Psychology Fanatic

Attachment Disorders

| T. Franklin Murphy

Attachment disorders and early caregiving disruption affecting a child’s sense of safety and connection

Attachment Disorders: When Early Care Disrupts the Capacity for Secure Connection

Attachments shape the emotional architecture of a child’s developing mind. From infancy onward, children rely on caregivers not only for food and protection but also for emotional regulation, safety, and a felt sense that relationships can be trusted. When this normal developmental process is severely disrupted by neglect, abuse, repeated caregiver changes, or institutional deprivation, the child’s attachment system may organize around survival rather than security.

Attachment disorders describe serious disturbances in a child’s ability to form selective, trusting relationships with caregivers. These conditions are not simply insecure attachment styles, nor are they ordinary difficulties with closeness. They are clinical disorders associated with histories of severely insufficient care and are most often discussed in relation to two diagnoses: Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) and Disinhibited Social Engagement Disorder (DSED).

These disorders reveal how profoundly early relational environments shape emotional development. A child who cannot rely on an available caregiver may withdraw from comfort, remain emotionally guarded, or approach strangers with unsafe familiarity. Beneath these behaviors is a nervous system attempting to adapt to a world where care has been unreliable, frightening, or absent.

Key Definition:

Attachment disorders are trauma- and stressor-related conditions that develop when early caregiving is severely disrupted by neglect, deprivation, abuse, repeated caregiver changes, or institutional care. The two main clinical forms are Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD), marked by emotional withdrawal and limited comfort-seeking, and Disinhibited Social Engagement Disorder (DSED), marked by overly familiar behavior toward unfamiliar adults.

Introduction

Attachment disorders represent a severe disruption in one of childhood’s most important developmental tasks: forming a selective, emotionally secure bond with a caregiver. Through stable and responsive caregiving, children gradually learn that distress can be soothed, needs can be met, and relationships can provide safety. These early experiences become the foundation for emotional regulation, empathy, trust, and later interpersonal connection.

When caregiving is inconsistent, neglectful, frightening, or repeatedly interrupted, the developing child may struggle to build this foundation. Instead of organizing around security, the child’s emotional system may organize around vigilance, withdrawal, confusion, or indiscriminate social behavior. These patterns are not signs of defiance or moral failure. They are adaptations to environments where ordinary attachment expectations were not reliably met.

Understanding attachment disorders requires both compassion and precision. While many people experience insecure attachment patterns, RAD and DSED refer to more severe clinical disturbances that emerge in early childhood and are tied to histories of “severely insufficient caregiving” (APA, 2013; Zeanah et al., 2011). This distinction matters because treatment must focus not only on symptoms but also on rebuilding the relational conditions that support safety, regulation, and trust.

Table of Contents

Theoretical Foundations of Attachment

Attachment theory, pioneered by John Bowlby, begins with the premise that human beings are biologically prepared to form intimate emotional bonds. These bonds are not secondary luxuries. They serve a survival function by keeping the child close to a protective caregiver during states of distress, fear, fatigue, illness, or uncertainty.

Bowlby described the attachment figure as a “secure base” from which the child can explore the world and return for comfort when threatened (Bowlby, 1988). When caregivers are reliably available and emotionally responsive, children internalize a sense of safety. They learn that distress can be shared, comfort can be received, and separation does not mean abandonment.

Mary Ainsworth’s Strange Situation research gave empirical support to these ideas. Her work showed that patterns of caregiver responsiveness are associated with different attachment patterns in infancy (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Secure attachment tends to develop when caregivers respond sensitively and consistently. Insecure patterns may emerge when caregiving is inconsistent, rejecting, frightening, or emotionally unavailable.

Internal Working Models

Attachment relationships also shape what Bowlby called internal working models. These are early mental representations of the self, others, and relationships. A child who receives consistent care may come to expect that others are trustworthy and that the self is worthy of care. A child who experiences neglect, rejection, or fear may come to expect that needs are dangerous, others are unreliable, and closeness carries risk.

These working models do not determine the future in a fixed way, but they do influence later expectations. They shape how children seek comfort, respond to distress, interpret social cues, and form later relationships (Rusbult & Reis, 2004). In attachment disorders, these early expectations are often shaped under extreme relational stress.

Attachment Disorders vs. Insecure Attachment

It is important to distinguish attachment disorders from insecure attachment styles. Insecure attachment is relatively common and can develop in a range of family environments. It may involve anxiety, avoidance, difficulty trusting, or discomfort with emotional dependence. However, insecure attachment alone is not a clinical attachment disorder.

Reactive Attachment Disorder and Disinhibited Social Engagement Disorder are more severe and require a history of grossly inadequate caregiving. They are associated with social neglect, deprivation, repeated caregiver changes, or institutional environments that limit a child’s opportunity to form stable attachments (APA, 2013; Zeanah et al., 2011).

This distinction protects against overdiagnosis. A child who is shy, emotionally guarded, highly social, oppositional, or anxious does not necessarily have an attachment disorder. Clinical assessment must consider developmental history, caregiving conditions, symptom patterns, and possible alternative explanations such as autism spectrum disorder, trauma-related symptoms, ADHD, developmental delay, or temperament.

Types of Attachment Disorders: RAD and DSED

The DSM-5 recognizes two primary attachment-related disorders: Reactive Attachment Disorder and Disinhibited Social Engagement Disorder. Both are associated with early histories of severely insufficient care, but they present differently.

Broadly stated, RAD is primarily marked by emotional withdrawal from caregivers, while DSED is marked by indiscriminate social approach toward unfamiliar adults. These differences matter because the two conditions appear to respond differently to improved caregiving and may require different intervention emphases.

Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD)

Reactive Attachment Disorder is characterized by a consistent pattern of emotionally withdrawn behavior toward adult caregivers. Children with RAD rarely seek comfort when distressed and respond minimally when comfort is offered. They may show limited positive affect, reduced social responsiveness, and episodes of unexplained irritability, sadness, or fearfulness during interactions with caregivers (Zeanah et al., 2011).

RAD is rooted in a history of severely insufficient caregiving. This may include persistent emotional neglect, repeated changes in primary caregivers, or rearing in settings where stable attachments are difficult to form. The diagnosis also requires that symptoms are not better explained by another developmental condition, such as autism spectrum disorder.

The core difficulty in RAD is not merely that the child is upset or mistrustful. Rather, the child has not developed the expected pattern of turning selectively toward a caregiver for comfort and regulation. The attachment system, which normally organizes proximity-seeking under stress, has been disrupted.

Etiology of RAD

RAD develops in the context of early environments that fail to provide reliable emotional care. Infants and young children depend on caregivers to help regulate distress. Through repeated cycles of need, response, soothing, and repair, the child gradually internalizes the capacity for self-regulation.

When this cycle is absent or severely disrupted, the child may not learn that comfort is available. Instead, the nervous system may adapt through emotional shutdown, guardedness, or limited comfort-seeking. Research on early trauma and neglect suggests that these experiences can alter stress-response systems, including the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, and affect later capacities for emotional regulation and social connection (Corbin, 2007).

The hopeful aspect of RAD is that it is often highly responsive to improved caregiving. When a child is placed with emotionally available, consistent, and attuned caregivers, symptoms may diminish. Treatment therefore begins with safety, stability, and the presence of a caregiver who can function as a secure base.

Disinhibited Social Engagement Disorder (DSED)

Disinhibited Social Engagement Disorder involves a pattern of overly familiar behavior with unfamiliar adults. A child with DSED may approach strangers with little hesitation, engage in unusually familiar verbal or physical behavior, fail to check back with a caregiver in unfamiliar settings, or show a willingness to leave with an unfamiliar adult (Zeanah et al., 2011).

DSED was once grouped with Reactive Attachment Disorder, but the DSM-5 separated the two conditions. This separation reflects an important clinical distinction: DSED is primarily a disturbance of social boundaries and disinhibited social behavior. It can sometimes persist even when a child later forms a selective attachment to a caregiver (Zeanah & Gleason, 2015).

In other words, DSED is not simply the absence of attachment. A child may become attached to a foster or adoptive caregiver and still continue to display unsafe familiarity with strangers.

Behavioral Features of DSED

The behaviors associated with DSED can appear charming, affectionate, or socially confident at first glance. However, the concern lies in the lack of age-appropriate caution and selective attachment behavior. The child’s friendliness is not simply warmth; it reflects difficulty distinguishing familiar caregivers from unfamiliar adults.

This pattern can create safety risks. Children with DSED may not use the caregiver as a secure base in the expected way. They may fail to check back for guidance, seek attention indiscriminately, or cross physical and emotional boundaries that most children learn to regulate through stable caregiving.

DSED must be distinguished from ordinary sociability and from ADHD. While ADHD may involve impulsivity across many domains, DSED involves a more specific pattern of socially disinhibited behavior toward unfamiliar adults (Zeanah et al., 2011).

Etiology of DSED

Like RAD, DSED is associated with histories of severely insufficient care. Institutional deprivation, social neglect, and repeated caregiver disruptions appear especially relevant. Research suggests that the persistence of indiscriminate social behavior may be related to the length and severity of early deprivation (Zeanah & Gleason, 2015).

DSED often improves with stable caregiving, but it may not resolve as completely as RAD. Some children continue to struggle with social boundaries even after forming a secure relationship with a caregiver. This suggests that intervention may need to address not only attachment security but also social cognition, boundary recognition, and safe relational behavior.

Early Trauma, Neglect, and the Developing Attachment System

Attachment disorders arise in the context of environments that fail to provide the child with reliable protection and emotional regulation. Early neglect can be especially damaging because it deprives the child of the repeated relational experiences through which the brain learns safety, soothing, and connection.

Caregivers serve as co-regulators for young children. When an infant is distressed, the caregiver’s voice, touch, facial expression, rhythm, and emotional presence help the child return to a more balanced state. Over time, these repeated moments become part of the child’s own regulatory capacity.

When caregiving is absent, frightening, or inconsistent, the child may remain in prolonged states of distress or hyperarousal. Chronic activation of stress-response systems can affect emotional regulation, attention, impulse control, and social engagement (Corbin, 2007). The child is not simply “acting out.” The child’s developing system has adapted to conditions in which safety was uncertain.

The Unsolvable Dilemma of Frightening Care

One of the most damaging relational patterns occurs when the caregiver is both the source of comfort and the source of fear. In ordinary attachment development, fear activates the child’s need to move toward the caregiver. But when the caregiver is also threatening, the child faces an unsolvable dilemma: the person needed for safety is also the person associated with danger.

This relational contradiction is often discussed in connection with disorganized attachment (Main & Solomon, 1990). The child cannot develop a coherent strategy for seeking safety because the attachment system is pulled in opposing directions (Lyons-Ruth et al., 2006). Approaching the caregiver may feel dangerous, but avoiding the caregiver may leave the child alone with fear.

Over time, these experiences can shape internal working models marked by distrust, shame, vigilance, and confusion. The child may come to expect relationships to be unpredictable or unsafe. These expectations can influence later emotional life, not because the past mechanically determines the future, but because early relationships teach the nervous system what closeness feels like.

Lessons from Institutional Deprivation Research

Institutional deprivation offers compelling evidence that attachment is a biological imperative. In the mid-20th century, psychoanalyst René Spitz observed infants in “Foundlinghomes” where a single caregiver attended to multiple babies. Despite adequate nutrition and hygiene, the lack of holding, rocking, and emotional interaction led to emotional withdrawal, “anaclitic depression,” and, in extreme cases, marasmus, illustrating that the absence of a reciprocal caregiver impairs both emotional and physical development (Schutz, 1958; Hamilton, 1999).

Modern research on Romanian orphanages after the fall of the Ceausescu regime confirmed these findings. Children confined with minimal social stimulation displayed severe cognitive, emotional, and social deficits. Longer durations in institutional care predicted worse outcomes—a “dose-response” effect (Rutter et al., 2007). Many children exhibited disorganized attachment, cognitive impairment, inattention-overactivity, and indiscriminate friendliness, reflecting an urgent need for connection in the absence of a secure base.

Even after adoption into supportive families, deficits often persisted. Longitudinal studies showed that adolescents raised in institutions were less likely to form close peer relationships, despite forming strong attachments to adoptive parents, indicating that early deprivation disrupts the internal working models that guide social behavior (Hodges & Tizard, 1989; Mills & Grusec, 1988). Institutional histories can also have intergenerational effects: women reared in institutions were more likely to struggle with parenting their own children (Rutter et al., 2007).

Despite these enduring challenges, intervention studies highlight the potential for recovery. Children moved from institutions into high-quality foster care demonstrated improved emotional and social outcomes, though some deficits remained relative to never-institutionalized peers (Keltner et al., 2013). Collectively, this research underscores that consistent, sensitive caregiving is essential for healthy attachment and the development of emotional and relational capacities.

Developmental Impact of Attachment Disorders

The impact of attachment disorders extends beyond the early caregiver-child relationship. Because attachment relationships help organize emotional regulation, social learning, and self-understanding, severe disruptions can affect multiple areas of development.

Children with attachment disorders may struggle with emotional responsiveness, impulse control, attention, empathy, social boundaries, and self-worth. Some become withdrawn and difficult to comfort. Others become socially indiscriminate and overly familiar. Still others show irritability, aggression, anxiety, or difficulty trusting adults.

These behaviors often reflect survival adaptations. Withdrawal may protect the child from repeated disappointment. Overfriendliness may function as an attempt to secure attention in environments where care was scarce. Emotional numbing may reduce distress when comfort is unavailable. What appears maladaptive in a safer environment may have once served a protective function.

Long-Term Consequences

Without effective intervention, early attachment disturbances may contribute to later relational and emotional difficulties. Adults with histories of severe attachment disruption may experience chronic relationship instability, anxiety, depression, distrust, emotional dysregulation, or difficulty parenting their own children (Lyons-Ruth et al., 2006).

However, attachment history is not destiny. Later relationships, therapy, stable caregiving, and corrective emotional experiences can reshape expectations and strengthen regulatory capacity. Development is not linear, and new relational experiences can help revise old patterns.

Later Relational Patterns and Attachment Insecurity

Although Reactive Attachment Disorder and Disinhibited Social Engagement Disorder are childhood diagnoses, early attachment disruption can leave traces in later emotional and relational life. These later patterns should not be confused with clinical attachment disorders. However, early experiences of neglect, frightening care, or repeated relational loss may shape how a person comes to expect closeness, respond to conflict, and protect against vulnerability.

Adult attachment is often described along two broad dimensions: attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance (Brennan et al., 1998). Attachment anxiety involves fear of abandonment, heightened sensitivity to rejection, and a strong need for reassurance. Attachment avoidance involves discomfort with dependence, emotional distance, and difficulty relying on others. These patterns are not fixed outcomes of childhood attachment disorders, but they may reflect broader developmental pathways shaped by early relational insecurity.

When early care does not provide stable recognition and emotional safety, later relationships may become charged with fear, shame, anger, or mistrust. A person may long for closeness while also expecting rejection. This ambivalence can create cycles of protest, withdrawal, defensiveness, or emotional shutdown. In this sense, adult relationship struggles may echo earlier attachment injuries without being the same as RAD or DSED.

Recent research has linked attachment insecurity with hostility in depressive disorders, particularly when unmet attachment needs become organized around threat perception and defensive self-protection (Enikolopov et al., 2024). This does not mean that attachment wounds inevitably lead to depression, hostility, or pathological narcissism. Rather, it suggests that early relational injuries can influence the self-system, especially when the person learns to manage vulnerability through self-criticism, withdrawal, dependency, or defensive control.

The important point is developmental continuity, not diagnostic equivalence. Childhood attachment disorders belong to early development and require careful clinical assessment. Adult attachment insecurity is broader and more varied. Still, both remind us that early relationships help shape the expectations people carry into later bonds: whether closeness feels safe, whether needs can be expressed, and whether others can be trusted to remain.

Assessment and Diagnosis of Attachment Disorders

Assessment of attachment disorders requires careful clinical judgment. These diagnoses should not be made casually based on a child’s difficult behavior, trauma history, or insecure attachment pattern alone. Clinicians must consider the child’s developmental history, caregiving environment, symptom pattern, age, and possible alternative explanations.

Diagnosis should be made by a qualified mental health professional using developmental history, caregiver interviews, behavioral observation, and differential diagnosis rather than a symptom checklist alone.

A thorough assessment should examine whether the child experienced severely insufficient care, whether symptoms began in early childhood, and whether the behavior fits RAD, DSED, another trauma-related condition, autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, developmental delay, or another clinical concern. Observations across settings are often important because attachment behavior is relational and context-dependent.

The goal of assessment is not to label the child as damaged. It is to understand the child’s adaptation and identify what kind of relational environment and therapeutic support can help restore safety, regulation, and connection.

Treatment for Attachment Disorders

The central intervention for attachment disorders is the creation of a stable, emotionally available caregiving relationship. Children heal through repeated experiences of safety, attunement, predictability, and repair. Therapy cannot substitute for caregiving stability, but it can support caregivers in providing the relational conditions the child needs.

Treatment should be trauma-informed and developmentally sensitive. It should avoid coercive or confrontational approaches that intensify fear or shame. Instead, effective intervention focuses on caregiver sensitivity, emotional attunement, regulation, and safe relational engagement.

Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up

Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up (ABC) is one evidence-based intervention designed to help caregivers respond more sensitively to children who have experienced early adversity. ABC supports synchronous interactions, helps caregivers follow the child’s cues, and encourages nurturing responses even when the child does not clearly ask for comfort (Dozier et al., 2014).

This is especially important because children with histories of neglect may not elicit care in typical ways. A child may push away, appear indifferent, avoid eye contact, or fail to seek comfort when distressed. Caregivers may need support in recognizing these behaviors as adaptations rather than rejection.

ABC also emphasizes the caregiver’s role in helping the child regulate physiological and emotional arousal. Through repeated attuned interactions, the child gradually learns that distress can be met safely and that relationships can provide comfort rather than threat.

Different Treatment Needs in RAD and DSED

RAD and DSED may respond differently to improved caregiving. RAD often improves significantly when children are placed in stable, nurturing environments. As the child begins to experience consistent comfort, selective attachment behavior may emerge.

DSED can be more persistent. Even when a child forms a secure attachment with a caregiver, indiscriminate social behavior may continue. This suggests that treatment for DSED may need to include explicit work on social boundaries, stranger safety, emotional awareness, and social decision-making (Zeanah & Gleason, 2015).

Social Cognitive Interventions for DSED

Because DSED involves disinhibited social behavior, intervention may need to address the child’s understanding of social relationships. Children may need help learning the difference between familiar adults, trusted caregivers, acquaintances, and strangers. They may also need practice recognizing boundaries, reading social cues, and checking back with caregivers in unfamiliar situations.

These interventions should not shame the child for being friendly. Instead, they should help the child develop safer social discrimination. The goal is not to make the child fearful of others but to help the child organize warmth, curiosity, and trust within appropriate relational boundaries.

Treatment Cautions: Safety, Stability, and Non-Coercive Care

Treatment for attachment disorders must begin with safety. Children who have experienced neglect, frightening care, repeated separation, or institutional deprivation do not heal through pressure, confrontation, or forced intimacy. They heal through repeated experiences of predictable, attuned, and emotionally safe caregiving.

This distinction is important because attachment language has sometimes been misused to justify coercive or intrusive interventions. Approaches that force physical closeness, restrain a child, provoke fear, or demand attachment behaviors can intensify distress and are not recommended (AACAP, 2022). For a child whose early relationships were unsafe, coercion may confirm the very expectation that adults cannot be trusted.

Treatment should focus on safety, stable caregiving, and the child’s relational context rather than symptom suppression alone (Zeanah et al., 2016).

Evidence-informed care emphasizes stability, caregiver sensitivity, and developmentally appropriate support. The child needs adults who can respond consistently to distress, set clear but non-threatening limits, and remain emotionally available even when the child withdraws, resists comfort, or behaves in confusing ways. Treatment should help caregivers interpret these behaviors as adaptations to early deprivation rather than as deliberate rejection or manipulation.

This is especially important in adoptive, foster, and kinship care settings, where caregivers may feel hurt or discouraged when a child does not respond warmly to affection. A trauma-informed approach supports both the child and the caregiver. It helps caregivers provide structure without harshness, nurture without intrusion, and patience without passivity.

For RAD, the priority is helping the child experience a caregiver as a reliable source of comfort and regulation. For DSED, treatment may also need to include explicit guidance around social boundaries, stranger safety, and checking back with trusted adults. In both cases, the goal is not to force attachment but to create the relational conditions in which attachment can gradually emerge.

Healthy attachment grows through trust, not control. The most effective interventions respect the child’s fear while gently expanding the child’s capacity for connection. Safety, stability, and non-coercive care are not merely ethical safeguards; they are the foundation of treatment itself.

Hope, Repair, and Developmental Change

Attachment disorders remind us that early care matters deeply. They also remind us that children can change when environments change. The developing brain remains open to new relational experiences, especially when caregivers provide consistency, patience, and emotional availability over time.

Repair is rarely instant. Children who have learned to survive without reliable comfort may test, avoid, cling, withdraw, or seek connection in confusing ways. Caregivers may need support as they respond to behaviors that are rooted in fear rather than defiance.

Healing begins when the child repeatedly experiences what was missing: a caregiver who remains present, safe, predictable, and emotionally engaged. Through these repeated experiences, the child can begin to revise old expectations and develop new capacities for trust, regulation, and connection.

Associated Concepts

  • Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs): Adverse Childhood Experiences are potentially traumatic events in childhood, including abuse, neglect, and household instability. ACEs can increase vulnerability to emotional, relational, and physical health difficulties later in life.
  • Still Face Experiment: Edward Tronick’s Still Face Experiment demonstrated how quickly infants respond to caregiver emotional unavailability. The study illustrates the importance of responsive interaction in early emotional regulation.
  • Intersubjectivity: Intersubjectivity refers to the shared emotional and psychological space between people. In early development, it helps explain how infants and caregivers coordinate emotion, attention, and regulation.
  • Intergenerational Transmission of Trauma: Intergenerational trauma describes how the effects of trauma can be transmitted across generations through caregiving patterns, stress physiology, family narratives, and relational expectations.
  • Harlow’s Rhesus Monkey Experiments: Harlow’s controversial studies highlighted the importance of comfort and contact in attachment formation. Although ethically troubling, they helped shift attention toward the emotional needs of developing infants.
  • Complex Trauma: Complex trauma refers to repeated or prolonged exposure to traumatic experiences, often within caregiving relationships. It can affect emotional regulation, self-concept, attachment, and bodily stress responses.
  • Adaptive Survival Styles: Adaptive survival styles describe defensive patterns children may develop in response to early relational threat or deprivation. These patterns may protect the child in unsafe environments but later interfere with intimacy and self-regulation.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

Attachment disorders show how deeply early relationships shape emotional life. Children do not develop in isolation. They develop within relationships that either help organize safety or force the child to adapt to fear, absence, and inconsistency.

Reactive Attachment Disorder and Disinhibited Social Engagement Disorder are serious conditions, but they are not hopeless ones. With stable caregiving, trauma-informed assessment, and developmentally sensitive intervention, many children can build new patterns of trust and regulation. The task is not merely to reduce symptoms. It is to restore the relational conditions that allow secure attachment to grow.

Every child needs more than survival. Children need adults who notice, respond, repair, and remain. When care becomes predictable and emotionally safe, the child’s story can begin to shift—from guarded adaptation toward connection, resilience, and belonging.

Last Edited: May 30, 2026

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (2022). Policy statement on coercive interventions for attachment disorders. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult romantic attachment: An integrative overview. In: J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). Guilford Press. ISBN: 9781572301023
(Return to Main Text)

Hamilton, N. G. (1999). Self and others: Object relations theory in practice. Aronson. ISBN: 9780876685440
(Return to Main Text)

Heller, Lawrence; LaPierre, Aline (2012). Healing Developmental Trauma: How Early Trauma Affects Self-Regulation, Self-Image, and the Capacity for Relationship. North Atlantic Books; 1st edition. ISBN: 9781583944899
(Return to Main Text)

Hodges, J., & Tizard, B. (1989). IQ and behavioural adjustment of ex‑institutional adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 30(1), 53–75. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1989.tb00769.x
(Return to Main Text)

Keltner, Dacher; Oatley, Keith; Jenkins, Jennifer M. (2013). Understanding Emotions. Wiley; 3rd edition. ISBN: 9781118147436
(Return to Main Text)

Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In: M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research, and Intervention (pp. 121–160). The University of Chicago Press. ISBN: 9780226306308
(Return to Main Text)

Mills, Rosemary S. L.; Grusec, Joan E. (1988). Socialization from the Perspective of the Parent-Child Relationship. In: Steve Duck (Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research and Interventions. pp. 177–210. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN: 9780471914914
(Return to Main Text)

Rutter, M., Backett, C., Castle, J., Colvert, E., Kreppner, J., Mehta, M., Stevens, S., & Sonuga‑Barke, E. (2007). Effects of profound early institutional deprivation: An overview of findings from a UK longitudinal study of Romanian adoptees. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4(3), 332–350. DOI: 10.1080/17405620701401846

Schutz, Will (1958). FIRO: A Three-Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior. Holt, Rinehart & Winston. ISBN: 9780831400118
(Return to Main Text)

Zeanah, C. H.; Gleason, M. M. (2015). Annual Research Review: Attachment disorders in early childhood—clinical presentation, causes, and treatment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56(3), 207–222. DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12347
(Return to Main Text)

Discover more from Psychology Fanatic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading