CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 652Attachment and Relationship DynamicsChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

The origins of 12-month attachment: a microanalysis of 4-month mother-infant interaction.

Open access
Beebe, Beatrice, Jaffe, Joseph, Markese, Sara, Buck, Karen, Chen, Henian, Cohen, Patricia, Bahrick, Lorraine, Andrews, Howard +1 more·2010·Attachment & Human Development
DOI 10.1080/14616730903338985PMC PMC3763737
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A microanalysis of 4-month mother-infant face-to-face communication revealed a fine-grained specification of communication processes that predicted 12-month insecure attachment outcomes, particularly resistant and disorganized classifications. An urban community sample of 84 dyads were videotaped at 4 months during a face-to-face interaction, and at 12 months during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. Four-month mother and infant communication modalities of attention, affect, touch, and spatial orientation were coded from split-screen videotape on a 1 s time base; mother and infant facial-visual "engagement" variables were constructed. We used contingency measures (multi-level time-series modeling) to examine the dyadic temporal process over time, and specific rates of qualitative features of behavior to examine the content of behavior. Self-contingency (auto-correlation) measured the degree of stability/lability within an individual's own rhythms of behavior; interactive contingency (lagged cross-correlation) measured adjustments of the individual's behavior that were correlated with the partner's previous behavior. We documented that both self- and interactive contingency, as well as specific qualitative features, of mother and infant behavior were mechanisms of attachment formation by 4 months, distinguishing 12-month insecure, resistant, and disorganized attachment classifications from secure; avoidant were too few to test. All communication modalities made unique contributions. The separate analysis of different communication modalities identified intermodal discrepancies or conflict, both intrapersonal and interpersonal, that characterized insecure dyads. Contrary to dominant theories in the literature on face-to-face interaction, measures of maternal contingent coordination with infant yielded the fewest associations with 12-month attachment, whereas mother and infant self-contingency, and infant contingent coordination with mother, yielded comparable numbers of findings. Rather than the more usual hypothesis that more contingency is "better," we partially supported our hypothesis that 12-month insecurity is associated with both higher and lower 4-month self- and interactive contingency values than secure, as a function of mother vs. infant and communication modality. Thus, in the origins of attachment security, more contingency is not necessarily better. A remarkable degree of differentiation was identified in the 4-month patterns of "future" C and D infants, classified as resistant and disorganized, respectively, at 12 months. The central feature of future C dyads was dysregulated tactile and spatial exchanges, generating approach-withdrawal patterns. The intact maternal contingent coordination overall safeguards the future C infant's interactive agency. However, future C infants likely come to expect maternal spatial/tactile impingement, and to expect to "dodge" as mothers "chase." They managed maternal touch by tuning it out, sacrificing their ability to communicate about maternal touch. They "approached" by vigilantly coordinating their facial-visual engagement with maternal facial-visual engagement, but they "withdrew" by inhibiting their facial-visual engagement coordination with maternal touch. We proposed that future C infants will have difficulty feeling sensed and known during maternal spatial/tactile impingements. The central feature of future D dyads is intrapersonal and interpersonal discordance or conflict in the context of intensely distressed infants. Lowered maternal contingent coordination, and failures of maternal affective correspondence, constituted maternal emotional withdrawal from distressed infants, compromising infant interactive agency and emotional coherence. The level of dysregulation in future D dyads was thus of an entirely different order than that of future C dyads. We proposed that the future D infant represents not being sensed and known by the mother, particularly in states of distress. We proposed that the emerging internal working model of future D infants includes confusion about their own basic emotional organization, about their mothers' emotional organization, and about their mothers' response to their distress, setting a trajectory in development which may disturb the fundamental integration of the person. The findings have rich implications for clinical intervention, with remarkable specificity for different kinds of mother and infant distress. Heightened and lowered self- and interactive contingency, in different modalities, as well as the specific behavioral qualities identified, provide a more differentiated set of concepts to guide clinical intervention.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

A microanalysis of 4-month mother-infant face-to-face interaction found that self- and interactive contingency, plus specific behavioral qualities across attention, affect, touch, and spatial orientation, predicted 12-month insecure attachment—especially resistant (C) and disorganized (D) classifications. Contrary to the common “more contingency is better” view, insecurity was associated with both higher and lower 4-month contingency values depending on partner and modality.

Key findings

  • In 84 dyads, 4-month contingency analyses predicted 12-month attachment: nonB vs. B yielded 6 of 36 significant equations, C vs. B yielded 5 of 36, and D vs. B yielded 9 of 36. Avoidant (A) infants were too few to test (N = 4).
  • Maternal interactive contingency yielded the fewest associations with 12-month attachment, whereas mother and infant self-contingency and infant interactive contingency yielded comparable numbers of findings. Insecurity was linked to both heightened and lowered self- and interactive contingency, so “more contingency is not necessarily better.”
  • Future D dyads showed the most severe dysregulation: only future D infants showed simultaneous positive and negative discrepant affect (52.9% of D vs. 19.1% of B infants showed any), more vocal distress (mean 18.2% vs. 8.4% for B), and more combined facial/vocal distress (mean 21.2% vs. 10.4% for B). Their mothers showed excessive gaze away, excessive looming (50% of D mothers vs. 11.9% of B mothers), and smile/surprise during infant distress (correlated with degree of disorganization, r = .273, p = .029), plus lowered engagement and touch coordination.
  • Future C dyads showed “chase and dodge” more than B dyads (mean 46.2% vs. 21.4%, p = .025), progressively less affectionate maternal touch (p = .006), and infant inhibition of engagement/vocal coordination with maternal touch alongside heightened engagement coordination with maternal engagement.

Methods

  • Urban community sample: 152 mothers recruited at birth; 132 videotaped at 4 months; 84 returned at 12 months for the Ainsworth Strange Situation. Mothers had mean age 29 (SD 6.4); 87.4% had some college or more. Attachment distribution: 56% B (N = 47), 5% A (N = 4), 19% C (N = 16), 20% D (N = 17).
  • At 4 months, mother-infant face-to-face play without toys was videotaped; the first 2.5 uninterrupted minutes were coded on a 1s time base from split-screen video. Modalities included mother and infant gaze, facial affect, touch, spatial orientation, infant vocal affect, and composite facial-visual engagement; nine modality-pairings were analyzed.
  • Self-contingency (auto-correlation) and interactive contingency (lagged cross-correlation) were estimated with multilevel time-series models (SAS PROC MIXED; GLIMMIX for dichotomous gaze). Qualitative features were tested via ordinalized scale means and an exploratory “behavioral extremes” approach.

Limitations

  • Stated: the sample was unusual—highly educated, low avoidant prevalence (5%), high resistant (19%), and somewhat high disorganized (20%)—limiting generalizability. The multilevel time-series approach requires replication, findings were modest (about 20%–25% of equations significant for key contingency types), and effect sizes could not be assessed.
  • Stated: the behavioral extremes approach was exploratory and sensitive to exact measurement definitions; results require replication. The study examined only face-to-face behavioral transactions, excluding sleep-wake/feeding cycles, maternal states of mind, trauma history, and infant temperament.
  • Evident: attrition from 132 dyads at 4 months to 84 at 12 months was substantial, and avoidant dyads were too few to test, so conclusions center on C and D versus B classifications.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14616730903338985

Cites

231 of 231 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 248 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    A remarkable degree of differentiation was identified in the 4-month patterns of 'future' C and D infants, classified as resistant and disorganized, respectively, at 12 months.

    “A remarkable degree of differentiation was identified in the 4-month patterns of “future” C and D infants, classified as resistant and disorganized, respectively, at 12 months.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Future D dyads showed a dyadic touch dysregulation.

    “Future D dyads showed a dyadic touch dysregulation”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingnone given

    Both future C and D dyads showed patterns of touch dysregulation.

    “Both future C and D dyads showed patterns of touch dysregulation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Only mothers of future D infants showed difficulty in sharing infant affect, particularly distress.

    “only their mothers showed difficulty in sharing infant affect, particularly distress,”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Only mothers of future D infants disturbed the attentional 'frame' by looking and looking away from the infant's face in less predictable ways than mothers of future B infants.

    “Only mothers of future D infants disturbed the attentional “frame” as well, by looking and looking away from the infant’s face in less predictable ways than mothers of future B infants.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 291
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 133
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Only future D infants were emotionally distressed, with simultaneous positive and negative discrepant affect.

    “Only future D infants were emotionally distressed, with simultaneous positive and negative discrepant affect;”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Measures of maternal contingent coordination with infant yielded the fewest associations with 12-month attachment, whereas mother and infant self-contingency, and infant contingent coordination with mother, yielded comparable numbers of findings.

    “measures of maternal contingent coordination with infant yielded the fewest associations with 12-month attachment, whereas mother and infant self-contingency, and infant contingent coordination with mother, yielded comparable numbers of findings.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Reciprocally infant vocal affect activated touch: the more positive vocal affect, the more likely was infant touch.

    “Reciprocally infant vocal affect activated touch: the more positive vocal affect, the more likely was infant touch.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Beebe et al., 2008b

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Across the group, mother gaze away ranged 0-53.0% time (mean 15.8%, SD 13.4); 97.6% of mothers ever showed gaze away; 26.2% showed excessive use (20% time or more).

    “Across the group, mother gaze away from infant’s face ranged 0 – 53.0% time (mean 15.8%, SD 13.4); the percentage of mothers “ever” showing gaze away was 97.6%; the percentage showing excessive use (20% time or more) was 26.2%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Average values of intrusive touch frequency did not differ for future nonB vs B mothers, nor did percentage of mothers using any time in intrusive touch.

    “Average values of intrusive touch frequency did not differ for future nonB vs. B mothers, nor did percentage of mothers using “any” time in intrusive touch.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Discrepant affect was over twice as likely to be positive facial affect and negative vocalization (72.5% of sec) as negative facial affect and positive vocalization (27.5%).

    “It was over twice as likely to be positive facial affect and negative vocalization (72.5% of sec), as negative facial affect and positive vocalization (27.5%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    57.1% of infants ever used 60-90° avert; 6.0% showed excessive use.

    “Across the group, 57.1% of infants “ever” used 60–90° avert; percentage of infants showing excessive use was rare (6.0%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Across the group, mothers ranged 0-80% time in positive facial affect (mean 23.2, SD 17.5).

    “Defined as smile 2, smile 3 or mock surprise (see Appendix A), across the group mothers ranged 0 – 80% time in positive facial affect (mean 23.2, SD 17.5).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    96.4% of mothers ever showed positive facial affect; 50% showed 20% time+; 15.5% showed 40% time (60s) or more.

    “Percentage of mothers “ever” showing it was 96.4%; 50% showed 20% time+ in positive affect; 15.5% showed 40% time (60s) or more.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data

    Lack of findings when testing means of the ordinalized behavioral scales prompted an exploratory approach labeled the analysis of behavioral extremes.

    “Lack of findings when testing means of the ordinalized behavioral scales (see below) prompted an exploratory approach, labeled the analysis of “behavioral extremes,” following Lyons-Ruth et al. (1999), and Tomlinson et al. (2005).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lyons-Ruth et al. (1999)

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Tomlinson et al. (2005)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There were no differences in mean values of percent time infant gaze away, or excessive infant gaze away (20% of the time or more), for future nonB vs. B classifications.

    “There were no differences in mean values of percent time infant gaze away, or excessive infant gaze away (20% of the time or more), for future nonB vs. B classifications.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Mothers ranged 0-94% time in intrusive touch (mean 7.1%, SD 16.4); 53.6% showed none.

    “Mothers ranged 0 – 94% time in intrusive touch (mean 7.1%, SD 16.4); half of mothers (53.6%) showed none.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    26.2% of infants ever showed discrepant affect, and there was no excessive use.

    “The percentage of infants across the group “ever” showing discrepant affect was 26.2; there was no excessive use.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    When qualitative features of behaviors were evaluated as rates of behavioral extremes, associations with attachment were more visible; averaging behavioral scales missed essential patterns that the analysis of behavioral extremes revealed.

    “In contrast, Table 4 shows that when qualitative features of behaviors were evaluated as rates of behavioral extremes, associations with attachment were more visible. Thus averaging our behavioral scales missed essential patterns that the analysis of behavioral extremes revealed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Because A dyads were so few (N=4), the nonB group is composed primarily of C and D.

    “Although dyads classified at 12 months as A, C, and D were included in the nonB group, because A dyads were so few (N=4), the nonB group is composed primarily of C and D.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    12.8% of B infants but 33.3% of nonB infants failed to touch, over twice as many.

    “Illustrating with “no touch” (failure to touch at all), 12.8% of B infants but 33.3% of nonB infants failed to touch, over twice as many.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    34.5% of mothers ever showed negative facial affect; 90% showed it under 5% (mean 2.8%); no mothers showed excessive use.

    “Percentage of mothers “ever” showing negative facial affect was 34.5%, yet 90% of mothers showed it under 5% (mean 2.8%) of the time. Thus 2/3 of mothers never showed it; no mothers showed excessive use.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Looming ranged 0-100% of the time (one mother loomed 100% of the time).

    “Looming ranging 0 – 100% of the time (one mother loomed 100% of the time).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Percentage of mothers meeting 20% time+ was 51.1% for future B and 48.6% for nonB; percentage meeting 40%+ was 17.0% for future B and 13.5% for nonB, not significant differences.

    “Percentage of mothers meeting 20% time+ was 51.1% for future B and 48.6% for nonB; percentage meeting 40%+ was 17.0% for future B mothers and 13.5% for nonB, not significant differences.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Using excessive use of percent time gazing away, 14.9% of B and 29.7% of nonB mothers met this criterion, but contrasts were not significant.

    “Using excessive use of percent time gazing away, 14.9% of B and 29.7% of nonB mothers met this criterion, but contrasts were not significant (by chi-square test).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    15.5% of mothers ever showed interruptive touch; 1.2% showed excessive use.

    “The percentage of mothers “ever” showing interruptive touch was 15.5%; the percentage showing excessive use was 1.2%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    46.4% of mothers ever used intrusive touch; 13.1% showed excessive use (30s or more); 25% used intrusive touch more than 4.5% of the time.

    “Percentage of mothers who “ever” used intrusive touch was 46.4%; percentage showing excessive use (30s or more) was 13.1%; 25% of mothers used intrusive touch more than 4.5% of the time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Mothers of future B infants mostly do not loom (61.9% did not loom), some loomed moderately (26.2%), and a few were excessive loomers (11.9%).

    “Mothers of future B infants mostly do not loom (61.9% of B mothers did not loom), some loomed moderately (26.2%), and a few were excessive loomers (11.9%).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    About half the mothers (46.6%) ever loomed, and one quarter (24.7%) showed excessive use.

    “About half the mothers (46.6%) “ever” loomed, and one quarter (24.7%) showed “excessive use.””
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For mothers of future nonB infants, 41.9% showed no loom, 16.1% loomed moderately, and 41.9% excessively.

    “For mothers of future nonB infants, 41.9% showed no loom, 16.1% loomed moderately, and 41.9% excessively.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Mean percent time in infant facial/vocal distress was 13.1% (SD 18.0) across the group.

    “The mean percent time in facial/vocal distress was 13.1% (SD 18.0) across the group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Mean percent time in "touch own skin" across the group was 13.0% (SD 17.6) (range 0.0-87.0), but did not differentiate future nonB vs B infants.

    “The mean percent time infants spent in “touch own skin” across the group was 13.0% (SD 17.6) (range 0.0–87.0), but did not differentiate future nonB vs. B infants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    The exploratory approach to behavioral extremes yielded far more than means of the ordinalized scales.

    “This exploratory approach to behavioral extremes yielded far more than means of the ordinalized scales.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Infant discrepant facial/vocal affect was rare, ranging 0-5.3% of the time across the group and representing 1.1% of the data set (215s).

    “Defined as simultaneous (within same sec) positive affect in one modality (facial or vocal) and negative affect in the other, infant discrepant affect was rare, ranging 0 – 5.3 % of the time across the group, and representing 1.1% of the data set (215s).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Across the group, infants ranged 0-47.3% time in arch (mean 2.2%, SD 6.6); 42.9% ever used arch; 2.4% showed excessive use.

    “Across the group, infants ranged 0 – 47.3% time in arch (mean 2.2%, SD 6.6); 42.9% of infants “ever” used arch; percentage of infants showing excessive use was rare (2.4%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Infant touch object (20.7% time), touch mother (28.6%), or more than one type of touch (4.0%) yielded no effects.

    “The codes of infant touch object (20.7% time), touch mother (28.6%), or more than one type of touch (4.0%) yielded no effects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Future B infants showed significant 4-month self-contingency of head orientation (vis-à-vis to arch), and coordinated head orientation with mother spatial orientation (upright, forward, loom); their mothers showed significant 4-month spatial orientation self-contingency, but did not coordinate spatial orientation with infant head orientation.

    “Future B infants showed significant 4-month self-contingency of head orientation (vis-à-vis to arch), and coordinated head orientation with mother spatial orientation (upright, forward, loom); their mothers showed significant 4-month spatial orientation self-contingency, but did not coordinate spatial orientation with infant head orientation.6”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The future secure subset is less than half the full group, yet infant self-contingency findings are identical, and interactive contingency findings are very similar, compared to the average dyad across the group.

    “The future secure subset is less than half the full group, yet infant self-contingency findings are identical, and interactive contingency findings are very similar, compared to the average dyad across the group.8”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Beebe et al., 2003

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites 2008b

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Regarding self-contingency, future nonB (vs B) infants differ only in facial-visual engagement and touch; mothers of future nonB (vs B) infants differ only in gaze and spatial orientation.

    “Regarding self-contingency, future nonB (vs. B) infants differ only in facial-visual engagement and touch; mothers of future nonB (vs. B) infants differ in only in gaze and spatial orientation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Future secure infants do not contingently coordinate their vocal affect (pairing 6) or touch (pairing 7) behaviors with mother touch.

    “But infants do not contingently coordinate their vocal affect (pairing 6) or touch (pairing 7) behaviors with mother touch.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Percentage of dyads ever showing chase and dodge was 32.9%; 6.8% showed excessive use.

    “Percentage of dyads “ever” showing it was 32.9 %; 6.8% of dyads showed “excessive use.””
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Future nonB infants differed from B in 20% (two of 10 possible) of self-contingency analyses, and 25% (two of eight possible) interactive contingency findings.

    “Future nonB infants differed from B in the following 4-month patterns: 20% (two of 10 possible) of self-contingency analyses, and 25% (two of eight possible) interactive contingency findings.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    There were no differences in contingency values of future nonB vs B dyads for infant facial affect - mother facial affect.

    “There were no differences in contingency values of future nonB vs. B dyads.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Future B infants did not contingently coordinate engagement with mother engagement, but their mothers did significantly coordinate engagement with infant engagement.

    “Whereas future B infants did not contingently coordinate engagement with mother engagement, their mothers did significantly coordinate engagement with infant engagement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Future B infants showed significant self-contingency of vocal affect and touch, and significant crossmodal contingent coordination of infant vocal affect with infant touch (I Tch → I Voc), and coordination of infant touch with infant vocal affect (I Voc → I Tch).

    “Future B infants showed significant self-contingency of vocal affect and touch, and significant crossmodal contingent coordination of infant vocal affect with infant touch (I Tch → I Voc), and coordination of infant touch with infant vocal affect (I Voc → I Tch).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Future B infants showed significant self-contingency of touch, but did not contingently coordinate their touch with mother touch; their mothers showed significant 4-month touch self-contingency, and contingent touch coordination with infant touch.

    “Future B infants showed significant self-contingency of touch, but did not contingently coordinate their touch with mother touch; their mothers showed significant 4-month touch self-contingency, and contingent touch coordination with infant touch.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    All significant contingency findings carried a positive sign in all modality pairings, with one exception, infant head orientation predicting mother spatial orientation, significant with a negative sign.

    “All significant contingency findings carried a positive sign in all modality pairings, with one exception, infant head orientation predicting mother spatial orientation, significant with a negative sign.6”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Percentage of future B dyads ever showing chase and dodge was 21.4%, and 51.8% for future nonB.

    “Percentage of future B dyads “ever” showing chase and dodge was 21.4%, and 51.8% for future nonB.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Future nonB mothers differed from B in 25% (two of eight possible) self-contingency analyses, but in no interactive contingency analyses.

    “Future nonB mothers differed from B in 25% (two of eight possible) self-contingency analyses, but in no interactive contingency analyses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Mothers of future B infants showed significant touch self-contingency, but did not contingently coordinate their touch patterns with infant engagement.

    “Mothers of future B infants showed significant touch self-contingency, but did not contingently coordinate their touch patterns with infant engagement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Future secure infants did not coordinate engagement with mother engagement (pairing 4); and did not coordinate vocal affect or touch with mother touch (pairings 6 and 7).

    “Infants did not coordinate engagement with mother engagement (pairing 4); and infants did not coordinate vocal affect or touch with mother touch (pairings 6 and 7).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Future nonB (vs B) infants showed lowered engagement self-contingency but heightened contingent engagement coordination with mother engagement.

    “Future nonB (vs. B) infants showed lowered engagement self-contingency but heightened contingent engagement coordination with mother engagement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Future B infants showed significant 4-month self-contingency of vocal affect, and contingent vocal affect coordination with mother facial affect.

    “Future B infants showed significant 4-month self-contingency of vocal affect, and contingent vocal affect coordination with mother facial affect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    nonB included A (N = 3), C (N = 17) and D (N = 17) dyads; because A infants were so few, nonB refers primarily to C and D infants.

    “Although nonB included A (N = 3), C (N = 17) and D (N = 17) dyads, because A infants were so few, nonB refers primarily to C and D infants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Future B infants showed significant 4-month self-contingency of vocal affect, but did not coordinate vocal affect with mother touch; their mothers showed significant 4-month touch self-contingency, and contingent touch coordination with infant vocal affect.

    “Future B infants showed significant 4-month self-contingency of vocal affect, but did not coordinate vocal affect with mother touch; their mothers showed significant 4-month touch self-contingency, and contingent touch coordination with infant vocal affect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Future B infants and their mothers showed significant 4-month self- and interactive contingency of facial affect.

    “Future B infants and their mothers showed significant 4-month self- and interactive contingency of facial affect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the 4-month infant intrapersonal pattern (pairing 9), infant vocal affect and infant touch each showed a significant contingent coordination with the other.

    “In the 4-month infant intrapersonal pattern (pairing 9), infant vocal affect and infant touch each showed a significant contingent coordination with the other.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Mothers of future B infants showed significant 4-month facial self-contingency and contingent facial coordination with infant vocal affect.

    “Mothers of future B infants showed significant 4-month facial self-contingency and contingent facial coordination with infant vocal affect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Future C infants differed from B in 10% (1 of 10 possible) of self-contingency analyses and approximately 38% (3 of 8 possible) of interactive contingency analyses.

    “Future C infants differed from B in 10% (1 of 10 possible) of self-contingency analyses and approximately 38% (3 of 8 possible) of interactive contingency analyses.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Mother and infant self-contingency show 2 findings each.

    “Mother and infant self-contingency show 2 findings each.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Mothers of future C (vs. B) infants showed intact interactive contingency, safeguarding the infant's interactive agency.

    “However, mothers of future C (vs. B) infants showed intact interactive contingency, safeguarding the infant’s interactive agency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Of 36 total possible analyses, 5 were significant, approximately 14%.

    “Of 36 total possible analyses, 5 were significant, approximately 14%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Mothers of future C (vs. B) infants showed progressively less positive touch, an increasing likelihood of less affectionate, more active touch patterns as the 2.5 min session progressed.

    “Mothers of future C (vs. B) infants showed progressively less positive touch, an increasing likelihood of less affectionate, more active touch patterns as the 2.5 min session progressed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Excessive use of intrusive touch (20% time+) was more prevalent in mothers of future C (25%) than B (6.5%) infants, but Fisher's exact test showed a nonsignificant trend (p = .066).

    ““Excessive use” of intrusive touch (20% time+) was more prevalent in mothers of future C (25%) than B (6.5%) infants, but Fisher’s exact test showed a nonsignificant trend (p = .066).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Future C infants lowered their engagement self-contingency, an imbalance tilting toward interpersonal involvement at the expense of self-stability.

    “Not only did future C infants heighten engagement coordination with maternal engagement, but they also lowered their engagement self-contingency, an imbalance tilting toward interpersonal involvement at the expense of self-stability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Negative vocal affect is the sixth most prevalent behavior for B infants (mean % time 8.4, SD 12.4), but the third most prevalent for D infants (mean % time 18.2, SD 22.4).

    “Illustrating these differences, negative vocal affect is the sixth most prevalent behavior for B infants (mean % time 8.4, SD 12.4; see Web Appendix 3, on our website), but the third most prevalent for D infants (mean % time 18.2, SD 22.4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In this process, the infant dampens his distress response to maternal less affectionate touch, and instead stays vigilant to mother's attention and affect.

    “In this process, the infant dampens his distress response to maternal less affectionate touch, and instead stays vigilant to mother’s attention and affect (Mary Sue Moore, personal communication, July 2, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mary Sue Moore, personal communication, July 2, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Within future B infants, three-quarters (75%) showed negative vocal affect 11.3% of time or less; whereas within future D infants, three-quarters (76.5%) showed negative vocal affect 24.7% of time or less, twice as much.

    “Within future B infants, three-quarters (75%) showed negative vocal affect 11.3% of time or less; whereas within future D infants, three-quarters (76.5%) showed negative vocal affect 24.7% of time or less, twice as much.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Infant negative vocal affect is elevated in future D (vs. B) infants in all measures, but only significant when tested one way.

    “Infant negative vocal affect is elevated in future D (vs. B) infants in all measures, but only significant when tested one way, illustrating the sensitivity to the precise measurement of the variable.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Regarding behavioral qualities, future D (vs. B) mothers showed more gazing away, more excessive looming, and mother smile/surprise while infant was distressed, but did not differ in positive or negative affect, or touch.

    “Regarding behavioral qualities, future D (vs. B) mothers showed more gazing away, more excessive looming, and mother smile/surprise while infant was distressed, but did not differ in positive or negative affect, or touch.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Mothers of future D infants differed from mothers of future B in 38% (3 of 8 possible) self-contingency analyses, and in 20% (2 of 8 possible) interactive contingency analyses.

    “Mothers of future D infants differed from mothers of future B in 38% (3 of 8 possible) self-contingency analyses, and in 20% (2 of 8 possible) interactive contingency analyses.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Percent time mother loom was elevated with increasing degree of disorganization (using the 7-point scale) but not significant (Spearman rho = .22, p = .10).

    “Percent time mother loom was elevated with increasing degree of disorganization (using the 7-point scale) but not significant (Spearman rho = .22, p = .10).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Future D infants differed from future B in 40% (4 of 10 possible) of self-contingency analyses, but no interactive contingency analyses.

    “Future D infants differed from future B in 40% (4 of 10 possible) of self-contingency analyses, but no interactive contingency analyses.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Regarding interactive contingencies, future D infants did not differ from future B; their mothers differed only in interactive contingencies of engagement and touch.

    “Regarding interactive contingencies, as illustrated in Figure 5B, future D infants did not differ from future B; their mothers differed only in interactive contingencies of engagement and touch.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Mothers of future B infants mostly did not loom (61.9%), some loomed moderately, 1-29s (26.2%), and a few were excessive loomers, 30+s (11.9%).

    “Mothers of future B infants mostly did not loom (61.9%), some loomed moderately, 1–29s (26.2%), and a few were excessive loomers, 30+s (11.9%).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    72.3% of mothers who gazed away excessively had infants with higher degrees of disorganization (of 4-7), whereas 36.4% of mothers who did not gaze away excessively had infants with higher degrees of disorganization.

    “To illustrate, 72.3% of mothers who gazed away excessively had infants with higher degrees of disorganization (of 4–7), whereas 36.4% of mothers who did not gaze away excessively had infants with higher degrees of disorganization.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Despite fewer degrees of freedom in the D (N = 17) vs. B, compared to nonB (N = 37) vs. B analyses, the number of D findings is 9 of 36, whereas that of the nonB findings is 6 of 36.

    “Despite fewer degrees of freedom in the D (N = 17) vs. B, compared to nonB (N = 37) vs. B analyses, the number of D findings is 9 of 36, whereas that of the nonB findings is 6 of 36.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Future D mothers not only looked away excessively, but they did so in a less predictable fashion.

    “Future D mothers not only looked away excessively, but they did so in a less predictable fashion.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Percentage of mothers "ever" using negative facial affect was 44.0% for mothers of future B infants, and 47.1% for mothers of future D, not significant.

    “Tested as presence/absence, percentage of mothers “ever” using negative facial affect was 44.0% for mothers of future B infants, and 47.1% for mothers of future D, not significant (by chi square test).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Regarding self-contingencies, future D (vs. B) infants differed in facial-visual engagement and touch, but not gaze, vocal affect, facial affect, or head orientation; their mothers differed in gaze, facial affect, and spatial orientation, but not engagement or touch.

    “Regarding self-contingencies, future D (vs. B) infants differed in facial-visual engagement and touch, but not gaze, vocal affect, facial affect, or head orientation; their mothers differed in gaze, facial affect, and spatial orientation, but not engagement or touch.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Future D (vs. B) infants showed differences in many measures, failing to differ only in prevalence of gazing away, negative facial affect, and head aversion/arch.

    “Future D (vs. B) infants, however, showed differences in many measures, failing to differ only in prevalence of gazing away, negative facial affect, and head aversion/arch.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Using excessive maternal use of percent time gazing away (20%+), 14.9% of B, and 35.3% of D mothers met this criterion, but contrasts were not significant.

    “Using excessive maternal use of percent time gazing away (20%+), 14.9% of B, and 35.3% of D mothers met this criterion, but contrasts were not significant (by chi-square test).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Neither 60-90° avert nor arch tested individually, nor the two behaviors tested together, showed differences between future D vs. B infants.

    “Tested as presence/absence and as percent time, neither 60–90° avert nor arch tested individually, nor the two behaviors tested together, showed differences between future D vs. B infants (tested categorically and as degree of disorganization).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Percentage of dyads "ever" showing chase and dodge was 21.4% for future B dyads and 46.2% for D.

    “Percentage of dyads “ever” showing it was 21.4% for future B dyads and 46.2% for D.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Degree of disorganization, tested in relation to maternal percent time in negative facial affect, and to "ever" using negative facial affect, were not significant.

    “Degree of disorganization, tested in relation to maternal percent time in negative facial affect, and to “ever” using negative facial affect, were not significant.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Future D (vs. B) infants spent more time in "no touch" and less time in "touch own skin."

    “Thus future D (vs. B) infants spent more time in “no touch” and less time in “touch own skin.””
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Percent time in chase and dodge was elevated in future D vs. B dyads, but not significant (p = .085).

    “Percent time in chase and dodge was elevated in future D vs. B dyads, but not significant (p = .085).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    No differences in future D vs. B dyads for infant facial affect - mother facial affect.

    “No differences in future D vs. B dyads.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Roughly half (4 of 9) of the findings concerned infant self-contingency.

    “Thus roughly half (4 of 9) of the findings concerned infant self-contingency.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    4-month infants who will be classified D (vs. B) at 12 months showed more failure to touch, less touching one's own skin, and greater likelihood of continuing in a "no touch" state.

    “(4) more failure to touch, less touching one’s own skin, and greater likelihood of continuing in a “no touch” state, all of which compromise infant access to arousal regulation through touch, in the context of increased distress.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Our prior across-group analysis, and the analysis of the secure subset, documented a positive sign in the association between infant and maternal touch: the more likely infant touch, the more likely maternal touch was affectionate (and vice-versa).

    “Our prior across-group analysis (Beebe et al., 2008b), and the analysis of the secure subset, documented a positive sign in the association between infant and maternal touch: the more likely infant touch, the more likely maternal touch was affectionate (and vice-versa).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Beebe et al., 2008b

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Facial affect and gaze on/off partner were altered in opposite directions: heightened facial self-contingency, but lowered gaze self-contingency.

    “Facial affect and gaze on/off partner, which usually operate as a “package,” were altered in opposite directions: heightened facial self-contingency, but lowered gaze self-contingency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Future D mothers showed heightened facial self-contingency, remaining overly facially stable.

    “Future D mothers also showed heightened facial self-contingency, remaining overly facially stable.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Lowered maternal facial coordination with infant facial or vocal affect, or lowered maternal gaze coordination with infant gaze, was not found in mothers of future D infants when these modalities were analyzed separately.

    “We note that lowered maternal facial coordination with infant facial or vocal affect, or lowered maternal gaze coordination with infant gaze, was not found in mothers of future D infants when these modalities were analyzed separately.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The more infants touch, the more likely vocal affect is positive, and vice-versa.

    “The more infants touch, the more likely vocal affect is positive, and vice-versa (Beebe et al., 2008b).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Beebe et al., 2008b

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Simultaneously future D infants showed an intrapersonal touch dysregulation: less touch overall, specifically less touching of their own skin, and greater likelihood of continuing in states of "no touch".

    “Simultaneously future D infants showed an intrapersonal touch dysregulation: less touch overall, specifically less touching of their own skin, and greater likelihood of continuing in states of “no touch,” metaphorically “getting stuck” in states of ”no touch.””
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Maternal lowered engagement coordination was accompanied by heightened maternal facial self-contingency, a maternal inhibition of the variability of facial changes, remaining overly facially stable or too "steady-state," like a momentary "still-face".

    “Maternal lowered engagement coordination was accompanied by heightened maternal facial self-contingency, a maternal inhibition of the variability of facial changes, remaining overly facially stable or too “steady-state,” like a momentary “still-face” (Tronick, 1989).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tronick, 1989

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Although the prevalence of behavioral qualities of positive or negative facial affect did not differ in future D vs. B mothers, the ways that mothers contingently coordinated their facial-visual behavior with that of the infants differed: the process of relating rather than the content.

    “Although the prevalence of behavioral qualities of positive or negative facial affect did not differ in future D vs. B mothers, the ways that mothers contingently coordinated their facial-visual behavior with that of the infants differed: the process of relating rather than the content.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    In the dyadic approach-avoid pattern, infants 'dodge' as mothers 'chase,' and mothers chase as infants dodge.

    “In the dyadic approach-avoid pattern, infants “dodge” as mothers “chase,” and mothers chase as infants dodge.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Mothers of future C infants showed progressively less affectionate and more active touch, and chase and dodge; whereas mothers of future D infants showed excessive loom, extensive looking away from distressed infants, and mother smile/surprise face while infants were distressed.

    “Mothers of future C infants showed progressively less affectionate and more active touch, and chase and dodge; whereas mothers of future D infants showed excessive loom, extensive looking away from distressed infants, and mother smile/surprise face while infants were distressed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    In the intrapersonal approach-avoid pattern, infants activate their engagement coordination with mother engagement, but inhibit their engagement coordination with mother less positive touch.

    “In the intrapersonal approach-avoid pattern, infants activate their engagement coordination with mother engagement, but inhibit their engagement coordination with mother less positive touch.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For mothers, behavioral qualities were altered in future C and D (vs. B) dyads, but in entirely different ways.

    “For mothers, behavioral qualities were altered in future C and D (vs. B) dyads, but in entirely different ways.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In contrast, future D (vs. B) infants differed in behavioral qualities (vocal/facial distress, vocal/facial discrepancy, less touch), and in self-contingency, but not in interactive contingency.

    “In contrast, future D (vs. B) infants differed in behavioral qualities (vocal/facial distress, vocal/facial discrepancy, less touch), and in self-contingency, but not in interactive contingency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For infants, whereas the future C infant showed no difficulties in behavioral qualities, the future D infant showed intense emotional distress, and difficulties in access to his own touch.

    “For infants, whereas the future C infant showed no difficulties in behavioral qualities, the future D infant showed intense emotional distress, and difficulties in access to his own touch.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The central difficulty of future C mothers was a spatial-tactile intrusion, coupled with an unstable spatial frame.

    “The central difficulty of future C mothers was a spatial-tactile intrusion, coupled with an unstable spatial frame.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Mothers of future D infants also showed lowered spatial self-predictability as they loomed, lowered self-predictability of looking and looking away from the infant, and heightened facial self-predictability which generated momentary 'closed-up' faces.

    “Mothers of future D infants also showed lowered spatial self-predictability as they loomed, lowered self-predictability of looking and looking away from the infant, and heightened facial self-predictability which generated momentary “closed-up” faces.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Mothers of future C and D infants shared only one finding: lowered spatial self-contingency, generating infant difficulty in predicting mother's next spatial move.

    “Mothers of future C and D infants shared only one finding: lowered spatial self-contingency, generating infant difficulty in predicting mother’s next spatial move.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Mothers of future D (vs. B) infants disturbed the interactive process, with lowered contingent coordination of engagement and touch, disturbing infant interactive efficacy in these arenas.

    “In contrast, mothers of future D (vs. B) infants disturbed the interactive process, with lowered contingent coordination of engagement and touch, disturbing infant interactive efficacy in these arenas.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Only future D dyads had difficulty in facial mirroring and the more general arena of affective correspondence.

    “Only future D dyads had difficulty in facial mirroring and the more general arena of affective correspondence, such as maternal smile/surprise expressions to infant distress, and not following the infant’s direction affective/attentional change as he became more and less engaged.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In patterns of interactive contingency, only future C dyads showed altered infant interactive contingency, whereas only future D dyads showed altered maternal interactive contingency.

    “But in patterns of interactive contingency, only future C dyads showed altered infant interactive contingency, whereas only future D dyads showed altered maternal interactive contingency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    There are no difficulties in facial mirroring or the more general arena of affective correspondences.

    “And there are no difficulties in facial mirroring or the more general arena of affective correspondences.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The C (vs. B) contrast yielded 5 of 36 possible contingency findings.

    “The nonB (vs. B) contrast yielded 6 (of 36 possible) findings, the C (vs. B) yielded 5 (of 36 possible), and the D (vs. B) yielded 9 (of 36).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Both future C and D infants showed an affective discrepancy, generating difficulty in sensing and representing a coherent state.

    “Both future C and D infants showed an affective discrepancy, generating difficulty in sensing and representing a coherent state.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Mothers of future secure infants coordinated touch patterns with infant vocal affect and touch, but not with infant engagement.

    “Similarly, mothers of future secure infants coordinated touch patterns with infant vocal affect and touch, but not with infant engagement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The ways mothers used their touch patterns in the process of contingent coordination over time (for D dyads), and reciprocally the way infants coordinated with maternal touch (for C dyads), identified future infant attachment insecurity.

    “Additionally the ways mothers used their touch patterns in the process of contingent coordination over time (for D dyads), and reciprocally the way infants coordinated with maternal touch (for C dyads), identified future infant attachment insecurity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The current findings partially replicate prior findings for interactive contingency and extend them to self-contingency, in modalities other than vocal rhythm.

    “The current findings partially replicate our prior findings for interactive contingency and extend them to self-contingency, in modalities other than vocal rhythm.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jaffe et al., 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Intrusive touch identified mothers of future nonB infants, and progressively less affectionate touch identified mothers of future C infants.

    “Intrusive touch identified mothers of future nonB infants, and progressively less affectionate touch identified mothers of future C infants.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Future secure infants coordinated with mother through gaze, facial and vocal affect as separate channels, but they did not coordinate facial-visual engagement with mother engagement.

    “In contrast, future secure infants coordinated with mother through gaze, facial and vocal affect as separate channels, but they did not coordinate facial-visual engagement with mother engagement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For future insecure infants (nonB, C and D vs. B), modalities of infant vocal affect, combined measure of facial/vocal affect, and touch each yielded findings; infant facial affect assessed alone, gaze, and head orientation did not.

    “In assessing qualitative behavioral findings for future insecure infants (nonB, C and D vs. B), modalities of infant vocal affect, our combined measure of facial/vocal affect, and touch each yielded findings; infant facial affect (assessed alone), gaze, and head orientation did not.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For infant self- and interactive contingency, and mother interactive contingency, engagement and touch were the most salient modalities predicting infant attachment insecurity; for mother self-contingency, spatial orientation and gaze were most salient.

    “Thus for infant self- and interactive contingency, and mother interactive contingency, engagement and touch were the most salient modalities predicting infant attachment insecurity; for mother self-contingency, spatial orientation and gaze were most salient.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingcitation

    The salience of self-contingency in analyses of attachment is paralleled by a similar salience in analyses of maternal depression, self-criticism and dependency.

    “The salience of self-contingency in analyses of attachment is paralleled by a similar salience in analyses of maternal depression, self-criticism and dependency (Beebe et al., 2007, 2008a).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Beebe et al., 2007, 2008a

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Both qualitative features of infant touch (frequency, absence of touch, and touch skin), and the way infants used touch in contingent coordination, predicted attachment.

    “Both qualitative features of infant touch (frequency, absence of touch, and touch skin), and the way infants used touch in contingent coordination, predicted attachment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    All modalities of communication examined (attention, affect, touch, spatial orientation) were informative and worked together to specify the nature of communication disturbances which predict insecure infant attachment outcomes.

    “All modalities were informative and worked together to specify further the nature of communication disturbances which predict insecure infant attachment outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For mothers of future insecure infants, qualitative behavioral findings were evident in all modalities except facial affect: gaze, touch, spatial orientation, and the dyadic variables of chase and dodge, and mother smile while infant distressed, all yielded significant results.

    “For mothers of future insecure infants, qualitative behavioral findings were evident in all modalities except facial affect: gaze, touch, spatial orientation, and the dyadic variables of chase and dodge, and mother smile while infant distressed, all yielded significant results.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Insecure attachment is associated with both higher and lower 4-month values of self- and interactive contingency than secure, as a function of partner and modality; this hypothesis was supported more for infants than mothers.

    “We hypothesized that insecure attachment is associated with both higher and lower 4-month values of self- and interactive contingency than secure, as a function of partner and modality. This hypothesis was supported more for infants than mothers:”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Both lowered interactive contingency (withdrawal) and heightened (vigilance), and both lowered self-contingency (destabilized rhythms) and heightened (overly stabilized rhythms), characterized insecure (vs. secure) dyads.

    “Both lowered interactive contingency (“withdrawal”) and heightened (“vigilance”), and both lowered self-contingency (“destabilized rhythms”) and heightened (overly stabilized rhythms), characterized insecure (vs. secure) dyads.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The group was highly educated and had an attachment distribution with a low prevalence of avoidant attachment (5%), a high prevalence of C (19%), and a somewhat high prevalence of D (20%) attachment.

    “The group was highly educated and had an attachment distribution with a low prevalence of avoidant attachment (5%), a high prevalence of C (19%), and a somewhat high prevalence of D (20%) attachment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    These results partially replicate prior findings for interactive contingency and extend them to self-contingency, in modalities other than vocal rhythm.

    “These results partially replicate our prior findings for interactive contingency (Jaffe et al., 2001) and extend them to self-contingency, in modalities other than vocal rhythm.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jaffe et al., 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In contingency analyses, maternal interactive contingency was least successful in predicting attachment, contrary to the literature, although maternal interactive contingency was important in the origins of future D dyads.

    “In contingency analyses, maternal interactive contingency (contingent coordination with infant behavior) was least successful in predicting attachment, contrary to the literature, although maternal interactive contingency was important in the origins of future D dyads.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Previous attachment research has emphasized mothers over infants and the interpersonal over the intrapersonal.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The findings confirm the proposition that regulation of distress is a key issue in the origins of attachment insecurity, but it was far more relevant to future D than C infants.

    “Our findings confirm the proposition that regulation of distress is a key issue in the origins of attachment insecurity (see Cassidy, 1994; Kobak & Sceery, 1988; Sroufe et al., 2005; Schore, 1994), but it was far more relevant to future D than C infants.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cassidy, 1994

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Kobak & Sceery, 1988

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Sroufe et al., 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Lowered maternal contingent coordination, and failures of maternal affective correspondence, constitute maternal emotional withdrawal from distressed infants, compromising infant interactive agency and emotional coherence.

    “Lowered maternal contingent coordination, and failures of maternal affective correspondence, constitute maternal emotional withdrawal from distressed infants, compromising infant interactive agency and emotional coherence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Both self- and interactive contingency, as well as specific qualitative features, of mother and infant behavior were mechanisms of attachment formation by 4 months, distinguishing 12-month insecure, resistant, and disorganized attachment classifications from secure; avoidant were too few to test.

    “We documented that both self- and interactive contingency, as well as specific qualitative features, of mother and infant behavior were mechanisms of attachment formation by 4 months, distinguishing 12-month insecure, resistant, and disorganized attachment classifications from secure; avoidant were too few to test.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The emerging internal working model of future D infants includes confusion about their own basic emotional organization, about their mothers' emotional organization, and about their mothers' response to their distress, setting a trajectory in development which may disturb the fundamental integration of the person.

    “We proposed that the emerging internal working model of future D infants includes confusion about their own basic emotional organization, about their mothers’ emotional organization, and about their mothers’ response to their distress, setting a trajectory in development which may disturb the fundamental integration of the person.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    High contingency is not necessarily better: both high and low degrees of contingency were shown to be related to insecure outcomes in our work on vocal rhythm, whereas midrange degrees were related to secure.

    “We also argue that high contingency is not necessarily better: both high and low degrees of contingency were shown to be related to insecure outcomes in our work on vocal rhythm, whereas midrange degrees were related to secure (Jaffe et al., 2001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jaffe et al., 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The intact interactive contingency of the mother of the future C infant overall safeguards the infant's interactive agency, and the infant's expectation that mother will match the direction of infant affective change, sharing infant states.

    “The intact interactive contingency of the mother of the future C infant overall safeguards the infant’s interactive agency, and the infant’s expectation that mother will match the direction of infant affective change, sharing infant states.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Variations in degrees of interactive contingencies of infants and adults during face-to-face interactions are associated with partner novelty, maternal depression, and infant attachment security.

    “Variations in degrees of interactive contingencies of infants and adults during face-to-face interactions are associated with partner novelty (Bigelow, 1998; Jaffe et al., 2001), maternal depression (Beebe, Jaffe, Buck, Chen, Cohen, Feldstein, & Andrews, 2008a; Cohn et al., 1990; Field, Healy, Goldstein & Gutherz, 1990), and infant attachment security (Jaffe et al., 2001; Leyendecker, Lamb, Fracas”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bigelow, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Jaffe et al., 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Beebe et al., 2008a

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Infants have remarkable capacities to detect regularities in events, to perceive contingency and its degree, and to expect when events will occur.

    “Infants have remarkable capacities to detect regularities in events, to perceive contingency and its degree, and to expect when events will occur.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Saffran et al., 1996

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Tarabulsy et al., 1996

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    These reciprocal contingency processes are essential to the creation of infant and maternal social expectancies and interactive efficacy, and to infant cognitive development.

    “These reciprocal contingency processes are essential to the creation of infant and maternal social expectancies and interactive efficacy, and to infant cognitive development (Hay, 1997; Lewis & Goldberg, 1969; Murray & Cooper, 1997; Sander, 1995; Stern, 1985; Trevarthen, 1977; Tronick, 1989).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Hay, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Lewis & Goldberg, 1969

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Murray & Cooper, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This lowered contingent coordination makes it more difficult for infants to come to expect that their emotional/attentional states can influence mothers to coordinate with them and thus compromises the infant's sense of interactive efficacy.

    “This lowered contingent coordination makes it more difficult for infants to come to expect that their emotional/attentional states can influence mothers to coordinate with them and thus compromises the infant’s sense of interactive efficacy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In the first 2-3 months of life infants prefer to interact with their own image in the mirror, a "perfectly" contingent stimulus; thereafter they prefer to interact with the mother's image in the mirror, an "imperfectly" contingent stimulus.

    “In the first 2–3 months of life infants prefer to interact with their own image in the mirror, a “perfectly” contingent stimulus; thereafter they prefer to interact with the mother’s image in the mirror, an “imperfectly” contingent stimulus (see also Bahrick & Watson, 1985).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bahrick & Watson, 1985

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Processes of affect attunement contribute to attachment security and the capacity for intimacy.

    “Stern argues that processes of affect attunement are so powerful because they contribute to attachment security and the capacity for intimacy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stern, 1985, 1995

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Infants apprehend correspondences between body transformations they see and their own body transformations that they do not see.

    “In creating models of social interactions, infants apprehend correspondences between body transformations they see (such as mouth opening), and their own body transformations that they do not see.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Meltzoff, l985

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Meltzoff & Moore, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    When contradictory procedures are organized in different communication modalities, unintegrated, conflicting procedural representations are likely to develop.

    “(5) When contradictory procedures are organized in different communication modalities, unintegrated, conflicting procedural representations are likely to develop.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Infant procedural representations have the potential for reorganization and transformation.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A second follow-up study predicted 4-year attachment representations (Bretherton story stems) from 4- and 12-month stranger-infant vocal rhythm coordination, with support for the midrange model.

    “A second follow-up study predicted 4-year attachment representations (Bretherton story stems) from 4- and 12-month stranger-infant vocal rhythm coordination, with support for the midrange model (Markese, Beebe, Feldstein & Jaffe, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Markese, Beebe, Feldstein & Jaffe, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Through the perception of correspondences between one's own behavior and that of the partner, organized via form, time, and intensity across modalities, both infant and partner can sense the state of the other and whether the state is shared.

    “(2) Through the perception of correspondences between one’s own behavior and that of the partner, which are organized via form, time, and intensity across modalities, both infant and partner can sense the state of the other, and can sense whether the state is shared or not.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Because the paradigms are profoundly different, their results are not comparable.

    “But because the paradigms are profoundly different, their results are not comparable.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Our prior work documented that midrange degree of 4-month mother-infant and stranger-infant interactive contingency of vocal rhythms predicted 12-month infant security, whereas higher and lower degrees predicted disorganized/anxious-resistant and avoidant attachment, respectively.

    “Our prior work documented that midrange degree of 4-month mother-infant and stranger-infant interactive contingency of vocal rhythms (coded on a .25s time base) predicted 12-month infant security, whereas higher and lower degrees predicted disorganized/anxious-resistant and avoidant attachment, respectively (Jaffe et al., 2001).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jaffe et al., 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    What is at stake in these procedural representations is the organization of intimate relating, which entails the fundamental issue of how the infant comes to know, and to be known by, another's mind.

    “(7) What is at stake in these procedural representations is the organization of intimate relating, which entails the fundamental issue of how the infant comes to know, and to be known by, another’s mind.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Infant procedural representations have the potential for reorganization and transformation.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Infants are biologically prepared to perceive cross-modal correspondences of form between what they see on the partner's face and what they sense proprioceptively on their own faces.

    “Using imitation experiments in the first weeks of life, Meltzoff argues that infants are biologically prepared to perceive cross-modal correspondences of form, between what they see on the face of the partner and what they sense proprioceptively on their own faces (Meltzoff, l985; Meltzoff & Moore, 1998).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Meltzoff, l985

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Meltzoff & Moore, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Collaborative vs. contradictory dialogues generate coherent vs. unintegrated infant internal working models of attachment.

    “(6) Collaborative vs. contradictory dialogues generate coherent vs. unintegrated infant internal working models of attachment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Infant procedural representations have the potential for reorganization and transformation.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    This may explain why infants classified as disorganized attachment at one year, who may feel controlled by the mother, may later develop a controlling style themselves.

    “This may explain why infants classified as disorganized attachment at one year, who may feel controlled by the mother, may later develop a controlling style themselves (Lyons-Ruth & Jacobvitz, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lyons-Ruth & Jacobvitz, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    At 18 months, degree of infant disorganization (7-point scale) was associated with disrupted maternal behaviors: affective communication errors, disorientation, and negative-intrusive behaviors.

    “At 18 months, degree of infant disorganization (7-point scale) was associated with disrupted maternal behaviors: affective communication errors (such as mother positive while infant is distressed), disorientation (frightened expression or sudden loss of affect), and negative-intrusive behaviors (such as mocking or pulling infant’s wrist).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lyons-Ruth et al. (1999)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The mirror interaction experiment does not explicitly address the idea of a deviant contingency environment in which mothers of future disorganized infants provide both very high, and also very low, contingency, during ongoing interactions.

    “We note that this experiment using the mirror interaction situation does not explicitly address their idea of a deviant contingency environment in which mothers of future disorganized infants provide both very high, and also very low, contingency, during ongoing interactions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Mothers of disorganized infants are thought to be suffering from unresolved loss, abuse or trauma, and to be in a continuing state of fear.

    “Mothers of disorganized infants are thought to be suffering from unresolved loss, abuse or trauma, and to be in a continuing state of fear (Lyons-Ruth et al., 1999; Main & Hesse, 1990).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lyons-Ruth et al., 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Main & Hesse, 1990

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Six-month infants who will later be classified disorganized (vs. secure) attachment showed more "self-testing movement," looking at the visual consequences of testing out their own movement in the mirror, in all 3 phases of the experiment.

    “Six-month infants who will later be classified disorganized (vs. secure) attachment showed more “self-testing movement,” looking at the visual consequences of testing out their own movement in the mirror, in all 3 phases of the experiment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Koos and Gergely

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Infant capacity to recognize cross-modal correspondences is the central mechanism allowing the infant to capture the quality of another's inner feeling state.

    “Meltzoff, Trevarthen and Stern all agree that infant capacity to recognize cross-modal correspondences is the central mechanism allowing the infant to capture the quality of another’s inner feeling state.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Within a face-to-face encounter, each person has the dual task of regulating one's own state and interacting with the partner.

    “Within a face-to-face encounter, each person has the dual task of regulating one’s own state and interacting with the partner (Gianino & Tronick, 1988; Sander, 1977).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Gianino & Tronick, 1988

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Sander, 1977

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    De Wolff and Van IJzendoorn noted that the modest size of correlations for parental sensitivity as a predictor of attachment leaves room for additional influences.

    “In their meta-analysis of this literature, De Wolff and Van IJzendoorn (1997) noted that the modest size of the correlations for parental sensitivity as a predictor of attachment leaves room for additional influences.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites De Wolff and Van IJzendoorn (1997)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The principle of disruption and repair is addressed only clinically, not through data analysis.

    “The principle of disruption and repair is addressed only clinically, not through data analysis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Three principles of salience-ongoing regulation, disruption and repair, and heightened affective moments-determine the centrality of social events for the infant.

    “(4) Three principles of salience, which constitute criteria by which interactions may be categorized and represented, determine the centrality of social events for the infant: the principles of (a) ongoing regulation, (b) disruption and repair, and (c) heightened affective moments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Beebe & Lachmann, 1994

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    A child who does (vs. does not) experience anomalous parenting is 4 times as likely to be classified as D attachment (r = .34).

    “They found that a child who does (vs. does not) experience anomalous parenting is 4 times as likely to be classified as D attachment (r = .34).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Madigan et al. (2006)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Of the atypical maternal behaviors, affective communication errors were associated with the disorganized attachment category.

    “Of these atypical behaviors, affective communication errors were associated with the disorganized attachment category.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lyons-Ruth et al. (1999)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These procedural representations are a mutually organized and mutually understood code in which any role implies its reciprocal, and neither role can be represented without the other.

    “These procedural representations are a mutually organized and mutually understood code in which any role implies its reciprocal, and neither role can be represented without the other.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Infant procedural representations have the potential for reorganization and transformation.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Mothers of secure infants have been described as more responsive and sensitive, more consistent and prompt in response to infant distress, more likely to hold their infants, less intrusive, and less tense and irritable.

    “Although a review of this literature is beyond our scope, mothers of secure infants have been described as more responsive and “sensitive,” more consistent and prompt in response to infant distress, more likely to hold their infants, less intrusive, and less tense and irritable.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Ainsworth et al., 1978

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Antonucci & Levitt, 1984

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bates, Maslin & Frankel, 1985

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    In the social sphere, a procedural, presymbolic representational world is being organized, formed in the interactive process of self-in-relation-to-other, and thus inherently dyadic.

    “(1) In the social sphere, a procedural, presymbolic representational world is being organized, formed in the interactive process of self-in-relation-to-other, and thus inherently dyadic.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Infant procedural representations have the potential for reorganization and transformation.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Midrange coordination leaves more "space," more room for uncertainty, initiative and flexibility within the experience of correspondence and contingency, and is optimal for secure attachment.

    “Midrange coordination leaves more “space,” more room for uncertainty, initiative and flexibility within the experience of correspondence and contingency: optimal for secure attachment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Secure (vs. insecure) infants have been described as more responsive in face-to-face play, better able to elicit responsive caretaking, more positive, and more able to express distress.

    “Secure (vs. insecure) infants have been described as more responsive in face-to-face play, better able to elicit responsive caretaking, more positive, and more able to express distress (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Antonucci & Levitt, 1984; Bates, Maslin & Frankel, 1985; Belsky et al., 1984; Blehar, Lieberman & Ainsworth, 1977; Crockenberg, 1983; Egeland & Farber, 1984; Grossman, Grossman, Spangler, Se”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Ainsworth et al., 1978

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Antonucci & Levitt, 1984

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bates, Maslin & Frankel, 1985

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Procedural representations are inherently dyadic, so both roles are known to both people.

    “Although the above descriptions focus on the infant’s experience, the inherently dyadic nature of these representations implies that both roles are known to both people.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Infant procedural representations have the potential for reorganization and transformation.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Low coordination is interpreted as inhibition of monitoring, or withdrawal.

    “We interpreted low coordination as inhibition of monitoring, or withdrawal.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Beebe and Lachmann proposed three principles of salience-ongoing regulation, disruption and repair, and heightened affective moments-as criteria by which interactions may be categorized and represented by infants.

    “Moving to a more abstract organizational level, in considering what general principles may determine the centrality of social interactions for the infant, Beebe and Lachmann (1994) proposed three “principles of salience,” which constitute criteria by which interactions may be categorized and represented by infants.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Beebe & Lachmann, 1994

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Predictability of behavior is the most general and abstract of the above concepts of self-regulation, and is the most fundamental principle of brain/behavior organization.

    “Predictability of behavior is the most general and abstract of the above concepts of self-regulation, and is the most fundamental principle of brain/behavior organization.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Kandel, 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Llinas, 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Pally, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    The asymmetrical pattern of self-contingency heightened, but interactive contingency lowered, is interpreted metaphorically as a retreat from the partner into one's own "program," similar to Tronick's (1989) description of infants of depressed mothers as preoccupied with self-regulation at the expense of engagement with the partner.

    “The asymmetrical pattern of self-contingency heightened, but interactive contingency lowered, is interpreted metaphorically as a retreat from the partner into one’s own “program,” similar to Tronick’s (1989) description of infants of depressed mothers as preoccupied with self-regulation at the expense of engagement with the partner.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tronick’s (1989)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Each person's behavior is affected both by one's own prior behavior (self-contingency) and by that of the partner (interactive contingency).

    “Each person’s behavior is affected both by one’s own prior behavior (self-contingency) and by that of the partner (interactive contingency) (Thomas and Malone, 1979; Thomas and Martin, 1976).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Thomas and Malone, 1979

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Thomas and Martin, 1976 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    Any of these behaviors can be viewed simultaneously as self-regulatory and as aspects of interactive regulation.

    “One difficulty is that any of these behaviors can be viewed simultaneously as self-regulatory and as aspects of interactive regulation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In instances where both forms of 4-month contingency are altered in relation to 12-month insecure attachment, there are four possible patterns within an individual, two symmetrical (both heightened, both lowered), and two asymmetrical (one heightened, one lowered).

    “In instances where both forms of 4-month contingency are altered in relation to 12-month insecure attachment, there are four possible patterns within an individual, two symmetrical (both heightened, both lowered), and two asymmetrical (one heightened, one lowered).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    There is little agreement on the definition and mechanism of self-regulation.

    “There is little agreement on the definition and mechanism of self-regulation (Fox, 1994).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fox, 1994

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Because any behavior in a face-to-face encounter may participate simultaneously in self- and interactive contingency functions, every behavior must be assessed for both functions.

    “Because any behavior in a face-to-face encounter may participate simultaneously in self- and interactive contingency functions, every behavior must be assessed for both functions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Hay (1997) suggests that social experiences that force the infant to pay too much attention to the partner, a heightened coordination, or reciprocally to pay too little attention, a lowered coordination, are likely to interfere with the infant's developing ability to attend to the environment, disturbing social and cognitive development.

    “Hay (1997) suggests that social experiences that force the infant to pay too much attention to the partner, a heightened coordination, or reciprocally to pay too little attention, a lowered coordination, are likely to interfere with the infant’s developing ability to attend to the environment, disturbing social and cognitive development.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hay (1997)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    4-month future avoidant (vs. secure) infants were characterized both by less stable processes of gaze on-off, and self-touch/mouthing behaviors, but by more stable processes of facial behaviors (less varied facial signaling).

    “we showed that 4-month future avoidant (vs. secure) infants were characterized both by less stable processes of gaze on-off, and self-touch/mouthing behaviors, but by more stable processes of facial behaviors (less varied facial signaling).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Koulomzin et al., 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In prior work, heightened interactive coordination was interpreted as efforts to create more predictability in contexts of novelty, challenge, or threat.

    “In prior work we interpreted heightened interactive coordination as efforts to create more predictability in contexts of novelty, challenge, or threat (Jaffe et al., 2001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jaffe et al., 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Such lowered infant self-contingency may make it harder for mothers to anticipate the infant's ongoing behavioral stream, and for infants to anticipate their own behaviors.

    “Such lowered infant self-contingency may make it harder for mothers to anticipate the infant’s ongoing behavioral stream, and for infants to anticipate their own behaviors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The brain continuously anticipates changes in the environment and within the organism, on the basis of incoming information.

    “The brain continuously anticipates changes in the environment and within the organism, on the basis of incoming information (Kandel, 1999; Llinas, 2001; Pally, 2000).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Kandel, 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Llinas, 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Pally, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Interactive contingency can be both heightened, and lowered, as a function of distress in either partner.

    “Interactive contingency can be both heightened, and lowered, as a function of distress in either partner.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The partner's lowered interactive coordination compromises the individual's ability to anticipate the consequences of his own actions: lowered interactive efficacy or agency.

    “The partner’s lowered interactive coordination compromises the individual’s ability to anticipate the consequences of his own actions: lowered interactive efficacy or agency.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    These very behaviors may operate as interactive influences as well.

    “Thus these very behaviors may operate as interactive influences as well.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In a prior study, infants of more dependent (empty, needy) mothers heightened their gaze self-contingency, indicating that infants were more likely to stay in the same gaze state, a more slowly-moving process between gaze on and off.

    “In a prior study we found that infants of more dependent (empty, needy) mothers heightened their gaze self-contingency (Beebe et al., 2007), indicating that infants were more likely to stay in the same gaze state, a more slowly-moving process between gaze on and off.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Beebe et al., 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The autocorrelation measure of self-predictability of an individual's behavior from moment-to-moment taps one essential feature of self-regulation, but omits others.

    “The autocorrelation measure of self-predictability of an individual’s behavior from moment-to-moment taps one essential feature of self-regulation (Beebe, Margolis, Hane, Markese, Jaffe et al., 2009), but omits others.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Beebe, Margolis, Hane, Markese, Jaffe et al., 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    In social interactions, both intrapersonal and interpersonal rhythms provide ongoing temporal information necessary to predict and coordinate with one's partner, so that each can anticipate how the other will proceed.

    “In social interactions, both intrapersonal and interpersonal rhythms provide ongoing temporal information necessary to predict and coordinate with one’s partner, so that each can anticipate how the other will proceed (Warner, 1992).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Warner, 1992

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation

    Social behavior unfolds in time in an ongoing patterned format, loosely rhythmic.

    “Social behavior unfolds in time in an ongoing patterned format, loosely rhythmic.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cohn & Tronick, 1988

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Feldman, Greenbaum, Yirmiya, & Mayes, 1996

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Jaffe et al., 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Kopp (1989) suggests that self-regulation in infancy includes both affect tolerance of positive states as well as the management of distress.

    “Kopp (1989) suggests that self-regulation in infancy includes both affect tolerance of positive states as well as the management of distress (expressed through such behaviors as head aversion, non-nutritive sucking, body rubbing, and object focus).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kopp (1989)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    In the context of insecure attachment, heightened or lowered values of contingency (relative to those of secure dyads) are construed as loss of flexibility, or dysregulation.

    “In the context of insecure attachment we construe heightened or lowered values of contingency (relative to those of secure dyads) as loss of flexibility, or dysregulation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Behavioral forms of self-regulation are originally grounded in basic biological rhythms, such as those of breathing.

    “Behavioral forms of self-regulation are originally grounded in basic biological rhythms, such as those of breathing (Feldman, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Feldman, 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The asymmetrical patterns define imbalances between the two forms of contingency.

    “The asymmetrical patterns define imbalances between the two forms of contingency.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Vigilance for social signals is an important aspect of social intelligence, likely an evolutionary advantage with uncertainty or threat, and accompanied by heightened arousal.

    “Vigilance for social signals is an important aspect of social intelligence, likely an evolutionary advantage with uncertainty or threat, and accompanied by heightened arousal (Ohman, 2002).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ohman, 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Patterns of opposite directions of coordination within the same modality and intermodal discordant coordinations are confusing communications.

    “Patterns (c) and (d) are confusing communications.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Varying degrees of self-contingency generate moment-to-moment expectancies regarding the predictability of one's own behavior.

    “Varying degrees of self-contingency generate moment-to-moment expectancies regarding the predictability of one’s own behavior.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Varying degrees of interactive contingency generate expectancies of how predictably the partner changes in relation to the individual's own behavior, and vice-versa.

    “Varying degrees of interactive contingency generate expectancies of how predictably the partner changes in relation to the individual’s own behavior, and vice-versa: metaphorically, expectancies of “how I affect you,” and “how you affect me.””
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Alterations in self-contingency may or may not be accompanied by alterations in interactive contingency (and vice-versa).

    “Alterations in self-contingency may or may not be accompanied by alterations in interactive contingency (and vice-versa).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In response to a stimulus looming into the face on a collision course, infants duck their heads and put up their hands in a defensive reflex.

    “In response to a stimulus looming into the face on a collision course, infants duck their heads and put up their hands in a defensive reflex (Bower, Broughton, & Moore, 1970).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bower, Broughton, & Moore, 1970

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Demetriades (2003) found that abrupt maternal transitions from upright to loom were more likely with higher maternal anxiety.

    “Demetriades (2003) found that abrupt maternal transitions from upright to loom were more likely with higher maternal anxiety.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Demetriades (2003)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Mandler (1988) documents that infants form image-schemes of the trajectories of objects and their interactions in space.

    “Mandler (1988) documents that infants form image-schemes of the trajectories of objects and their interactions in space.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mandler (1988)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Infants are sensitive to all modalities and are capable of coordinating them to apprehend affective states.

    “Infants are sensitive to all modalities and are capable of coordinating them to apprehend affective states (Murray & Cooper, 1997; Stern, 1985; Trevarthen, 1977; Tronick, 1989).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Murray & Cooper, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Stern, 1985

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Trevarthen, 1977

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Young infants perceive, and express, conflicting signals.

    “Young infants perceive, and express, conflicting signals.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Barrett, Campos & Emde, 1996

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Montague and Walker-Andrews (2002)

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Weinberg and Tronick (1996)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Only a composite measure provides a wholistic, gestalt approach to capturing the quality of the interaction.

    “On the other hand, only a composite measure provides a wholistic, gestalt approach to capturing the quality of the interaction.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Intermodal discrepancy, intra-individual or dyadic, is a particularly confusing form of communication.

    “Intermodal discrepancy, intra-individual or dyadic, is a particularly confusing form of communication.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Mother facial affect (nine degrees) was difficult to code, and one dyad with poor video quality was difficult to code for chase and dodge.

    “Mother facial affect (nine degrees) was difficult to code; one dyad with poor video quality was difficult to code for chase and dodge.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    All component variables are correlated with infant engagement: head orientation (r = .454), vocal affect (r = .479), facial affect (r =.515), and gaze (r = .664), all p < .001.

    “All component variables are correlated with infant engagement: head orientation (r = .454), vocal affect (r = .479), facial affect (r =.515), and gaze (r = .664), (all p < .001).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    A second rater performed reliability coding for A, B, and C on a subset of 32 randomly selected dyads (40% of the sample), yielding Cohen's Kappa = .55, p < .001.

    “A second rater performed reliability coding for A, B, and C on a subset of 32 randomly selected dyads (40% of the sample). Using Cohen’s Kappa, a measure of inter-rater agreement (1 = perfect agreement, 0 = no agreement), Kappa =.55, p < .001.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    For the D classification, within the same subset of 32, there were 7 D infants, and reliability coding yielded 88% agreement (6/7).

    “Regarding reliability for the D classification, within this same subset of 32, there were 7 D infants, and reliability coding yielded 88% agreement (6/7) for these cases.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Depressed mothers and their infants showed a discordant pattern of lowered coordination of gaze (on/off partner's face), but heightened facial/vocal affect coordination, a result not detectable if gaze and affect were assessed as a composite.

    “For example, depressed mothers and their infants showed a discordant pattern of lowered coordination of gaze (on/off partner’s face), but heightened facial/vocal affect coordination, a result not detectable if gaze and affect were assessed as a composite (Beebe et al., 2008a).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Beebe et al., 2008a

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Infant self touch has a self-comforting function, inhibiting negative infant affect.

    “Following Tronick’s (1989) view that infant self touch has a self-comforting function, inhibiting negative infant affect”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tronick (1989)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Reliability estimates (Cohen's Kappa) were computed per dyad for 30 randomly selected dyads, with mean Kappas for infants' gaze .80, facial affect .78, touch .75, vocal affect .89, head orientation .71; mothers' gaze .83, facial affect .68, touch .90, spatial orientation .89, and dyadic chase and dodge .89.

    “Reliability estimates (Cohen’s Kappa) were computed per dyad, for 30 randomly selected dyads (tested in three waves to prevent coder “drift”), for ordinalized scales (with the exception of mother touch, where kappas were computed for the 21 behaviors). The mean Kappas (and range per dyad) for the 30 dyads follow. Infants: gaze .80 (.63 – .95), facial affect .78 (.53 – 1.00), touch .75 (.60 – .98),”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    At 12 months, 84 mother-infant pairs returned for attachment assessment, and the 84 with attachment classifications did not differ from the 48 without in age, ethnicity, infant gender, or a global code of mothering style.

    “At 12 months, 84 mother-infant pairs returned for assessment of attachment (Strange Situation). The 84 with attachment classifications did not differ from the 48 without, in age, ethnicity, infant gender, or a global code of mothering style2.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Kushnick (2002) found that chase and dodge interactions, and oscillations between loom and upright positions, were more likely in mothers with elevated dependency.

    “Kushnick (2002) found that chase and dodge interactions, and oscillations between loom and upright positions, were more likely in mothers with elevated dependency.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kushnick (2002)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Weinberg and Tronick (1998) found more use of the upright spatial position when strangers played with infants of psychiatrically disturbed mothers.

    “Weinberg and Tronick (1998) found more use of the upright spatial position when strangers played with infants of psychiatrically disturbed mothers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Weinberg and Tronick (1998)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Less affectionate maternal touch is associated with maternal depression.

    “Less affectionate maternal touch is associated with maternal depression (Beebe et al., 2008a; Cohn et al., 1990; Tronick,1989; Feldman & Eidelman, 2003; Weinberg, 1996).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Beebe et al., 2008a

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Cohn et al., 1990

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Tronick,1989

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The asymmetrical pattern of self-contingency lowered, but interactive contingency heightened, is interpreted metaphorically as overly involved with the partner at the expense of self-stability.

    “The asymmetrical pattern of self-contingency lowered, but interactive contingency heightened, is interpreted metaphorically as overly involved with the partner at the expense of self-stability.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    At 4 months, 132 mothers and infants came to the lab for videotaping, and no significant differences were found in ethnicity, education, or infant gender between the 132 participants at 4 months and the 152 recruited at birth.

    “At 4 months, 132 mothers and infants came to the lab for videotaping. No significant differences were found in ethnicity, education, or infant gender between the 132 participants at 4 months and the 152 recruited at birth.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In prior work, the communication modalities coded here, and their degrees of self- and interactive contingency, were sensitive to maternal depressive symptoms, self-criticism and dependency.

    “In our prior work, the communication modalities coded here, and their degrees of self- and interactive contingency, were sensitive to maternal depressive symptoms, self-criticism and dependency (Beebe et al., 2007, 2008a).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Beebe et al., 2007, 2008a

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Peripheral monitoring is lost with more extreme head aversions (90° angle away; arching/twisting the body away).

    “Peripheral monitoring is lost with more extreme head aversions (90° angle away; arching/twisting the body away) (Beebe, 2000; Beebe & Stern, 1977; Stern, 1971; Tronick, 1989).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Beebe, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Beebe & Stern, 1977

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Stern, 1971

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The first 2.5 uninterrupted continuous play minutes of videotaped mother-infant interaction were coded on a 1s time base by coders blind to attachment status.

    “The first 2–1/2 uninterrupted continuous play minutes of videotaped mother-infant interaction were coded on a 1s time base (see Cohn & Tronick, 1988; Field et al., 1990) by coders blind to attachment status, using Tronick and Weinberg (1990) timing rules”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cohn & Tronick, 1988

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Field et al., 1990

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Tronick and Weinberg (1990)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Weinberg and Tronick (1996) found conflicting emotional responses in 4- to -6 month infants during the reunion episode following the still-face: more infant joyful faces and increased looking at mother in the reunion episode compared to baseline play, but a continuation in the reunion episode of the increased infant sadness and anger shown during the still-face.

    “Weinberg and Tronick (1996) found conflicting emotional responses in 4- to -6 month infants during the reunion episode following the still-face: more infant joyful faces and increased looking at mother in the reunion episode compared to baseline play, but a continuation in the reunion episode of the increased infant sadness and anger shown during the still-face.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Weinberg and Tronick (1996)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Prior across-group analyses using these basic models on the current data set showed significant coefficients with positive signs for self- and interactive contingency in all modality pairings, with one exception, infant head orientation predicting mother spatial orientation, significant with a negative sign.

    “Prior across-group analyses using these basic models on the current data set showed significant coefficients with positive signs for self- and interactive contingency in all modality pairings (see Beebe et al., 2003, 2008b), with one exception, infant head orientation predicting mother spatial orientation, significant with a negative sign.6”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Beebe et al., 2003

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Beebe et al., 2008b

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    With 84 dyads x 150s = 12,600s per partner per communication modality, the study had ample power to detect effects.

    “With 84 dyads x 150s = 12,600s per partner per communication modality, we had ample power to detect effects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    We found substantial random variance (individual differences) in means, in linear changes over time, and in mean by linear change interactions.

    “We found substantial random variance (individual differences) in means, in linear changes over time, and in mean by linear change interactions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Mother engagement is correlated with gaze (r = .671) and facial affect (r =.783), all p < .0001.

    “Mother engagement is correlated with gaze (r = .671) and facial affect (r =.783), (all p < .0001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Multilevel time-series models take into account a source of error ignored by OLS and produce more accurate estimates.

    “In contrast, this source of error is taken into account in the multilevel time-series models, producing more accurate estimates.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Residuals were not independent over adjacent sec, so autocorrelation was included in random models.

    “In addition we found that residuals were not independent over adjacent sec; we therefore included autocorrelation in random models.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    At 4 months, the future secure infant, and the "average" infant, are very similar; the future secure subset are "average" dyads rather than ideal.

    “Thus at 4 months, the future secure infant, and the “average” infant, are very similar. The future secure subset are “average” dyads rather than ideal.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Increasing infant touch functions to maintain vocal affect positive (and vice-versa) in future secure infants, a coping mechanism.

    “Increasing infant touch functions to maintain vocal affect positive (and vice-versa) in future secure infants, a coping mechanism.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In future secure dyads, mothers facially follow the direction of infant facial and vocal affect as it becomes more and less positive and negative; infants reciprocally follow the direction of maternal facial affect with their own facial and vocal affect.

    “In future secure dyads, mothers facially follow the direction of infant facial and vocal affect as it becomes more and less positive and negative. Infants reciprocally follow the direction of maternal facial affect with their own facial and vocal affect (see Figure 3A).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In future secure dyads, as infant vocal affect is more positive, maternal touch patterns are more affectionate (and vice-versa).

    “In future secure dyads, examining maternal coordination with infants, as infant vocal affect is more positive (pairing 6), maternal touch patterns are more affectionate (and vice-versa).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Mothers can predict infant engagement (but not infant affect or touch) from their touch behavior, and anticipate that infants will follow maternal touch patterns with corresponding infant engagement changes.

    “Thus mothers can predict infant engagement (but not infant affect or touch) from their touch behavior, and anticipate that infants will follow maternal touch patterns with corresponding infant engagement changes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In future secure infants, as infant affect is more positive, infant touch is more likely, and vice-versa.

    “The relation between infant vocal affect and infant-initiated touch carried a positive sign: in future secure infants, as infant affect is more positive, infant touch is more likely, and vice-versa.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationnone given

    The exact nature of the measure was critical in identifying significant associations.

    “We note that the exact nature of the measure was critical in identifying significant associations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Mothers of future secure infants are sensitive to how their infants "package" gaze and facial/vocal affect; infants do not show this same sensitivity.

    “This finding indicates that mothers of future secure infants are sensitive to how their infants “package” gaze and facial/vocal affect; infants do not show this same sensitivity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Future secure infants can predict maternal touch patterns from their own vocal affect and touch behavior, but not from their combined facial-visual engagement behavior.

    “Thus future secure infants can predict maternal touch patterns from their own vocal affect and touch behavior, but not from their combined facial-visual engagement behavior.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In future secure dyads, as infants touch more, maternal touch patterns are more affectionate (and vice-versa).

    “And as infants touch more, from none, to one, to more than one touch behavior per sec (pairing 7), maternal touch patterns are more affectionate (and vice-versa).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In future secure dyads, as maternal touch patterns became more affectionate, infant engagement became more positive (and vice-versa).

    “This relation indicates that as maternal touch patterns became more affectionate, infant engagement became more positive (and vice-versa).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In future secure dyads, mothers follow infant direction of engagement, but infants do not follow mothers, a unidirectional contingency pattern.

    “In future secure dyads, mothers follow infant direction of engagement (more and less engaged), but infants do not follow mothers, a unidirectional contingency pattern (see Figure 3A).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Where mothers coordinate their touch with infants (vocal affect, touch), infants do not coordinate; where infants coordinate with maternal touch (through infant engagement), mothers do not coordinate through touch.

    “Furthermore, where mothers coordinate their touch with infants (vocal affect, touch), infants do not coordinate; where infants coordinate with maternal touch (through infant engagement), mothers do not coordinate through touch.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In future secure dyads, infants are sensitive with their head movements to maternal spatial orientation, but mothers are not reciprocally sensitive with their spatial orientation to infant head orientation.

    “In future secure dyads, we documented a uni-directional process in which future secure infants are sensitive with their head movements to maternal spatial orientation, but mothers are not reciprocally sensitive with their spatial orientation to infant head orientation (see Figure 3A).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    As mothers move from sitting upright to leaning forward to looming in, infants contingently coordinate head orientation away, from vis-à-vis to orienting away to arch; as mothers move back toward upright, infants move toward vis-à-vis.

    “As mothers move from sitting upright to leaning forward to looming in, infants contingently coordinate head orientation away, from vis-à-vis to orienting away to arch; as mothers move back toward upright, infants move toward vis-à-vis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In future secure dyads, as maternal touch patterns are more affectionate, infant engagement is more positive (and vice-versa) (pairing 5).

    “Examining infant coordination with mothers in future secure dyads (in pairings 5, 6, and 7), as maternal touch patterns are more affectionate, infant engagement is more positive (and vice-versa) (pairing 5).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The infant begins the repair by reaching for mother, and both participate in the repair, reaching for each other and gradually building back up to the original positive affect state.

    “The infant begins the repair by reaching for mother, and they both participate in the repair, reaching for each other and gradually building back up to the original positive affect state.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    All mother and infant behaviors evaluated had predictable individual rhythms, facilitating predictability within each individual's experience and "readability" of each individual for the partner.

    “Thus all mother and infant behaviors evaluated had predictable individual rhythms, facilitating predictability within each individual’s experience and “readability” of each individual for the partner.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    By inhibiting their engagement coordination with maternal touch intrusion, infants cannot escape the intrusion, but they can actively lower the degree to which they are contingently organized by it.

    “By inhibiting their engagement coordination with maternal touch intrusion, infants cannot escape the intrusion, but they can actively lower the degree to which they are contingently organized by it, a remarkable coping effort.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Infants showed "destabilized" self-contingency in precisely the channel in which they heightened their contingent coordination with mother: infant intrapersonal and interpersonal engagement dysregulation are linked here.

    “It is striking that infants showed “destabilized” self-contingency in precisely the channel in which they heightened their contingent coordination with mother: infant intrapersonal and interpersonal engagement dysregulation are linked here.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationown data

    Greater likelihood of staying in a state of "no touch" can be interpreted metaphorically as future nonB infants getting "stuck" in states of being unable to touch.

    “We interpret greater likelihood of staying in a state of “no touch” metaphorically as future nonB infants getting “stuck” in states of being unable to touch.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Lowered infant engagement self-contingency is interpreted as a "destabilization" and suggests that future nonB infants as well as their mothers have more difficulty anticipating infants' next engagement "move."

    “Lowered infant engagement self-contingency is interpreted as a “destabilization” and suggests that future nonB infants as well as their mothers have more difficulty anticipating infants’ next engagement “move.””
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Future nonB infants are overly coordinated with mothers' moment-to-moment facial-visual engagement shifts, interpreted as an effort to "stay with" mother's attention and affect.

    “However future nonB infants are overly coordinated with mothers’ moment-to-moment facial-visual engagement shifts, interpreted as an effort to “stay with” mother’s attention and affect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The maternal self-contingency finding was evident in all three analyses of nonB, C (and D below) and thus is considered robust.

    “This maternal self-contingency finding was evident in all three analyses of nonB, C (and D below) and thus we consider it to be robust.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Future nonB (vs. B) infants are working hard in opposite directions, both inhibiting and activating engagement coordination.

    “Thus future nonB (vs. B) infants are working hard in opposite directions, both inhibiting and activating engagement coordination.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Mothers of future nonB infants moved in toward infants to touch intrusively, to loom, and to chase, and their spatial orientation became less predictable.

    “Thus mothers of future nonB infants moved in toward infants to touch intrusively, to loom, and to chase, and in the process their spatial orientation became less predictable.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Such lowered self-contingency makes it harder for infants to anticipate their own next move, as well as harder for mothers to anticipate infant engagement shifts.

    “Such lowered self-contingency makes it harder for infants to anticipate their own next move, as well as harder for mothers to anticipate infant engagement shifts.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Mothers of future C (vs. B) infants showed a coherent constellation of progressively less positive touch, less self-predictable spatial orientation, and disturbance of the infant's freedom to look away by "chasing" with head/body in the direction of infant "dodges."

    “Thus mothers of future C (vs. B) infants showed a coherent constellation of progressively less positive touch, less self-predictable spatial orientation, and disturbance of the infant’s freedom to look away by “chasing” with head/body in the direction of infant “dodges” (movements away from vis-à-vis).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Because infant looking away is a key method of down-regulating arousal (Field, 1981), maternal chase also disturbs "state-transforming."

    “Because infant looking away is a key method of down-regulating arousal (Field, 1981), maternal chase also disturbs “state-transforming,” the expectation that one’s arousal regulation will be facilitated by the partner.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Field, 1981

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Future nonB infants seem already to have constructed an expectancy that maternal touch is likely to be intrusive, and a mode of coping by inhibiting their response.

    “Future nonB infants seem already to have constructed an expectancy that maternal touch is likely to be intrusive, and a mode of coping by inhibiting their response.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Mothers of C infants feel more comfortable when the attachment system is activated, to be sure that their infants need them.

    “Cassidy and Berlin (1994) suggest that, because of a history of not being able to trust attachments, mothers of C infants feel more comfortable when the attachment system is activated, to be sure that their infants need them.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cassidy & Berlin, 1994

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Unlike secure infants in the Strange Situation, C infants cannot count on mother's emotional availability, so that they do not have the luxury of not attending to mother.

    “Unlike secure infants in the Strange Situation, C infants cannot count on mother’s emotional availability, so that they do not have the luxury of not attending to mother (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994; Jude Cassidy, personal communication, October 18, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Cassidy & Berlin, 1994

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Jude Cassidy, personal communication, October 18, 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    At the point at which mother and stranger begin to talk, C infants are more likely than B infants to look to mother, suggesting that C infants need to watch mother to be sure that they can get her attention.

    “At the point at which mother and stranger begin to talk, C infants are more likely than B infants to look to mother, suggesting that C infants need to watch mother to be sure that they can get her attention (Dickstein, Thomson, Estes, Malkin & Lamb, 1984).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Dickstein, Thomson, Estes, Malkin & Lamb, 1984

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The future C infant will have difficulty knowing himself because he simultaneously inhibits his engagement coordination with mother touch, and activates his engagement coordination with mother engagement.

    “and (b) as he simultaneously inhibits his engagement coordination with mother touch, and activates his engagement coordination with mother engagement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The future C infant comes to expect his own opposite tendencies toward his mother, as he struggles to make complex adaptations.

    “Thus he comes to expect his own opposite tendencies toward his mother, as he struggles to make complex adaptations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The future C infant will have difficulty knowing his mother's mind as he has difficulty predicting what mother will do next spatially: sit upright, lean forward, loom in, or chase.

    “We propose that the future C infant will have difficulty knowing his mother’s mind as he has difficulty predicting what mother will do next spatially: sit upright, lean forward, loom in, or chase.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Future C infants come to expect that they cannot use mother's touch to help them regulate their arousal, and that looking away to down-regulate arousal is interfered with by maternal chase.

    “Thus future C infants come to expect that they cannot use mother’s touch to help them regulate their arousal, and that looking away to down-regulate arousal is interfered with by maternal chase.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Future C infants come to expect a maternal tactile/spatial impingement and to expect that they will "dodge" as their mothers "chase," an experience of "moving away" as mother "moves in."

    “However, future C infants come to expect a maternal tactile/spatial impingement and to expect that they will “dodge” as their mothers “chase,” an experience of “moving away” as mother “moves in.””
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These expectancies presumably bias the trajectory of how experience is organized, activating certain pathways and inhibiting others, ultimately limiting the range and flexibility of social experience.

    “These expectancies presumably bias the trajectory of how experience is organized, activating certain pathways and inhibiting others, ultimately limiting the range and flexibility of social experience.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Intact maternal interactive contingency safeguards the future C infant's interactive agency and expectation that mother will contingently "go with" his direction of affective change, thus sharing his states.

    “Regarding feeling known by mother, intact maternal interactive contingency safeguards the future C infant’s interactive agency and expectation that mother will contingently “go with” his direction of affective change, thus sharing his states.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    This vigilance is an attempt to cope with maternal tactile/spatial intrusion.

    “We suggest that this vigilance is an attempt to cope with maternal tactile/spatial intrusion.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationcitation

    Future C infants have a decreased sense of self-familiarity and coherence over time, metaphorically an emotional "destabilization".

    “We infer a decreased sense of self-familiarity and coherence over time, metaphorically an emotional “destabilization” (Doris Silverman, personal communication, November 6, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Doris Silverman, personal communication, November 6, 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The future C mother does not seem to sense that her spatial/tactile intrusion may be forcing her infant to withdraw emotionally from her touch, likely disturbing the infant's feeling of being sensed or acknowledged by her.

    “But the future C mother does not seem to sense that her spatial/tactile intrusion may be forcing her infant to withdraw emotionally from her touch, likely disturbing the infant’s feeling of being sensed or acknowledged by her.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This adaptation is costly, sacrificing infants' ability to communicate their distress response to maternal touch, an important aspect of the infant's ability to regulate affect and arousal.

    “This adaptation is costly, sacrificing infants’ ability to communicate their distress response to maternal touch, an important aspect of the infant’s ability to regulate affect and arousal.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These difficulties may set the stage for infant confusion regarding his response to his mother, and for infant difficulties in sensing his own state.

    “However, these difficulties may set the stage for infant confusion regarding his response to his mother, and for infant difficulties in sensing his own state.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In the touch domain, the infant seems to be forced into premature separation or autonomy; in the facial-visual domain, the infant seems to be forced into premature vigilance.

    “In the touch domain, the infant seems to be forced into premature separation or autonomy; in the facial-visual domain, the infant seems to be forced into premature vigilance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    This infant intermodal discordance is a complex and confusing organization.

    “This infant intermodal discordance is a complex and confusing organization.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    One cost of this complex adaptation is that from moment-to-moment it is more difficult for future C infants (and their mothers) to anticipate the next infant state of engagement, an "ongoing dysregulation" potentially confusing to both infants and mothers.

    “One cost of this complex adaptation is that from moment-to-moment it is more difficult for future C infants (and their mothers) to anticipate the next infant state of engagement, an “ongoing dysregulation” potentially confusing to both infants and mothers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These dyadic patterns at 4 months shed light on how the future C mother's own self-preoccupation with being needed and loved is communicated to the infant, and how mother and infant both develop complex adaptations in this emotional context.

    “These dyadic patterns at 4 months shed light on how the future C mother’s own self-preoccupation with being needed and loved is communicated to the infant, and how mother and infant both develop complex adaptations in this emotional context.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Overall the future C infant comes to expect a shared corresponding affective process, and to expect that he can influence maternal behaviors so as to match his direction of behavioral change.

    “Overall the future C infant comes to expect a shared corresponding affective process, and to expect that he can influence maternal behaviors so as to match his direction of behavioral change.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The infant generates opposite expectancies of the ways he responds to mother with his engagement, a complex, confusing, but nevertheless adaptive organization.

    “The infant thus generates opposite expectancies of the ways he responds to mother with his engagement, a complex, confusing, but nevertheless adaptive organization.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Future C infants are vigilant to mother's emotional state, and coordinate very carefully with her facial-visual engagement, which enables them to anticipate what both the self and the mother will feel next.

    “Thus future C infants are vigilant to mother’s emotional state, and coordinate very carefully with her facial-visual engagement, which enables them to anticipate what both the self and the mother will feel next.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Future C infants come to expect their vigilant facial-visual engagement coordination with mother's engagement, but at the cost of engagement self-destabilization.

    “At the same time future C infants come to expect their vigilant facial-visual engagement coordination with mother’s engagement, but at the cost of engagement self-destabilization.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Mothers of future D infants bring their own difficult attachment history and are likely to suffer from unresolved loss, abuse, or trauma.

    “Mothers of future D infants bring their own difficult attachment history and are likely to suffer from unresolved loss, abuse, or trauma (Lyons-Ruth, 1999; Main & Hesse, 1990).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lyons-Ruth, 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Main & Hesse, 1990

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    There is no question that future D mothers and infants perceived and contingently coordinated with each other.

    “Thus there is no question that future D mothers and infants perceived and contingently coordinated with each other.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Their difficulties with their own distress are likely to disturb the management of distress in the infant.

    “Their difficulties with their own distress are likely to disturb the management of distress in the infant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Lowered gaze self-contingency occurred in mothers of future nonB and D, but not C infants; thus it is specific to D.

    “Lowered gaze self-contingency occurred in mothers of future nonB and D, but not C infants; thus it is specific to D.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Because these analyses of behavioral extremes were exploratory, the findings need to be taken with caution and require replication.

    “Because these analyses of behavioral extremes were exploratory, the findings need to be taken with caution and require replication.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    In the Adult Attachment Interview these mothers may become emotionally incoherent or dissociated.

    “In the Adult Attachment Interview these mothers may become emotionally incoherent or dissociated.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In this context of difficulty using touch in future D (vs. B) infants, their mothers lowered their contingent touch coordination with infant touch: a reciprocal dysregulation.

    “In this context of difficulty using touch in future D (vs. B) infants, their mothers lowered their contingent touch coordination with infant touch: a reciprocal dysregulation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Future D infants spent more time in "no touch," and less time in "touch own skin," which lowered infant access to self-soothing through touch.

    “Future D infants spent more time in “no touch,” and less time in “touch own skin,” which lowered infant access to self-soothing through touch.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Loom behavior is one postulated as frightening by Main and Hesse (1990); it is coded in the "intrusiveness/negativity" dimension of the "Ambiance" coding system.

    “Loom behavior is one postulated as frightening by Main and Hesse (1990); it is coded in the “intrusiveness/negativity” dimension of the “Ambiance” coding system (Lyons-Ruth, et al., 1999).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Main and Hesse (1990)

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Lyons-Ruth, et al., 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Our loom finding is consistent with Tomlinson et al. (2005), who found 2-month maternal intrusive-coercive behavior associated with future disorganized attachment.

    “Our loom finding is consistent with Tomlinson et al. (2005), who found 2-month maternal intrusive-coercive behavior associated with future disorganized attachment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tomlinson et al. (2005)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Looming was evident in mothers of future nonB and D, but not C infants; thus it is specific to D.

    “Looming was evident in mothers of future nonB and D, but not C infants; thus it is specific to D.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Mothers are procedurally "aware" of infant touch behavior, and when infant touch increases, maternal touch patterns become more affectionate (and vice-versa).

    “Thus mothers are procedurally “aware” of infant touch behavior, and when infant touch increases, maternal touch patterns become more affectionate (and vice-versa).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Heightened touch self-contingency was present in future nonB and D, but not C infants; thus it is specific to D.

    “Heightened touch self-contingency was present in future nonB and D, but not C infants; thus it is specific to D.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Future D (vs. B) infants had less access to touch, specifically to touching their own skin, and they were more likely to stay in states of "no touch," further exacerbating difficulties in regulating vocal distress through touch.

    “Thus, future D (vs. B) infants had less access to touch, specifically to touching their own skin, and they were more likely to stay in states of “no touch,” further exacerbating difficulties in regulating vocal distress through touch.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This maternal "countering" of infant distress confuses future D infants, and makes it difficult for infants to feel that their mothers sense and acknowledge their distress.

    “We infer that this maternal “countering” of infant distress confuses future D infants, and makes it difficult for infants to feel that their mothers sense and acknowledge their distress.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Because future D infants had more combined vocal/facial distress than B infants, lowered maternal engagement coordination indicates a lowered maternal ability to emotionally "enter" and "go with" infant facial and vocal distress, via contingent changes.

    “Because future D infants had more combined vocal/facial distress than B infants, lowered maternal engagement coordination indicates a lowered maternal ability to emotionally “enter” and “go with” infant facial and vocal distress, via contingent changes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Lowered engagement interactive contingency indicates that mothers of future D (vs. B) infants were less likely to follow infant direction of gaze, to become facially positive as their infants became facially/vocally positive, and to dampen their facial affect toward interest, neutral or "woe face" as their infants became facially/vocally distressed.

    “Lowered engagement interactive contingency indicates that mothers of future D (vs. B) infants were less likely to follow infant direction of gaze, to become facially positive as their infants became facially/vocally positive, and to dampen their facial affect toward interest, neutral or “woe face” as their infants became facially/vocally distressed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    Unresolved fears about intimate relating in the mother of the future D infant trigger complex "defensive" maneuvers and contradictory behavioral tendencies that derail the infant.

    “Instead of postulating that mothers of future D infants do not register infant distress, we propose that unresolved fears about intimate relating in the mother of the future D infant trigger complex “defensive” maneuvers and contradictory behavioral tendencies that derail the infant (personal communication, Karlen Lyons-Ruth, October 17, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites personal communication, Karlen Lyons-Ruth, October 17, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Our finding identifies this pattern at 4 months, with a different method, indicating robustness of the phenomenon.

    “Whereas Lyons-Ruth et al.’s finding was evident within the Strange Situation, and Madigan et al.’s was evident outside the Strange Situation, both at 12 months, ours identifies this pattern at 4 months, with a different method, indicating robustness of the phenomenon.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lyons-Ruth et al.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Madigan et al.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Infant discrepant affect suggests affective conflict, confusion and struggle, a striking intrapersonal affective dysregulation.

    “Infant discrepant affect suggests affective conflict, confusion and struggle, a striking intrapersonal affective dysregulation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Our finding of maternal smile to infant vocal distress is highly atypical, a maternal failure of empathy which disturbs infant ability to come to expect matching and being matched in the direction of affective change.

    “Thus, our finding of maternal smile to infant vocal distress is highly atypical, a maternal failure of empathy which disturbs infant ability to come to expect matching and being matched in the direction of affective change.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    It is harder for future D (vs. B) infants to sense their own next engagement "move," as well as harder for their mothers to anticipate infant engagement shifts.

    “We infer that it is harder for future D (vs. B) infants to sense their own next engagement “move,” as well as harder for their mothers to anticipate infant engagement shifts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The combination of lowered maternal engagement coordination with infant engagement, but heightened maternal facial self-contingency, suggests that mothers of future D infants were procedurally "preoccupied" with facial self-management, at the expense of coordination with the infant: a self- vs. interactive contingency imbalance exacerbating maternal withdrawal.

    “The combination of lowered maternal engagement coordination with infant engagement, but heightened maternal facial self-contingency, suggests that mothers of future D infants were procedurally “preoccupied” with facial self-management, at the expense of coordination with the infant: a self- vs. interactive contingency imbalance exacerbating maternal withdrawal (see Tronick, 1989).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tronick, 1989

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The mother of the future D infant mobilizes complex contradictory "defensive" behaviors, such as simultaneous activation of contradictory behavioral tendencies, that derail the infant.

    “Presumably out of her own unresolved fears about intimate relating, and her fears of being re-traumatized by the infant’s distress, at specific moments the mother of the future D infant mobilizes complex contradictory “defensive” behaviors, such as simultaneous activation of contradictory behavioral tendencies, that derail the infant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    Maternal interpersonal affective discrepancy is echoed in infant intrapersonal affective discrepancy.

    “Maternal interpersonal affective discrepancy is echoed in infant intrapersonal affective discrepancy (Jude Cassidy, personal communication, October 23, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jude Cassidy, personal communication, October 23, 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    This picture at 4 months predicts similar contradictory approach/withdrawal behavior at 12 months in the Strange Situation, and also is related to later contradictory/unintegrated mental processes, particularly dissociative processes, characteristic of these infants as they approach adulthood.

    “This picture at 4 months predicts similar contradictory approach/withdrawal behavior at 12 months in the Strange Situation, and also is related to later contradictory/unintegrated mental processes, particularly dissociative processes, characteristic of these infants as they approach adulthood (Lyons-Ruth, 2008; Dutra, Bureau, Holmes, Lyubchik & Lyons-Ruth, in press).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lyons-Ruth, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Dutra, Bureau, Holmes, Lyubchik & Lyons-Ruth, in press

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Lowered maternal facial-visual engagement coordination, and maternal positive facial expressiveness while infants are distressed, together form a coherent constellation in future D dyads.

    “Lowered maternal facial-visual engagement coordination, and maternal positive facial expressiveness while infants are distressed, together form a coherent constellation in future D dyads.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Lowered contingent coordination is a form of maternal withdrawal; mothers are not as correlated with prior infant behavior.

    “Lowered contingent coordination is a form of maternal withdrawal; mothers are not as correlated with prior infant behavior.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Both looking away, and looming in, disturb the potential for mutual gaze.

    “Both looking away, and looming in, disturb the potential for mutual gaze.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Instead they come to expect that their mothers are happy, surprised, or "closed" when they are distressed.

    “Instead they come to expect that their mothers are happy, surprised, or “closed” when they are distressed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    These findings confirm and extend Lyons-Ruth's proposals that mothers of disorganized infants engage in disrupted and contradictory forms of affective communication, especially around the infant's need for comfort when distressed.

    “These findings confirm and extend Lyons-Ruth’s (2008; Lyons-Ruth et al., 1999) proposals that mothers of disorganized infants engage in disrupted and contradictory forms of affective communication, especially around the infant’s need for comfort when distressed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lyons-Ruth’s (2008

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Lyons-Ruth et al., 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Mothers of future D infants cannot coordinate with infant emotional ups and downs, and cannot acknowledge moments of infant distress, because they cannot bear to pay attention to their own emotional distress.

    “We theorize that mothers of future D infants cannot coordinate with infant emotional ups and downs, and cannot acknowledge moments of infant distress, because they cannot bear to pay attention to their own emotional distress.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Showing the opposite (positive) emotion to the infant's negative emotion constitutes an "opposing" of the infant's emotion, communicating, "I'm not going there."

    “Showing the opposite (positive) emotion to the infant’s negative emotion constitutes an “opposing” of the infant’s emotion, communicating, “I’m not going there.””
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The future D mother's lowered contingent engagement coordination with infant engagement, as well as maternal smile/surprise to infant distress, is maternal emotional "denial" of infant distress.

    “We interpret the future D mother’s lowered contingent engagement coordination with infant engagement, as well as maternal smile/surprise to infant distress, as maternal emotional “denial” of infant distress.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    They did not join the infant's attentional/affective direction, disturbing the likelihood of shared affective processes.

    “They did not join the infant’s attentional/affective direction, disturbing the likelihood of shared affective processes (Beebe & Lachmann, 1988, 1997; Lyons-Ruth, 2008), consistent with our hypothesis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Beebe & Lachmann, 1988, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Lyons-Ruth, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Infants are thus relatively helpless to affect mothers with their facial/visual engagement processes, disturbing the infant's sense of interactive efficacy.

    “Infants are thus relatively helpless to affect mothers with their facial/visual engagement processes, disturbing the infant’s sense of interactive efficacy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Getting metaphorically 'stuck' in states of 'no touch' may disturb the infant's visceral bodily feedback, laying one groundwork for the dissociative symptoms known to characterize these D infants once they are young adults.

    “Getting metaphorically “stuck” in states of “no touch” may disturb the infant’s visceral bodily feedback, laying one groundwork for the dissociative symptoms known to characterize these D infants once they are young adults (Lyons-Ruth, 2003; Dutra et al., in press).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lyons-Ruth, 2003

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Dutra et al., in press

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Maternal withdrawal from the infant's attachment-related cues at 12 months was the best predictor of adult borderline or conduct symptoms.

    “Our findings of maternal withdrawal here parallel those of Lyons-Ruth (2008), who found that maternal withdrawal from the infant’s attachment-related cues at 12 months was the best predictor of adult borderline or conduct symptoms.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lyons-Ruth (2008)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Future D (vs. B) infants cannot rely on mothers to help in the touch domain, nor can they rely on themselves to provide self-comfort and modulation of vocal distress through touch.

    “Future D (vs. B) infants cannot rely on mothers to help in the touch domain, nor can they rely on themselves to provide self-comfort and modulation of vocal distress through touch.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Interpersonal and intrapersonal forms of touch dysregulation compromise infant interactive efficacy and self-agency in the capacity to self-soothe through touch.

    “we infer that these interpersonal and intrapersonal forms of touch dysregulation compromise infant interactive efficacy, and infant self-agency, in the capacity to self-soothe through touch.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Although facial-mirroring seems intact, mirroring of the entire infant engagement gestalt is not.

    “Thus, although facial-mirroring seems intact, mirroring of the entire infant engagement gestalt is not.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The constellation of momentarily closing her face, lowering her coordination with the infant's emotional shifts, and extensive looking away from her infant's face, may be ways of shutting herself down in a self-protective effort, possibly dissociative.

    “The constellation of momentarily closing her face, lowering her coordination with the infant’s emotional shifts, and extensive looking away from her infant’s face, may be ways of shutting herself down in a self-protective effort, possibly dissociative (Mary Sue Moore, personal communication, July 2, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mary Sue Moore, personal communication, July 2, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Mothers of future D infants perceive the infant's affect and gaze and in many ways are adequately responsive.

    “Thus mothers of future D infants perceive the infant’s affect and gaze and in many ways are adequately responsive.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    This loss of predictability further exacerbates infant difficulty in decoding and predicting maternal behavior, decreases infant sense of agency, and increases the possibility that the infant may feel unsafe.

    “This loss of predictability further exacerbates infant difficulty in decoding and predicting maternal behavior, decreases infant sense of agency, and increases the possibility that the infant may feel unsafe (Mary Sue Moore, personal communication, July 2, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mary Sue Moore, personal communication, July 2, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Mothers "closing up their faces" is another way of not being available to the "play of faces," another way of saying "you can't affect me."

    “We interpret this finding as mothers “closing up their faces,” another way of not being available to the “play of faces,” another way of saying “you can’t affect me.””
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The infant's perception of correspondences (in time, form and intensity) between his own behavior and that of the partner provides the infant with a means of sensing the state of the partner, and of sensing whether the state is shared, or not.

    “A number of authors (see Lyons-Ruth, 2008; Meltzoff, 1985; Melzoff & Moore, 1998; Sander, 1977, 1995; Stern, 1985, 1998; Trevarthen, 1998; Tronick, 1989) have argued across several decades that the infant’s perception of correspondences (in time, form and intensity) between his own behavior and that of the partner provides the infant with a means of sensing the state of the partner, and of sensing”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Lyons-Ruth, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Meltzoff, 1985

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Sander, 1977, 1995

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Sander argues that the infant-caretaker system may both facilitate, and constrain, the infant's access to and awareness of his own states, and his ability to use his states in organizing his behavior.

    “As Sander (1977, 1995) notes, infant inner experience is organized in the interactive context. Sander argues that the infant-caretaker system may both facilitate, and constrain, the infant’s access to and awareness of his own states, and his ability to use his states in organizing his behavior.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sander, 1977, 1995

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These mothers are highly unusual; they do not operate in accordance with what is known about the behavioral, physiological, or neuronal organization of emotional communication.

    “Thus these mothers are highly unusual. They do not operate in accordance with what is known about the behavioral, physiological, or neuronal organization of emotional communication.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    They disturb higher-order coordinations essential to social/cognitive development, and they set the stage for dissociative defenses in which contradictory arenas of knowledge are entertained.

    “They disturb higher-order coordinations essential to social/cognitive development, and they set the stage for dissociative defenses in which contradictory arenas of knowledge are entertained (Lyons-Ruth, 1999)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lyons-Ruth, 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationcitation

    These means of sensing the state of the other, highly biologically primed, are inhibited for defensive reasons.

    “We propose that these means of sensing the state of the other, highly biologically primed, are inhibited for defensive reasons (Virginia Demos, personal communication, March 3, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Virginia Demos, personal communication, March 3, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These expectancies bias the trajectory of how experience is organized, activating certain pathways and inhibiting others, ultimately limiting the range, flexibility and coherence of experience.

    “These expectancies bias the trajectory of how experience is organized, activating certain pathways and inhibiting others, ultimately limiting the range, flexibility and coherence of experience.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Lyons-Ruth proposes that the outcome of the process of coming to know and be known by another's mind is dependent on whether the partner is capable of a collaborative dialogue.

    “As noted in the Introduction, Lyons-Ruth (1999, 2008) proposes that the outcome of the process of coming to know and be known by another’s mind is dependent on whether the partner is capable of a collaborative dialogue.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lyons-Ruth, 1999, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The infant touch self-contingency findings (greater likelihood of continuing in 'no touch' states) and lowered engagement self-contingency findings (facial-visual destabilization) are important aspects of the experience of future D infants, generating difficulties in sensing, predicting, and modulating one's own state.

    “we consider the infant touch self-contingency findings (greater likelihood of continuing in “no touch” states) and lowered engagement self-contingency findings (facial-visual destabilization) to be important aspects of the experience of future D infants, generating difficulties in sensing, predicting, and modulating one’s own state.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Infant intra-personal forms of dysregulation accompany the overt emotional distress of future D infants, and the maternal failures to acknowledge and respond to this distress.

    “Thus infant intra-personal forms of dysregulation accompany the overt emotional distress of future D infants, and the maternal failures to acknowledge and respond to this distress.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Lyons-Ruth also suggests that failures of collaborative dialogue generate contradictory internal models.

    “Lyons-Ruth (1999, 2008) also suggests that failures of collaborative dialogue generate contradictory internal models.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lyons-Ruth, 1999, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    These correspondences facilitate the development of infant agency, coherence, and identity.

    “These correspondences facilitate the development of infant agency, coherence, and identity (Sander, 1995; Stern, 1985; Trevarthen, 1998).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Sander, 1995

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Stern, 1985

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Trevarthen, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    One central feature of these expectancies is intense infant emotional distress and the inability to obtain comfort.

    “One central feature of these expectancies is intense infant emotional distress and the inability to obtain comfort.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    They will have difficulty communicating what they 'like' or do not 'like,' a confusion in sensing their own affective and attentional state, and ultimately a difficulty in coming to know what they feel, in relation to maternal touch.

    “And they will have difficulty communicating what they “like” or do not “like,” a confusion in sensing their own affective and attentional state, and ultimately a difficulty in coming to know what they feel, in relation to maternal touch.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This picture provides detailed behavioral mechanisms that could result in the lack of a consistent strategy of dealing with negative emotions, characteristic of D infants in the Strange Situation by 12 months.

    “This picture provides detailed behavioral mechanisms that could result in the lack of a consistent strategy of dealing with negative emotions, characteristic of D infants in the Strange Situation by 12 months (Van IJzendoorn et al., 1999).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Van IJzendoorn et al., 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    These infants will represent the necessity of 'tuning out' maternal touch.

    “These infants will represent the necessity of “tuning out” maternal touch.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This inhibition masks their distress and sacrifices their ability to communicate about it.

    “This inhibition masks their distress and sacrifices their ability to communicate about it.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The maternal spatial-tactile intrusion leads to difficulties in infant state transforming, and complex 'approach-avoid' patterns, both dyadic and intrapersonal, in future C dyads.

    “The maternal spatial-tactile intrusion leads to difficulties in infant state transforming, and complex “approach-avoid” patterns, both dyadic and intrapersonal, in future C dyads.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This may account for why, later in development, the D child plays out the mother's role of denial of distress, over-riding the state of the mother with a controlling style.

    “This may account for why, later in development, the D child plays out the mother’s role of denial of distress, over-riding the state of the mother with a controlling style.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    They will represent responding to mother by 'going in opposite directions,' their own simultaneous activation and inhibition regarding maternal facial/visual engagement and touch, respectively.

    “They will represent responding to mother by “going in opposite directions,” their own simultaneous activation and inhibition regarding maternal facial/visual engagement and touch, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Future C infants will represent the experience of moving away from mother as she moves in with spatial/tactile intrusion.

    “We proposed that in their internal working models, future C infants will represent the experience of moving away from mother as she moves in with spatial/tactile intrusion.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Future D infants are alone with their facial/vocal distress, helpless to affect their mothers with their distress, and at critical moments, opposed.

    “In many ways future D infants are alone with their facial/vocal distress, helpless to affect their mothers with their distress, and at critical moments, opposed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The disturbance in individual and dyadic emotional coherence in future D infants and their mothers offers a striking parallel to the contradictory and unintegrated affects of the D infant in the Ainsworth paradigm, and to the contradictory evaluations of attachment relationships in the AAI findings of their mothers.

    “The disturbance in individual and dyadic emotional coherence in future D infants and their mothers offers a striking parallel to the contradictory and unintegrated affects of the D infant in the Ainsworth paradigm, and to the contradictory evaluations of attachment relationships in the AAI findings of their mothers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Future D infants come to expect that mothers do not sense and join their states, a working model of not being known by the mother, especially when distressed.

    “Instead, infants come to expect that mothers do not sense and join their states, a working model of not being known by the mother, especially when distressed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The maternal withdrawal from distressed infants is the future D mother's difficulty with her own unresolved loss, mourning, or abuse, and presumably an inability to bear her own distress, as well as that of her infant.

    “We interpreted the maternal withdrawal from distressed infants as the future D mother’s difficulty with her own unresolved loss, mourning, or abuse, and presumably an inability to bear her own distress, as well as that of her infant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Future D infant has difficulty touching in general, touching his own skin, and getting 'stuck' in states of no touch, all of which disturb his visceral feedback through touch, he will represent his own difficulty in being able to regulate his distress through touch.

    “Moreover, as the future D infant has difficulty touching in general, touching his own skin, and getting “stuck” in states of no touch, all of which disturb his visceral feedback through touch, he will represent his own difficulty in being able to regulate his distress through touch.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The emerging internal working model of future D infants represents confusion about their own basic emotional organization, their mothers' emotional organization, and their mothers' response to their distress, setting a trajectory in development which may disturb the fundamental integration of the person.

    “Thus the emerging internal working model of future D infants represents confusion about their own basic emotional organization, their mothers’ emotional organization, and their mothers’ response to their distress, setting a trajectory in development which may disturb the fundamental integration of the person.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The new interaction patterns also identify infant discrepant affect, and maternal methods of managing her own state, such as extensive looking away and closing up her face, which create further distance from the infant.

    “The new interaction patterns also identify infant discrepant affect, and maternal methods of managing her own state, such as extensive looking away and closing up her face, which create further distance from the infant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Both future C and future D infants have difficulty in knowing the self, and generate representations that 'my body is not my own, I can't sense myself.'

    “More generally, both future C and future D infants have difficulty in knowing the self, and generate representations that “my body is not my own, I can’t sense myself.””
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    All central interaction patterns showed disturbance: maternal affective correspondence, infant state transforming, maternal spatial intrusion, and maternal lowered interactive contingency which disturbs infant interactive efficacy.

    “All central interaction patterns showed disturbance: maternal affective correspondence, infant state transforming, maternal spatial intrusion, and maternal lowered interactive contingency which disturbs infant interactive efficacy.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These infants are 'frantic,' not sensed or 'known' in their distress, and relatively helpless to influence mothers with their distress.

    “We characterized these infants as “frantic,” not sensed or “known” in their distress, and relatively helpless to influence mothers with their distress.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Both future C and D infants will have difficulties in representing knowing and being known, but difficulties will be more modest in future C and extensive and serious in future D.

    “we propose that although both future C and D infants will have difficulties in representing knowing and being known in these ways, these difficulties will be more modest in the future C infant, but extensive and serious in the future D.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Future D, as compared to C, infant experiences a more serious disturbance in the experience of agency with regard to his own states, and is more prone to represent himself as helpless to use his states in organizing his own behavior.

    “we propose that the future D, as compared to C, infant experiences a more serious disturbance in the experience of agency with regard to his own states, and is more prone to represent himself as helpless to use his states in organizing his own behavior.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Both future C and future D infants will have difficulty knowing himself as his own engagement self-contingency is lowered, making it more difficult to sense his own facial-visual action tendencies from moment-to-moment, and more difficult to develop a coherent expectation of his own body.

    “Both the future C and future D infant will have difficulty knowing himself as his own engagement self-contingency is lowered, making it more difficult to sense his own facial-visual action tendencies from moment-to-moment, and more difficult to develop a coherent expectation of his own body.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Hofer argues that the concept of attachment is a general one, referring to a cluster of behavioral and physiological sub-processes that maintain and regulate sustained social relationships.

    “Hofer (1994, 2006) argues that the concept of attachment is a general one, referring to a cluster of behavioral and physiological sub-processes that maintain and regulate sustained social relationships.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hofer (1994, 2006)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Maternal touch has long been recognized as essential to infant physical and social development.

    “Maternal touch has long been recognized as essential to infant physical and social development (Ainsworth, 1979; Bowlby, 1953; Harlow, 1958; Spitz, 1946).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Ainsworth, 1979

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bowlby, 1953

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Harlow, 1958

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Hofer's work examining separation in mother-infant rat interactions identified critical component sub-processes.

    “His own work examining the details of separation in mother-infant rat interactions identified critical component sub-processes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hofer (1994, 2006)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Engagement was not a distinguishing variable in detecting differences in mother-infant communication patterns in prior analyses of depressed, self-critical or dependent mothers; any engagement findings generally paralleled findings in facial affect and gaze analyzed separately.

    “Engagement was not a distinguishing variable in detecting differences in mother-infant communication patterns in our prior analyses of depressed, self-critical or dependent mothers; any engagement findings generally paralleled findings in facial affect and gaze analyzed separately (Beebe et al., 2008a).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Beebe et al., 2008a

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    An infant rat's response to separation from the mother is based on many subcomponents, such as nutrients, warmth, and tactile stimulation, which have different functions in the system.

    “For example, an infant rat’s response to separation from the mother is based on many subcomponents, such as nutrients, warmth, and tactile stimulation, which have different functions in the system.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hofer (1994, 2006)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Hofer described these subcomponents as regulatory processes hidden within the mother-infant interaction.

    “Hofer described these subcomponents as regulatory processes “hidden” within the mother-infant interaction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hofer (1994, 2006)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The results can be seen as examples of Hofer's concept of hidden regulators, various forms of behavioral regulation in different subcomponents of the system: partner, type of measure, type of contingency, and modality of behavior.

    “Our results can be seen as examples of Hofer’s concept of “hidden regulators,” various forms of behavioral regulation in different subcomponents of the system: (1) partner (mother/infant), (2) type of measure (behavioral quality/contingency), (3) type of contingency (self-/interactive), and (4) modality of behavior (attention, affect, touch, spatial orientation).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hofer (1994, 2006)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Future insecure (vs. secure) infants showed robust differences in the ways they packaged the gestalt of gaze and facial/vocal affect in the process of self-predictability, and in the process of coordinating with mothers over time.

    “Thus, future insecure (vs. secure) infants showed robust differences in the ways they packaged the gestalt of gaze and facial/vocal affect in the process of self-predictability, and in the process of coordinating with mothers over time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Prior work documented that interactive contingency of vocal rhythm was one mechanism of transmission of attachment security, and that insecurity biased 4-month mother-infant communication toward both excessive and insufficient contingency.

    “Our prior work (Jaffe et al., 2001) documented that interactive contingency of vocal rhythm was one mechanism of transmission of attachment security, and that insecurity biased 4-month mother-infant communication toward both excessive as well as insufficient contingency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jaffe et al., 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    This finding illustrates the principle of heightened affective moments, moments which are organizing out of proportion to frequency or duration.

    “This finding illustrates our “principle of heightened affective moments,” moments which are organizing out of proportion to frequency or duration.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The behavioral extremes approach was exploratory, and results must be taken with caution and require replication.

    “The behavioral extremes approach was exploratory, and results must be taken with caution and require replication.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In the past decade, research has shifted from considering touch as a unitary construct to considering it as a sophisticated medium of communication with subtle features.

    “In the past decade, however, research has shifted from considering touch as a unitary construct to considering it as a sophisticated medium of communication with subtle features (Stepakoff et al., 2000, 2008; Downing, 2004; Hertenstein & Campos, 2001; Muir, 2002; Stack & Arnold, 1998).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Stepakoff et al., 2000, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Downing, 2004

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Hertenstein & Campos, 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    This attachment distribution limits the generalizability of the findings, particularly to less educated samples, but facilitated the study of C and D classifications.

    “This attachment distribution limits the generalizability of our findings, particularly to less educated samples, but facilitated our study of C and D classifications.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Because only future D infants were intensely emotionally upset, emotional distress is hierarchically organizing for future D, but not C, infants, a central differentiating feature of internal working models.

    “Because only future D infants were intensely emotionally upset, we proposed that emotional distress is hierarchically organizing for future D, but not C, infants, a central differentiating feature of internal working models.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The authors document a dyadic systems view of the roles of both partners, the roles of both self- and interactive contingency, and the importance of attention, touch, and spatial orientation as well as facial and vocal affect, and facial-visual engagement, in the co-construction of different forms of attachment insecurity.

    “We document a dyadic systems view of the roles of both partners, the roles of both self- and interactive contingency, and the importance of attention, touch, and spatial orientation as well as facial and vocal affect, and facial-visual engagement, in the co-construction of different forms of attachment insecurity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Both future C and D infants will likely have difficulties in creating internal working models of knowing, and being known by, the mother's mind, and knowing one's own mind, but these difficulties will be more serious in the future D infant.

    “Both future C and D infants will likely have difficulties in creating internal working models of knowing, and being known by, the mother’s mind, and knowing one’s own mind, but these difficulties will be more serious in the future D infant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Exact method of measurement will affect replication.

    “Exact method of measurement will affect replication.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study used a new statistical approach, multilevel time-series modeling, which requires replication, although it yielded similar kinds of results for other analyses of maternal depression, self-criticism and dependency.

    “We used a new statistical approach, multilevel time-series modeling, which requires replication, although it yielded similar kinds of results for other analyses of maternal depression, self-criticism and dependency.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The future D infant represents not being sensed and known by the mother, and confusion in sensing and knowing himself, especially at moments of distress.

    “The future D infant represents not being sensed and known by the mother, and confusion in sensing and knowing himself, especially at moments of distress.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    These findings do not imply that mothers are any less important in the infant's development.

    “However, these findings do not imply that mothers are any less important in the infant’s development.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The mother has a greater range, control, and flexibility of behavior than the infant.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The behavioral extremes approach was exploratory and requires replication.

    “The behavioral extremes approach was exploratory and requires replication.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationown data

    The specificity and complexity of the findings expand the paradigm for studying the origins of attachment.

    “In conclusion, the specificity and complexity of our findings expand the paradigm for studying the origins of attachment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study is limited by its exclusive examination of behavioral transactions between mothers and infants in the face-to-face encounter.

    “The study is limited by its exclusive examination of behavioral transactions between mothers and infants in the face-to-face encounter.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The emerging internal working model of future D infants includes confusion about their own basic emotional organization, their mothers' emotional organization, and their mothers' response to their distress, setting a trajectory in development which may disturb the fundamental integration of the person.

    “Thus the emerging internal working model of future D infants includes confusion about their own basic emotional organization, their mothers’ emotional organization, and their mothers’ response to their distress, setting a trajectory in development which may disturb the fundamental integration of the person.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    From these different patterns of interaction disturbances the authors inferred different kinds of difficulties in emerging infant abilities to know and be known by the mother's mind, as well as to know one's own mind, in future C and D infants.

    “From these different patterns of interaction disturbances we inferred different kinds of difficulties in emerging infant abilities to know and be known by the mother’s mind, as well as to know one’s own mind, in future C and D infants.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Using the Still-Face paradigm, maternal touch can reduce or eliminate the still-face effect.

    “For example, using the Still-Face paradigm, maternal touch can reduce or eliminate the still-face effect (Stack & Arnold, 1998; Pelaez-Nogueras et al., 1996).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Stack & Arnold, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Pelaez-Nogueras et al., 1996

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These findings underscore the importance of self- as well as of interactive contingency, and of the roles of both partners, in early communication disturbances.

    “They do underscore the importance of self- as well as of interactive contingency, and of the roles of both partners, in early communication disturbances.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The number of results was modest: approximately 20%-25% of equations run were significant for mother and infant self-contingency, and infant interactive contingency.

    “The number of results was modest (approximately 20% –25% of equations run were significant for mother and infant self-contingency, and infant interactive contingency: see Table 9).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
382 of 382

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Contingency values of secure dyads can be considered 'optimal'.

    “we make the assumption that contingency values of secure dyads can be considered “optimal,””

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The mother has greater range, control, and flexibility than the infant.

    “The mother has greater range, control, and flexibility than the infant.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Infant distress is not uncommon in the 4-month face-to-face interaction.

    “Nevertheless, infant distress is not uncommon, yielding opportunities to observe how mother and infant manage both distress and enjoyment.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Infant procedural representations have the potential for reorganization and transformation.

    “Our view of infant procedural representations assumes the potential for reorganization and transformation (Beebe & Lachmann, 2002; Sameroff, 1983).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The separate modalities coded encompass most of what can occur in a face-to-face interaction between mothers and infants at 4 months, when infants are in an infant seat, and no toys are provided.

    “The separate modalities that we code encompass most of what can occur in a face-to-face interaction between mothers and infants at 4 months, when infants are in an infant seat, and no toys are provided.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Demographic variables and their conditional effects would not alter the basic findings.

    “Because effects of demographic variables and their conditional effects were included as a check on the assumption that these would not alter the basic findings, when these effects were not significant they were dropped from subsequent and final models.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Eye contact is arousing.

    “Because eye contact is arousing, we conjecture that both these maternal behaviors reflect concerns about visual intimacy, which may be over-arousing.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Mothers of future D infants bring their own difficult attachment histories, fears regarding intimate attachments, and difficulties managing their own distress.

    “As noted above, mothers of future D infants bring their own difficult attachment histories, fears regarding intimate attachments, and difficulties managing their own distress.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Both partners actively contribute to the exchange.

    “Instead, our systems view assumes that both partners actively contribute to the exchange.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The mother has a greater range, control, and flexibility of behavior than the infant.

    “The mother obviously has a greater range, control, and flexibility of behavior than the infant.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Previous attachment research has emphasized mothers over infants and the interpersonal over the intrapersonal.

    “Previous attachment research has emphasized mothers over infants and the interpersonal over the intrapersonal.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Little work has documented the role of maternal touch in the contingent process of mother and infant coordinating over time.

    “However, little work has documented the role of maternal touch in the contingent process of mother and infant coordinating over time, new to conceptualizing the origins of attachment insecurity.”
12 of 12

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Babies and toddlers are essentially dependent on caregivers' sensitive and responsive behaviors within the context of the development of attachment patterns.

    “Babies and toddlers are essentially dependent on caregivers’ sensitive and responsive behaviors within the context of the development of attachment patterns.”

    From Smartphones in the nursery: Parental smartphone use and parental sensitivity and responsiveness within parent–child interaction in early childhood (0–5 years): A scoping review (2021) · cites this paper as Beebe et al., 2010

    The Introduction’s “The Prediction of Attachment” section says caregiver sensitivity and responsiveness predict secure versus insecure attachment at 12 and 18 months. But it also describes the correlations as modest and identifies infant behavior and other influences, so it does not establish that attachment patterns are essentially dependent on caregiver behavior. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Inappropriate, unexpected responding at 4 months is the primary determinant of subsequent disorganized attachment.

    “Findings from recent microanalytic studies of parent-infant interaction by Beebe et al. (2010) highlight the importance of inappropriate, unexpected responding at 4 months as the primary determinant of subsequent disorganized attachment.”

    From Another step closer to measuring the ghosts in the nursery: preliminary validation of the Trauma Reflective Functioning Scale. (2014) · cites this paper as Beebe et al. (2010)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Infant-touch scale is described as both significant and nonsignificant for D versus B

    Major

    The results report significantly lower mean ordinalized infant touch in future D than B infants, then state that the same comparison did not differ.

  • Reported chase-and-dodge subgroup mean exceeds its stated maximum

    Major

    The stated maximum percent time in chase and dodge is 44.7%, yet the reported mean percent time for nonB dyads is 48.4%.

  • Overall maternal negative-affect rate is below both subgroup rates

    Minor

    The reported overall rate of 34.5% cannot be lower than both the B rate of 44.0% and the nonB rate of 35.1%, because B and nonB comprise the sample.

  • Chase and dodge is called absent in D dyads despite reported occurrences

    Minor

    The paper infers that chase and dodge was absent in future D dyads, but later reports that 46.2% of those dyads showed it at least once.

  • Education categories exceed the reported "some college or more" percentage

    Minor

    The listed percentages for some college, a college degree, and post-college education sum to 91.7%, not the reported 87.4%.

    Reported 87.4 · recomputed 91.7

  • NonB subgroup counts conflict with the attachment classifications

    Minor

    The later breakdown swaps the avoidant and resistant counts while retaining the same total of 37 nonB infants.

6 of 6

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. Beebe , B. , Cohen , P. M. , Bergman , A. , Moskowitz , S. , Sossin , M. Reiswig , R. in press . Mothers, infants and young children of September 11, 2001: Early years of a primary prevention project . Journal of Infant, Child, and Adolescent Psychotherapy ,
  2. Beebe , B. , Hane , A. , Feldstein , S. , Jaffe , J. , Crown , C. and Markese , S. 2008c . Rhythms of dialogue at 4 and 12 months: Homotypic and heterotypic continuities, attachment and cognition Manuscript New York State Psychiatric Institute
  3. Beebe , B. and Lachmann , F. 2002 . Infant research and adult treatment: Co-constructing interactions , Hillsdale, NJ : The Analytic Press .
  4. Beebe , B. , Margolis , A. , Hane , A. A. , Bahrick , L. , Buck , K. Chen , H. 2009 . Mother–infant face-to-face self and interactive contingency across modalities: A dyadic systems view Manuscripts, NYSPI
  5. Beebe , B. , Hane , A. A. , Margolis , A. , Markese , S. , Jaffe , J. Chavarga , A. Infant self-contingency (auto-correlation) as a component of emotion regulation . International Conference on Infant Studies . March 10–14 , Baltimore, Maryland. pp. 2010
  6. Bornstein , M. 1985 . “ Infant into adult: Unity to diversity in the development of visual categorization ” . In Neonate cognition , Edited by: Mehler , J. and Fox , R. 115 – 138 . Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc .
  7. Bretherton , I. and Munholland , K. 1999 . “ Internal working models in attachment: A construct revisited ” . In Handbook of attachment theory , 89 – 111 . New York : Guilford .
  8. Cassidy , J. and Kobak , R. 1988 . “ Avoidance and its relation to other defensive process ” . In Clinical implications of attachment , Edited by: Belsky , J. and Nezworski , T. 300 – 323 . Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum .
  9. Cohn , J. and Beebe , B. 1990 . Sampling interval affects time-series regression estimates of mother–infant influence . Infant Behavior and Development, Abstracts Issue , 13 : 317
  10. Demetriades , H. 2003 . Maternal anxiety and maternal spatial proximity in 4-month mother–infant face-to-face interaction Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Long Island University, CW Post Campus
  11. Downing , G. 2004 . “ Emotion, body and parent–infant interaction ” . In Emotional development: Recent research advances , Edited by: Nadel , J. and Muir , D. 429 – 449 . Oxford : Oxford University Press .
  12. Dunham , P. and Dunham , F. 1994 . “ Optimal social structures and adaptive infant development ” . In Joint attention: Its origins and role in development , Edited by: Moore , C. and Dunham , P. 159 – 188 . Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum .
  13. Fox , N. 1994 . The development of emotion regulation . Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development , 59 ( 2–3 ) Serial No. 240
  14. Gergely , G. and Watson , J. 1996 . The social biofeedback model of parental affect-mirroring . International Journal of Psycho-Analysis , 11 : 1181 – 1212 .
  15. Gianino , A. and Tronick , E. 1988 . “ The mutual regulation model: The infant's self and interactive regulation coping and defense ” . In Stress and Coping , Edited by: Field , T. , McCabe , P. and Schneiderman , N. 47 – 68 . Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum .
  16. Gottman , J. 1979 . Marital interactions , New York : Academic Press .
  17. Gottman , J. 1981 . Time-series analysis , Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .
  18. Hamilton , V. 1985 . “ John Bowlby: An ethological basis for psychoanalysis ” . In Beyond Freud: A study of modern psychoanalytic theorists , Edited by: Reppen , J. 1 – 28 . Hillsdale, NJ : Analytic Press .
  19. Hentel , A. , Beebe , B. and Jaffe , J. Maternal depression at 6 weeks is associated with infant self-comfort at 4 months . Poster presented at the International Conference of Infant Studies . Brighton, UK.
  20. Hodges , S. and Wegner , D. 1997 . “ Automatic and controlled empathy ” . In Empathic accuracy , Edited by: Ickes , W. 311 – 339 . New York : Guilford Press .
  21. Izard , C. 1979 . The Maximally Discriminative Facial Action Coding System , (MAX), , Newark : University of Delaware Instructional Resources Center .
  22. Jacobvitz , D. , Hazen , N. and Riggs , S. Disorganized mental processes in mothers: Frightening/frightened caregiving and disoriented, disorganized behavior in infancy . Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development . Washington, DC.
  23. Jaffe , J. , Beebe , B. , Feldstein , S. , Crown , C. and Jasnow , M. 2001 . Rhythms of dialogue in infancy . Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development , 66 ( 2 ) Serial No. 264, 1–132
  24. Kelly , K. , Ueng-McHale , J. , Grienenberger , J. and Slade , A. Atypical maternal behavior and their relation to infant attachment disorganization . Poster session presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development . Tampa, Florida.
  25. Kushnick , G. 2002 . Maternal spatial intrusion patterns in mother–infant face-to-face play: Maternal dependency, depression, and mother–infant chase and dodge Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Long Island University
  26. Langhorst , B. and Fogel , A. Cross-validation of microanalytic approaches to face-to-face interaction . Paper presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies . Austin, TX.
  27. Lupi , T. 2009 . Second by second maternal management of 4-month infant gaze aversion: A quantification of “good enough mothering” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University School of Social Work
  28. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0355(199623) · DOI
  29. Lyons-Ruth , K. and Jacobvitz , D. 2008 . “ Disorganized attachment: Genetic factors, parenting contexts, and developmental transformation from infancy to adulthood ” . In Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications , 2nd ed , Edited by: Cassidy , J. and Shaver , P. 666 – 697 . New York : Guilford Press .
  30. 10.1037//0022-0006X.64.2.264 · DOI
  31. Markese , S. , Beebe , B. , Feldstein , S. and Jaffe , J. 2008 . Rhythms of dialogue in infancy and attachment narratives in childhood . Paper presented at the International Conference Infant Studies . March 2008 , Vancouver, Canada.
  32. Meltzoff , A. 1985 . “ The roots of social and cognitive development: Models of man's original nature ” . In Social perception in infants , Edited by: Field , T. and Fox , N. 1 – 30 . Norwood, NJ : Ablex .
  33. Meltzoff , A. and Moore , M. 1998 . “ Infant intersubjectivity: Broadening the dialogue to include imitation, identity and intention ” . In Intersubjective communication and emotion in early ontogeny , Edited by: Braten , S. 47 – 62 . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .
  34. Millar , W. 1988 . Smiling, vocal and attentive behavior during social contingency learning in seven and ten month old infants . Merrill Palmer Quarterly , 34 : 301 – 325 .
  35. Miller , J. 2010 . Anamolous maternal behaviour at four months and infant attachment disorganization at one year Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York
  36. Murray , L. and Trevarthen , C. 1985 . “ Emotional regulation of interactions between two-month-olds and their mothers ” . In Social perception in infants , Edited by: Field , T. and Fox , N. 177 – 197 . Norwood, NJ : Ablex .
  37. Pine , F. 1981 . In the beginning: Contributions to a psychoanalytic developmental psychology . International Review of Psycho-Analysis , 8 : 15 – 33 .
  38. Sameroff , A. 1983 . “ Developmental systems: Contexts and evolution ” . In Mussen's handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1 , Edited by: Kessen , W. 237 – 294 . New York : Wiley .
  39. Sander , L. 1977 . “ The regulation of exchange in the infant–caretaker system and some aspects of the context-content relationship ” . In Interaction, conversation, and the development of language , Edited by: Lewis , M. and Rosenblum , L. 133 – 156 . New York : Wiley .
  40. Slade , A. , Dermer , M. , Gerber , J. , Gibson , L. , Graf , F. Siegel , N. Prenatal representation, dyadic interaction and quality of attachment . Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development . Indianapolis, Indiana.
  41. Solomon , J. and George , C. 1999 . “ The measurement of attachment security in infancy and childhood ” . In Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications , Edited by: Cassidy , J. and Shaver , P. 287 – 316 . New York : Guilford .
  42. Stepakoff , S. 1999 . Mother–infant tactile communication at four months: Effects of infant gender, maternal ethnicity, and maternal depression Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. John's University, New York
  43. Stepakoff , S. , Beebe , B. and Jaffe , J. Infant gender, maternal touch, and ethnicity . Paper presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies . Brighton, England.
  44. Stepakoff , S. , Beebe , B. and Jaffe , J. 2008 . Mother–infant tactile communication at four months: The roles of infant gender, maternal ethnicity, and maternal depression Manuscript, New York State Psychiatric Institute, submitted for publication
  45. Stern , D. , Hofer , L. , Haft , W. and Dore , J. 1985 . “ Affect attunement: The sharing of feeling states between mother and infant by means of intermodal fluency ” . In Social perception in infants , Edited by: Field , T. and Fox , N. Norwood, NJ : Ablex .
  46. Tobias , K. 1995 . The relation between maternal attachment and patterns of mother–infant interaction at four months Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York
  47. Tronick , E. and Weinberg , M. 1990 . The infant regulatory scoring system Unpublished manuscript, Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
  48. Watson , J. 1985 . Contingency perception in early social development. In T. Field & N. Fox (Eds.) . Social perception in infants , : 157 – 176 .
  49. Weinberg , M.K. 1992 . Sex differences in emotional expression and affective regulation in 6-month-old infants . Pediatric Research , 32 ( 4, Part 2 ) : 15A
  50. Weinberg , K. and Tronick , E. Stability of infant social and coping behaviors and affective displays between 6 and 15 months: Age-appropriate tasks and stress bring out stability . Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development . Seattle, Washington.
  51. Weiss , P. 1970 . Whither life or science? . American Scientist , 8 : 156 – 163 .
  52. Zelner , S. , Beebe , B. and Jaffe , J. The organization of vocalization and gaze in early mother–infant interactive regulation . Paper presented at the meeting of the International Conference Infant Studies . New York.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Beebe, B., Jaffe, J., Markese, S., Buck, K., Chen, H., Cohen, P., Bahrick, L., Andrews, H., & Feldstein, S.
Affiliations
New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Beebe, Beatrice
ORCID
Venue
Attachment & Human Development
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2010-01
Volume
12
Issue
1-2
Pages
3-141
ISSN
  • 1461-6734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-2988
DOI
10.1080/14616730903338985
PMC
PMC3763737
OpenAlex
W2103833506
Semantic Scholar
7dc57fc3ca53aa3d8f37549801275374c566570c
Cited by
652
References
231
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 52 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 27
FWCI
41.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Attachment & Human Development (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Florida International University Digital Commons (Florida International University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH56130, R01MH056130)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD053776)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
attachment formation, mother-infant interaction, insecure attachment, resistant attachment, disorganized attachment, face-to-face communication, spatial orientation, approach-withdrawal, Ainsworth Strange Situation, dyadic interaction, early infancy, attachment avoidance
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Child Development, Child Rearing, Female, Humans, Infant, Mother-Child Relations, Object Attachment, Videotape Recording, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review