure attachment have been reported in infants selected for high
levels of irritability (van den Boom, 1989, 1994). According to Mangelsdorf and Frosch (2000), such
findings suggest that when extreme groups are examined, temperament may exert stronger direct effects
on attachment security than when other samples are used. (p. 205). One aim of the current paper is to
examine this suggestion in more detail through the use of a sample that had been subject to stringent
selection at 4 months of age based on infants affective and motor reactivity to sensory stimulation. To
this end, we examined attachment classification at 14 months of age in relation to affective reactivity to
stimulation at 4 months of age.

2. Methods
2.1. Participants
The present analyses concern 119 infants who had been selected at 4 months of age based on their
motoric and affective reactivity to stimulation (see below), and who had returned for an assessment of
attachment at 14 months of age. The infants were all Caucasian and from middle-class families, had
been born at term (3842 weeks gestational age), and had experienced no serious birth complications or
chronic illnesses. Informed consent was received from all participating families, and all protocols were
approved by the University Institutional Review Board.
The current analyses describe part of a larger longitudinal study designed to examine the antecedents of
behavioral reactivity at 4 months of age. The current sample is the same as that used by Fox, Henderson,
Rubin, Calkins, and Schmidt (2001), who documented the relation between early behavioral reactivity and
approach/withdrawal tendencies in later infancy and early childhood. The current sample also forms part
of the larger sample of Burgess et al. (2003), who examined the relations between attachment classification

P.J. Marshall, N.A. Fox / Infant Behavior & Development 28 (2005) 492502

495

at 14 months of age, reactions to unfamiliarity at 2 years of age, and behavior problems at 4 years of age
in a combination of selected and unselected samples. No previously published work from this sample has
presented the relations between 4-month reactivity and 14-month attachment classification.
2.2. Selection procedures and temperament coding at 4 months of age
A total of 433 4-month-old infants were assessed for motor activity and emotional reactivity in response
to novel sights and sounds. The purpose of the 4-month assessment was to select groups of infants meeting
specific criteria for behavioral reactivity (see below) who would then return for subsequent visits in the
study. The objective of the selection was to obtain three groups of infants: (1) A low reactive group who
did not show high levels of motor or affective reactivity to auditory and visual stimulation. (2) A high
negative group who showed high levels of motor activity and negative affect in response to stimulation.
(3) A high positive group who showed high levels of motor activity and negative affect in response to
stimulation. Full details of the selection process are given in Fox et al. (2001). The sample of 9-monthold infants described in the present manuscript was a combination of two separate cohorts with similar
selection procedures.
Families with young infants were initially contacted by mail using commercially available lists of
names and addresses compiled from the birth records of area hospitals. Infants were excluded from
further participation if the infant was preterm, if the infant had experienced any serious illnesses since
birth, if the infant was on any long-term medication, or if either of the parents was left-handed. Home
visits took place when the infant was 4 months of age (14 days). While in an infant seat and in a quiet
and alert state, the infant was presented with two sets of novel visual and auditory stimuli. The first set
of visual stimuli consisted of three different brightly colored mobiles being hung in front of the infant
for 20 s each time (with a 10 s inter-trial interval). Within this first set, the presentation of each mobile
was repeated three times for a total of nine trials. The first set of auditory stimuli consisted of eight short
sentences played from audiotape. Each sentence was approximately 6 s in duration, followed by a 2 s
inter-trial interval. The sentences differed in the number of voices speaking. The first pair was spoken by
a single voice, the second pair by two voices, the third pair by three voices, and the fourth pair by four
voices. The second set of visual stimuli was similar to the first except that the characters on the mobiles
were different. As in the first set of visual stimuli, each of the three mobiles in the second set of three
mobiles was presented three times. The second set of auditory stimuli consisted of nonsense syllables
(ma, ga, pa). Each nonsense syllable was presented for 10 s in each of three trials, with 5 s inter-trial
intervals. All sessions were videotaped for later coding.
Infants from both cohorts were selected based on the amount of motor reactivity as well as the level
of positive and negative affect expressed during the presentation of the novel sights and sounds. In the
first cohort, coding was based on procedures described previously by Calkins et al. (1996) and Kagan
and Snidman (1991). Specifically, the frequencies of the following behaviors were coded during stimulus
presentation: (1) motor activity, coded as arm and leg movements greater than 45 from a resting position,
bursts of two or more arm and leg movements, back arches, hyperextension of arms and legs; (2) positive
affect, coded as smiling and neutral or positive vocalizations; and (3) negative affect, coded as fussing,
fretting, and crying. Inter-rater reliability was computed on approximately 20% of the sample. Pearson
correlations between pairs of raters ranged from .78 to .86. Infants who were extreme on the dimensions
of motor activity and affect were selected for participation in the study. The criteria for selection were
established based on the reactions of the first 25% of the screened sample. Three groups were selected: (1)

496

P.J. Marshall, N.A. Fox / Infant Behavior & Development 28 (2005) 492502

those above the mean on motor activity and negative affect (the high negative group); (2) those above
the mean on motor activity and positive affect (the high positive group); and (3) those below the mean
on motor activity, positive, and negative affect (the low reactive group). Of the 208 infants screened in
the first cohort, 29 were identified as high negative, 22 as high positive, and 30 as low reactive.
In the second cohort, coders used 7-point Likert scales to rate the infants motor, positive, and negative
reactions to each of the visual and auditory presentations. On the motor scale, a score of 7 indicated
intense gross motor activity including back arching, body twisting, and hyperextensions of the arms and
legs. A score of 1 indicated very little or no motor activity. A score of 7 on the positive affect scale was
used to describe infants who responded with many positive vocalizations, and many instances of gurgling,
cooing, and smiling (either at the stimulus or the experimenter). A score of 1 on the positive affect scale
was used for infants who did not smile at all or make more than two neutral or low intensity positive
vocalizations during the presentation. On the negative affect scale, a score of 7 indicated a high degree of
intense negative affect and described infants who cried or fussed continuously during the majority of the
stimulus presentations. A 1 on the same scale indicated an absence of negative affect across the different
stimulus events. Three coders rated the tapes. Estimates of inter-rater reliability were computed for pairs
of coders, based on 20% of the sample. Pearson correlations ranged from .62 to .95. To be classified as
high negative, an infant had to receive a score of 4 or more on motor activity for both the visual and
auditory presentations in either the first or second set of presentations. In addition, the infant had to have
a score of 4 or more for negative affect during the same set stimuli presentations. To be classified as high
positive, an infant had to have a score of 4 or more on motor activity for both the visual and auditory
presentations in either the first of second set, as well as a score of 4 or more on positive affect during
the same presentations. The low reactive group was comprised of infants who had a score of 3 or less on
motor reactivity, positive affect, and negative affect during both the first and second set of presentations.
In addition, an infant had to have seven scores (out of a possible 12) of 1 to be identified as low reactive.
Of the 225 infants screened in the second cohort, 27 were classified as high negative, 23 as high positive,
and 22 as low reactive. Across the two cohorts, there were a total of 56 high negative infants, 45 high
positive infants, and 52 low reactive infants. The families of each of these 153 infants were invited to
participate in assessments at later ages, including an assessment of attachment at 14 months of age.
2.3. Attachment coding at 14 months of age
Of the 153 families with infants who were originally selected at 4 months of age, 120 returned for the
assessment of attachment at 14 months of age. The 120 infants were distributed across the behavioral
reactivity groups as follows: 42 infants from the low reactive group, 42 infants from the high negative
group, and 36 infants from the high positive group. Of the 33 infants who did not return at 14 months of
age, 10 had been classified as low reactive at 4 months of age, 14 had been classified as high negative,
and 9 had been classified as high positive.
The infant and mother were taken to a laboratory playroom and were videotaped during a series
of procedures that included the Strange Situation (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). Infants
were classified into one of the conventional A, B, or C categories, and in addition each infant was subclassified as A1, A2, B1, B2, B3, B4, C1 or C2. Two infants received a possible secondary classification of
disorganized (D), but this classification was not considered further in the current analyses. Attachment
classification in the Strange Situation was determined by attachment coders who had achieved reliability
with a highly experienced attachment coder. Twenty-five percent of the Strange Situations were coded

P.J. Marshall, N.A. Fox / Infant Behavior & Development 28 (2005) 492502

497

by two coders, and a further 25% of the cases were coded by the same two coders and an experienced
attachment researcher (Sarah Mangelsdorf). Satisfactory reliability between all coders (kappas >.75) was
achieved within each cohort, and disagreements were resolved by conference and mutual agreement.

3. Results
3.1. Four-month reactivity group and attachment security/insecurity
There was no significant association between 4-month reactivity group with attachment security/insecurity (Pearson Chi-square = 2.81, d.f. = 2, n.s.).
3.2. Four-month reactivity group and ABC classication
The association of 4-month reactivity group with 14-month A/B/C classification was not significant
in a Chi-square analysis (Pearson Chi-square = 8.86, d.f. = 4, p = .065). Table 1 shows both the expected
numbers according to the Chi-square and the observed numbers in each group. While the Chi-square
analysis was not significant, the trend towards statistical significance (p < .10) appears to be driven by an
accumulation of relatively small imbalances in the distribution among cells. Most salient are the lowerthan-expected numbers of high negative and high positive infants, and the higher-than-expected numbers
of low reactive infants who received a classification of A.
3.3. Four-month reactivity group and A1B2/B3C2 groups
A Chi-square analysis using the A1B2 and B3C2 groups was significant (Pearson Chi-square = 17.52,
d.f. = 2, p < .001). As shown in Table 2, the greatest imbalance between expected and observed values in
the Chi-square was for the high negative group. This group clearly had a disproportionately large number
of infants who were classified as B3C2 (27 expected, 37 observed) and a correspondingly small number
of A1B2 infants (16 expected, 5 observed). In addition, both the low reactive and high positive groups
had more than the expected numbers of infants in the A1B2 group (15 expected, 21 observed for the
low reactive group; 13 expected and 18 observed for the high positive group), and correspondingly fewer
than expected numbers in the B3C2 group.
Table 1
The distribution of the 4-month reactivity groups (low reactive, high negative, and high positive) across the main attachment
classifications (A, B, and C)
A

Low reactive
High negative
High positive

13 (8)
4 (8)
6 (9)

22 (24)
29 (25)
19 (21)

6 (9)
9 (9)
11 (8)

Total

23

70

26

Expected values are in parentheses; Pearson Chi-square = 8.86, d.f. = 4, p = .065.

Total
41
42
36
119

P.J. Marshall, N.A. Fox / Infant Behavior & Development 28 (2005) 492502

498

Table 2
The distribution of the 4-month reactivity groups (low reactive, high negative, and high positive) across the A1B2 and B3C2
subgroups
A1B2

B3C2

Total

Low reactive
High negative
High positive

21 (15)
5 (16)
18 (13)

20 (26)
37 (27)
18 (23)

41
42
36

Total

44

75

119

Expected values are in parentheses; Pearson Chi-square = 17.52, d.f. = 2, p < .001.
Table 3
The distribution of the 4-month reactivity groups (low reactive, high negative, and high positive) across the attachment subclassifications (A1C2)
A1

A2

B1

B2

B3

B4

C1

C2

Total

Low reactive
High negative
High positive

5
1
1

8
3
5

2
1
7

6
0
5

8
16
4

6
12
3

2
4
6

4
5
5

41
42
36

Total

16

10

11

28

21

12

14

119

Table 3 shows the distribution of infants in each 4-month reactivity group across each of the eight subclassifications of attachment. Of the 37 B3C2 infants from the high negative group, 28 were classified
as secure (B3/B4) and 9 were classified as insecure-ambivalent (C1C2). Of the remaining five infants,
four were classified as insecure-avoidant (A1/A2) and one infant was classified as secure (B1). Use of a
Chi-square analysis for testing this distribution was precluded by low expected values (<5) in 15 of the
24 cells.

4. Discussion
As expected, infant reactivity grouping did not map onto the main attachment classifications in a direct
manner. In addition, infant reactivity grouping did not appear to be associated directly with attachment
security or insecurity. This lack of association is consistent with evidence from behavioral genetics
studies indicating that temperamental reactivity and attachment security have divergent origins: shared
environmental factors plus unique environmental factors in the case of attachment, and genetic plus unique
factors in the case of temperament (Bokhorst et al., 2003).
Although not statistically significant, there was a trend (p = .07) towards conventional statistical
significance for an unequal distribution of the temperamental reactivity groups between the insecureavoidant (A) and insecure-ambivalent (C) attachment classifications. The basis for this trend appears to
be that the two high reactive groups (high negative and high positive) were less likely to be classified as
avoidantly attached at 14 months of age. One characteristic shared by the two high reactive groups is that
of high motor activity in response to stimulation: in addition to the criteria for affective reactivity, both
the high negative and high positive groups had been selected for high levels of motor activity in response
to stimulation at 4 months. Although the association was not statistically significant in the present study,

P.J. Marshall, N.A. Fox / Infant Behavior & Development 28 (2005) 492502

499

further work may clarify whether high levels of motor activity in response to stimuli in early infancy
play a part in influencing the nature of attachment insecurity in later infancy.
The analysis of the distribution of 4-month reactivity group across the A1B2 and B3C2 groups
revealed a significant finding. The high negative group had a disproportionately large number of infants
who were classified as B3C2, and a correspondingly small number of A1B2 infants. In contrast, both
the low reactive and high positive groups had more than the expected numbers of infants in the A1B2
group, and fewer than expected numbers in the B3C2 group. Given the association of negative reactivity
in early infancy with fearfulness in later infancy (Fox et al., 2001), the current findings are consistent with
Kochanska (1998), who found that infants classified as B3C2 in the Strange Situation at 1315 months of
age had scored higher on maternal report and laboratory ratings of temperamental fear at 810 months of
age than A1B2 infants. However, there are at least two studies that do not support a distinction between
A1B2 and B3B4 infants in terms of emotionality in the first year of life. Firstly, Seifer et al. (1996) did
not find infants classified as B3C2 at 12 months of age to be higher on observed temperamental difficulty
during the first year of life. In fact, Seifer et al. (1996) found that temperamental difficulty was greater in
the A1B2 group. Second, Mangelsdorf et al. (1990) found no relation between proneness-to-distress at 9
months of age and the A1B2/B3C4 groupings from the Strange Situation at 13 months of age. However,
there is one important consideration that may explain these findings in the context of the current findings.
In both of these studies, temperament was primarily assessed during episodes of motherinfant interaction
during ongoing, everyday activities. In the current study and that of Kochanska (1998), the assessment of
infant temperament involved presentation of discrete stimuli outside of interaction with the mother. The
distinction between the contexts of measuring temperamental emotionality is critical (Kochanska &
Coy, 2002). Measurements of emotional responses to discrete stimulus presentation (e.g., novel objects)
or situations (e.g., arm restraint) outside of the context of motherchild interaction are likely to reflect biologically based aspects of temperament to a greater extent than measures of emotional expression during
interactions with the parent, which may more reflect aspects of that dyadic relationship. Indeed, Kochanska
and Coy (2002) found that infants who were more fearful in laboratory temperament assessments at 9 and
14 months of age were more upset by separation and sought proximity to the mother on reunion, compared
with less fearful infants. However, the links between the assessment of temperament and reunion behaviors
became weaker when the level of separation distress was controlled for, suggesting that separation distress
mediates reunion behaviors in the context of temperament. Interestingly, Kochanska and Coy (2002) found
direct links between emotion measures measured in the context of motherchild interaction (outside the
Strange Situation) and reunion behaviors, suggesting that these relations were not mediated by separation
distress.
The present results suggest that early emotionality does not specifically influence the primary
attachment classification (i.e., A, B, or C) or the likelihood that an infant will be securely or insecurely
attached. Instead, it appears that early negative reactivity is associated with groups of attachment
sub-classifications which are associated with increased distress in the Strange Situation. In other words,
an infant showing highly negative reactions to stimulation in early infancy is more likely to be classified
as B3, B4, C1 or C2 in assessments of attachment in later infancy. An outstanding question concerns the
specific determinants of whether a temperamentally negatively reactive infant will be securely (B3B4)
or insecurely (C1C2) attached. These mechanisms can be considered at both proximal and more distal
levels. A relatively proximal determinant would appear to be individual differences in self-regulatory
behaviors shown during separation and reunion episodes in the Strange Situation. Infants classified as B3
or B4 tend to display high levels of negative affect during separation, but this negative affect decreases

500

P.J. Marshall, N.A. Fox / Infant Behavior & Development 28 (2005) 492502

rapidly on reunion with the mother. In a careful analysis of behaviors presumed to reflect self-regulatory
capacities, Braungart and Stifter (1991) found that B3B4 infants showed a high level of regulatory
behaviors such as orientation to people and objects during separation (e.g., looking to the stranger and
then looking to the door). Infants classified as C1 or C2, while not showing the same recovery as B3B4
infants on reunion, displayed lower levels of such regulatory behaviors than the B3B4 infants. The ontogenesis of such regulatory abilities would be expected to be related to the infants ecology and the history
of care giving (Cassidy, 1994). Indeed, based on the extant literature, the most likely distal mechanism
for determining attachment security (B3B4) versus insecurity (C1C2) for a temperamentally high
negative infant involves variations in maternal sensitivity, which has been associated with attachment
security across a wide range of studies (van Ijzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2004). Unfortunately,
in the current study we lacked the appropriate parenting data to address related questions about parental
sensitivity.
As reviewed by Vaughn and Bost (1999), the literature on temperament and attachment relations is
complex and involves multiple methodologies and diverse findings. However, the findings presented in the
current study provide additional evidence for the relations between infant emotionality and the emerging
motherchild attachment relationship. The significant relations between the A1B2/B3C2 grouping and
temperament in early infancy add some weight to the claims of Belsky and Rovine (1987) and others who
have highlighted the role of infant temperament in behavior in the Strange Situation (Fox, Kimmerly, &
Schafer, 1991). The strength of this finding also points to the utility of selected samples in addressing
questions in this area (see also Stevenson-Hinde & Shouldice, 1993).

Acknowledgements
Parts of the analyses in this manuscript were presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for
Research in Child Development (2001) in Minneapolis, MN. The authors wish to thank all the families
who participated in the study, as well as the many students and staff who assisted with visits and coding.
This work was supported by NIH award HD17899 to N.A.F. Thanks are also due to Joan Stevenson-Hinde
for comments on a previous version of this manuscript, and to Sarah Mangelsdorf for assistance with
attachment coding.

References
Ainsworth, M. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange
situation. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Belsky, J., & Rovine, M. (1987). Temperament and attachment security in the strange situation: An empirical rapprochement.
Child Development, 58, 787795.
Bokhorst, C. L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Pasco Fearon, R. M., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Fonagy, P., & Schuengel, C. (2003).
The importance of shared environment in motherinfant attachment security: A behavioral genetic study. Child Development,
74, 17691782.
Braungart, J. M., & Stifter, C. A. (1991). Regulation of negative reactivity during the strange situation: Temperament and
attachment in 12-month-old infants. Infant Behavior & Development, 14, 349364.
Burgess, K. B., Marshall, P. J., Rubin, K. H., & Fox, N. A. (2003). Infant attachment and temperament as predictors of subsequent
externalizing problems and cardiac physiology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 819831.

P.J. Marshall, N.A. Fox / Infant Behavior & Development 28 (2005) 492502

501

Calkins, S. D., & Fox, N. A. (1992). The relations among infant temperament, security of attachment, and behavioral inhibition
at twenty-four months. Child Development, 63, 14561472.
Calkins, S. D., Fox, N. A., & Marshall, T. R. (1996). Behavioral and physiological antecedents of inhibited and uninhibited
behavior. Child Development, 46, 856862.
Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. In N. A. Fox (Ed.). The development of emotion
regulation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2), 228283.
Fox, N. A. (1992). The role of individual differences in infant personality in the formation of the attachment relationship. In L.
Feagans, L. Sussman, & W. J. Ray (Eds.), Emotions and health: A two-way street (pp. 3152). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fox, N. A., Kimmerly, N. L., & Schafer, W. D. (1991). Attachment to mother/attachment to father: A meta-analysis. Child
Development, 62, 210225.
Fox, N. A., Henderson, H. A., Rubin, K. H., Calkins, S. D., & Schmidt, L. A. (2001). Continuity and discontinuity of behavioral inhibition and exuberance: Psychophysiological and behavioral influences across the first four years of life. Child
Development, 72, 121.
Frodi, A., & Thompson, R. (1985). Infants affective responses in the strange situation: Effects of prematurity and of quality of
attachment. Child Development, 56, 12801290.
Goldsmith, H. H., & Alansky, J. A. (1987). Maternal and infant temperamental predictors of attachment: A meta-analytic review.
Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 55, 805816.
Kagan, J. (1984). The nature of the child. New York: Basic Books.
Kagan, J., & Snidman, N. (1991). Temperamental factors in human development. American Psychologist, 46, 856862.
Kochanska, G. (1998). Motherchild relationship, child fearfulness, and emerging attachment: A short-term longitudinal study.
Developmental Psychology, 34, 480490.
Kochanska, G., & Coy, K. C. (2002). Child emotionality and maternal responsiveness as predictors of reunion behaviors in the
Strange Situation: Links mediated and unmediated by separation distress. Child Development, 73, 228240.
Mangelsdorf, S. C., & Frosch, C. A. (2000). Temperament and attachment: One construct or two? In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances
in child development and behavior: 27 (pp. 181220). Academic Press.
Mangelsdorf, S., Gunnar, M., Kestenbaum, R., Lang, S., & Andreas, D. (1990). Infant proneness-to-distress temperament,
maternal personality, and motherinfant attachment: associations and goodness of fit. Child Development, 61, 820
831.
Nachmias, M., Gunnar, M., Mangelsdorf, S., Parritz, R. H., & Buss, K. (1996). Behavioral inhibition and stress reactivity: the
moderating role of attachment security. Child Development, 67, 508522.
Seifer, R., Schiller, M., Sameroff, A. J., Resnick, S., & Riordan, K. (1996). Attachment, maternal sensitivity, and infant temperament during the first year of life. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1225.
Sroufe, L. A. (1985). Attachment classification from the perspective of infant-caregiver relationships and infant temperament.
Child Development, 56, 114.
Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1991). Temperament and attachment: An eclectic approach. In P. Bateson (Ed.), Development and integration of behaviour: Essays in honour of Robert Hinde (pp. 315329). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stevenson-Hinde, J. (2000). Shyness in the context of close relationships. In W. R. Crozier (Ed.), Shyness: Development,
consolidation, and change (pp. 88102). London: Routledge.
Stevenson-Hinde, J., & Shouldice, A. (1990). Fear and attachment in 2.5-year-olds. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
8, 319333, British Psychological Society.
Stevenson-Hinde, J., & Shouldice, A. (1993). Wariness to strangers: A behavior systems perspective revisited. In K. H. Rubin
& J. B. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood (pp. 101116). New York: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Stevenson-Hinde, J., & Marshall, P. J. (1999). Behavioral inhibition, heart period, and respiratory sinus arrhythmia: An attachment
perspective. Child Development, 70, 805816.
Thompson, R. A., & Lamb, M. E. (1984). Assessing qualitative dimensions of emotional responsiveness in infants: Separation
reactions in the strange situation. Infant Behavior & Development, 7, 423445.
van den Boom, D. C. (1989). Neonatal irritability and the development of attachment. In G. A. Kohnstamm & J. E. Bates (Eds.),
Temperament in childhood (pp. 299318). John Wiley & Sons.
van den Boom, D. C. (1994). The influence of temperament and mothering on attachment and exploration: An experimental manipulation of sensitive responsiveness among lower-class mothers with irritable infants. Child Development, 65, 14571477.

502

P.J. Marshall, N.A. Fox / Infant Behavior & Development 28 (2005) 492502

van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2004). Maternal sensitivity and infant temperament in the
formation of attachment. In G. Bremner & A. Slater (Eds.), Theories of infant development (pp. 233258). London:
Blackwell.
Vaughn, B. E., & Bost, K. K. (1999). Attachment and temperament: Redundant, independent, or interacting influences on
interpersonal adaptation and personality development? In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,
research, and clinical applications (pp. 198225). New York: Guilford Press.