Toward a new understanding of legacy of early attachments for future antisocial trajectories: evidence from two longitudinal studies

Abstract

Early parent-child attachment has been extensively explored as a contributor to children's future adaptive or antisocial outcomes, but the specific developmental mechanisms remain to be fully understood. We examined long-term indirect developmental sequelae of early security in two longitudinal community samples followed from infancy to early school age: the Family Study (102 mothers, fathers, and infants) and the Parent-Child Study (112 mothers and infants). Constructs at multiple levels (child characteristics, parent-child security, parental discipline, and child antisocial outcomes) were assessed using a range of methods (extensive behavioral observations in a variety of settings, informants' ratings). Both studies supported the proposed model of infant attachment as a potent catalyst that moderates future developmental socialization trajectories, despite having few long-term main effects. In insecure dyads, a pattern of coercion emerged between children who were anger prone as toddlers and their parents, resulting in parents' increased power-assertive discipline. Power assertion in turn predicted children's rule-breaking conduct and a compromised capacity to delay in laboratory paradigms, as well as oppositional, disruptive, callous, and aggressive behavior rated by parents and teachers at early school age. This causal chain was absent in secure dyads, where child anger proneness was unrelated to power assertion, and power assertion was unrelated to antisocial outcomes. Early insecurity appeared to act as a catalyst for the parent-child dyad embarking on a mutually adversarial path toward antisocial outcomes, whereas security defused such a maladaptive dynamic. The possible mechanisms of those effects were proposed.

Figure 1

The conceptual model: The causal chain from child characteristics to parental socialization to child antisocial outcomes in insecure and secure relationships. P, parent; C, child.

Figure 2

The Family Study: The moderated mediation model predicting the mother’s power assertion at 52 months as the mediator and the child’s observed rule violations at 80 months as the dependent variable, with the child’s anger proneness at 38 months as the predictor and mother–child attachment security at 15 months as the moderator. The child’s gender was a covariate (not depicted). Solid lines represent significant effects and dashed lines represent nonsignificant effects. M, mother; C, child; Mo., months.

Figure 3

The Family Study: The moderated mediation model predicting the father’s power assertion at 52 months as the mediator and the child’s observed rule violations at 80 months as the dependent variable, with the child’s anger proneness at 38 months as the predictor and father–child attachment security at 15 months as the moderator. The child’s gender was a covariate (not depicted). Solid lines represent significant effects and dashed lines represent nonsignificant effects. F, father; C, child; Mo., months.

Figure 4

The Family Study: The moderated mediation model predicting the mother’s power assertion at 52 months as the mediator and the child’s compromised capacity to delay at 80 months as the dependent variable, with the child’s anger proneness at 38 months as the predictor and mother–child attachment security at 15 months as the moderator. The child’s gender was a covariate (not depicted). Solid lines represent significant effects and dashed lines represent nonsignificant effects. M, mother; C, child; Mo., months.

Figure 5

The Family Study: The moderated mediation model predicting the father’s power assertion at 52 months as the mediator and the child’s compromised capacity to delay at 80 months as the dependent variable, with the child’s anger proneness at 38 months as the predictor and father–child attachment security at 15 months as the moderator. The child’s gender was a covariate (not depicted). Solid lines represent significant effects and dashed lines represent nonsignificant effects. F, father; C, child; Mo., months.

Figure 6

The Family Study: The moderated mediation model predicting the mother’s power assertion at 52 months as the mediator and the child’s parent-rated antisocial outcomes at 80 months as the dependent variable, with the child’s anger proneness at 38 months as the predictor and mother–child attachment security at 15 months as the moderator. The child’s gender was a covariate (not depicted). Solid lines represent significant effects and dashed lines represent nonsignificant effects. M, mother; C, child; Mo., months.

Figure 7

The Family Study: The moderated mediation model predicting the father’s power assertion at 52 months as the mediator and the child’s parent-rated antisocial outcomes at 80 months as the dependent variable, with the child’s anger proneness at 38 months as the predictor and father–child attachment security at 15 months as the moderator. The child’s gender was a covariate (not depicted). Solid lines represent significant effects and dashed lines represent nonsignificant effects. F, father; C, child; Mo., months.

Figure 8

The Parent–Child Study: Mother–child attachment security at 14 months moderates the effect of the child’s angry defiance at 22 months on the mother’s power assertion at 33 months. The child’s gender was a covariate (not depicted). The solid line represents the significant simple slope and the dashed line represents the nonsignificant simple slope.

Figure 9

The Parent–Child Study: Mother–child attachment security at 14 months moderates the effect of the mother’s power assertion at 33 months on the child’s antisocial outcomes at 73 months. The child’s gender was a covariate (not depicted). The solid line represents the significant simple slope and the dashed line represents the nonsignificant simple slope.