Download PDF: "Articles on Child Development and Custody"

This article was downloaded by: [Northcentral University] On: 17 August 2014, At: 13:32 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Divorce & Remarriage Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjdr20 A Review of the Empirical Literature About Child Development and Adjustment Postseparation Margo Anne Kushner a a Salisbury University , Salisbury, Maryland, USA Published online: 05 Oct 2009.

To cite this article: Margo Anne Kushner (2009) A Review of the Empirical Literature About Child Development and Adjustment Postseparation, Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 50:7, 496-516, DOI: 10.1080/10502550902970595 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10502550902970595

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 50:496–516, 2009 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1050-2556 print/1540-4811 online DOI: 10.1080/10502550902970595

WJDR1050-25561540-4811Journal of Divorce & ARemarriage,Remarriage Vol. Review50, No. 7, Aug 2009: pp. 0–0 of the Empirical Literature About Child Development and Adjustment Postseparation

ChildM. A. KushnerDevelopment and Adjustment Postseparation MARGO ANNE KUSHNER Salisbury University, Salisbury, Maryland, USA

This article provides a substantial review of the empirical data that have steered the work of child custody experts for the last 30 years. Child custody evaluators who are designated the responsibility of designing parenting plans postseparation for children exposed to family breakdown must be capable of sifting through the literature to select valid and reliable data to support their recommendations and plans. This article provides a review of this literature and discusses the methodological impairments in this body of knowledge.

KEYWORDS separation, divorce, children, child development, evidence-based practice, research

It is estimated that 60% of divorces involve children under the age of 6 (Rogers, 2004). Consequently, researchers and policymakers have devoted considerable energy and attention to the study of these children. An influence on the working role of the child custody evaluator is the scholarly literature pertaining to child development. It is important that child Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:32 17 August 2014 custody evaluators understand the need for evidence-based practice. The following material not only provides a current review of the literature about the influence of separation and divorce on children; it also presents information about the methodological impairments inherent in this body of knowledge.

Address correspondence to Dr. Margo Anne Kushner, 632 River Oak Court, Salisbury, MD 21801, USA. E-mail: [email protected] or www.margokushnertherapist.com

496 Child Development and Adjustment Postseparation 497

THE LITERATURE

The literature about children’s adjustment in relation to custody and access matters is extensive. (Ahrons, 2004; Amato, 1993, 1994, 2001, 2003; Amato & Keith, 1991; Amato, Loomis, & Booth, 1995; Amato & Wong, 2000; Dunn, Davies, O’Connor, & Sturgess, 2001; Hetherington, 1999b; Hetherington, Bridges, & Insabella, 1998; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1982; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Hetherington & Stanley-Hagen, 2000, 2001; Kalter, 1990; Kalter, Reimer, Brickman, & Chen, 1995; Kelly, 2003; Kelly & Emery, 2003; Kelly & Lamb, 2000; Pagani-Kurtz & Deverensky, 1997; Pruett & Pruett, 1998; Pruett, Ebling, & Insabella, 2005; Ram, Finzi, & Cohen, 2002; Roseby & Johnston, 1998; Smart & Neale, 2000; Wallerstein, 1991; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980; Wallerstein, Lewis, & Blakeslee, 2000; Wallerstein & Lewis, 2004). This material presents a variety of opinions about the subject. Although most studies agree that separation or divorce has a negative relationship with children’s adjustment, they differ about the factors that influence these outcomes. The conclusions drawn can be organized into two categories. The first group deems that these negative consequences interfere with children’s development by affecting their academic and social competence, as well as their emotional and mental stability (Buchanan & Heiges, 2001; Buchanan, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1996; Garrity & Baris, 1994; Kelly & Emery, 2003; Pam & Pearson, 1998; Roseby & Johnston, 1998; Stahl, 1999, 2004; Wallerstein, 1991; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980; Wallerstein et al., 2000; Wallerstein & Tanke, 1996; Warshak, 2001). Other studies explain the negative effects of parental separation by using different factors correlated with divorce (Ahrons, 2004; Amato, 1993, 2000; Amato & Gilbreth, 1999; Amato et al., 1995; Amato & Rezac, 1994; Flowerdew & Neale, 2003; Hetherington, 2003; Hetherington et al., 1998; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Hogan, Halpenny, & Greene, 2003; Moxnes, 2003; Pike, 2003). This side of the controversy encompasses parental conflict, socioeconomic issues, and parenting issues as significant factors influencing children’s postseparation well-being. Amato (1994) has suggested that the controversy among social scientists about the consequences of divorce for children and the inconsistencies in Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:32 17 August 2014 study results is because of varied sampling strategies, a diversity of outcomes to measure, and a variety of techniques used in obtaining and analyzing data. The past decade has seen a large increase in studies assessing the complex variables within marriages that profoundly affect child and adolescent adjustment. These variables include marital conflict, violence, and related parenting behavior. Kelly and Lamb (2000) have stated that children raised by divorced parents, as a group, might have more adjustment problems than do children of never-divorced parents. Yet the view that divorce per se is the major cause of these symptoms must be reconsidered in light of newer research documenting the negative effects of troubled marriages on children. 498 M. A. Kushner

During the past decade, there has been an increase in family research studying aspects of marriage and parenting that affect child adjustment and in longitudinal studies that assess children in both married and divorced families. The recent research has involved larger samples, is more sophisticated in design and statistical analysis, and provides a complex comprehen- sion of the sources of children’s adjustment problems in both married and divorced families. Several researchers have pointed out that the adjustment problems of children of divorced parents can, in part, be accounted for by the experiences of these children within marriages that later end in divorce (Amato, 2000, 2001; Hetherington, 2003; Hetherington et al., 1998; Kelly, 2000, 2003). Kelly’s work has brought the utility of prior divorce research into question. Historical studies have reported that children whose parents have divorced experienced more adjustment difficulties than children reared in intact familial systems. These studies did not use comparison or control groups of children who had never experienced divorce. Empirical data began to flood the divorce literature in the 1970s. The earliest reports were based on small, nonrepresentative samples. Compari- son groups were rarely used, nor were standardized measures pertaining to adjustment. These data collection techniques made it difficult to generalize about the larger population. Although these studies lacked rigor, they were enthusiastically embraced by a media interested in divorce. Wallerstein and Blakeslee’s (1989) study on the long-term effects of divorce on children received monumental attention. Wallerstein (1991) herself referred to this attention as “the undifferentiated media focus on the negative outcomes of divorce” (p. 252). A far more helpful approach would have been for the media to report about the maturation process of this body of research and its related improvements over the prior few decades. If this had occurred, factors that promote resiliency might have been reported earlier in this scholarly discourse. Numerous social scientists have attempted to unravel the knot of methodological problems in child custody research into categories, including Krauss and Sales (2000), Hosley and Montemajor (1997), Bricklin (1995), Amato (1994, 2000, 2001, 2003), Hetherington (2003), Hetherington et al. Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:32 17 August 2014 (1998), Emery (1999), Kelly (2003), Kelly and Lamb (2005), and Kushner (2006). It is important for child custody evaluators to be aware that referencing inept research can marginalize the very people one attempts to assist. This article attempts to set the record straight regarding the public perception of separation and divorce. The following information provides a summary of the empirical literature about the adjustment of children postseparation.

Academic Achievement Several studies’ findings indicate that divorce increases the risk that children will experience academic difficulties (Emery, 1999; Furstenberg & Child Development and Adjustment Postseparation 499

Teitler, 1994; Hetherington, 1999a; McLanahan, 1999; McLanahan & Sandefor, 1994; Nord, Brimhall, & West, 1997; Pong & Ju, 2000). However, Furstenberg and Teitler (1994) have determined that high levels of marital discord prior to divorce account for the decline in educational achievement. Pong and Ju’s (2000) study found that poverty postseparation is a factor for their decline in academic achievement. McLanahan and Sandefor (1994) identified lessened parental monitoring postseparation as a significant factor. McLanahan’s (1999) article cited poorer school attendance, more television watching, less attention to homework, and less overall parental supervision as consequences of divorce. She also found that the descendents of divorced parents do not obtain college degrees with the same frequency as children reared in intact families. The significance of the father factor was investigated by Nord et al. (1997), who discovered that fathers’ attentiveness to their offspring’s scholastic activities enhanced their academic successes. This review of the literature indicates that numerous variables influence academic success when children are reared in separated family systems. Amato and Rezac (1994) reported significant overlap between the academic success of descendents of divorced and nondivorced families. Their findings demonstrate that the majority of the children reared within divorced families fall within the average range for academic success. Amato (1994) has attributed inconsistencies in studies to the fact that the research about children’s adjustment postseparation varies considerably in its sampling, outcome choices, methods of data collection, and analysis. To deal with these research difficulties, he used a technique known as meta-analysis, in which the results of individual studies are expressed in terms of effect size. Effect size summarizes the dissimilarities between children in nonseparated and separated homes. Because effect size involves common units of measure, they can be combined across studies to determine whether or not significant effects exist for each topic being reviewed. Thus, one can discern how design features of studies, such as sampling, might impact conclusions. The earliest example of meta-analysis located was a study completed Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:32 17 August 2014 by Amato and Keith (1991). They investigated the well-being of children whose parents divorced. This review pooled the results from 92 studies involving more than 13,000 children ranging from preschool to college age. This meta-analysis confirmed that the children in divorced familial systems, on average, experienced more problems than those raised in intact two-parent families. Amato (1994) reported, “The view that children adapt readily to divorce and show no lingering consequences is clearly inconsistent with the cumulative research in this area” (p. 146). However, he tempered his statement by reporting that the difference between these two groups is small. 500 M. A. Kushner

Gender Numerous studies over the past three decades have reported that boys have more problems postseparation than girls do (Hetherington, 1999a; Kelly, 2000, 2003; McLanahan, 1999; Zill, Morrison, & Coiro, 1993). This problem behavior includes aggression, impulsiveness, and overall antisocial conduct. Boys also experienced more difficulty with relationships involving authority and peers. On the other hand, a national study by Vandewater and Landsford (1998) found no gender differences, regardless of familial structure. This study, which assessed 618 married, divorced, and never married families, did not support earlier contentions that depression and other internalized difficulties affect girls more than boys during their postseparation adjustment. Boys, however, were observed acting out their feelings in aggressive ways. Hetherington (1999a) highlighted the complex nature of the gender–age adjustment issue. She suggested other causal factors affecting both genders’ adjustment postseparation: age, period of time since the divorce, parenting style, and conflict. Noteworthy in the examination of gender issues is that the older, less sophisticated, and somewhat influential studies determined that boys experienced more adjustment problems than girls (Guidubaldi, Cleminshaw, Perry, & McLoughlin, 1983; Hetherington et al., 1982; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). Amato and Keith (1991) attempted to clarify this difference by engaging in meta-analytic studies. By combining the effect sizes that summarize the differences between children raised in divorced and intact families, they were able to determine whether there were significant differences between the two groups. Their meta-analysis suggests that boys do not always experience more negative consequences of divorce than girls do. An advantage of meta-analysis is generalizability and greater precision of findings. This, in turn, provides policymakers with the definite evidence they require. However, meta-analysis is not without its difficulties. Glass, McGaw, and Smith (1981) documented problems with selecting only published studies, which might result in an overestimation of the differences between groups. (Professional journals tend not to publish findings deemed insignificant.) Furthermore, meta-analysis might overinflate differences

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:32 17 August 2014 between groups because a high proportion of reported statistically significant results is deemed spurious and sample types involved in this type of analysis are diverse. Hence, knowing what populations are represented in the results becomes difficult. This researcher noted that one of Amato’s criteria in determining studies for meta-analysis was that they must be published in an academic journal or book.

Social and Physical Problems Often, a decline in standard of living occurs after divorce. This results in greater economic instability and reduced access to resources and pursuits Child Development and Adjustment Postseparation 501

that might enhance a child’s development, such as extracurricular activities. Kelly and Emery (2003) reported that a lessened involvement in extracurricular activities is most likely if the family system prior to separation had limited resources, high parent conflict, and poor cooperation. McLanahan (1999) noted that the economic problems of divorced households account for as much as half of the adjustment problems observed in children. Neher and Short (1998) reported that children raised in divorced families are more likely to smoke cigarettes and use marijuana and alcohol than are children residing in intact familial systems. This finding relates to their reliance on friends and peer groups that use substances and their less effective coping skills, as well as to minimal parental monitoring. McLanahan and Sandefor (1994) reported that teen pregnancy is twice as prevalent for children raised by divorced parents, compared with children whose parents have never divorced or with those who have experienced the loss of a parent through death. According to Zill et al. (1993), these children experience more illness and medical problems and receive psychological treatment three times as often as those who have not been subjected to parental divorce.

Parents With Mental Health Problems Johnston (1995) reported that mothers having significant psychiatric or personality disorders after divorce are associated with children experiencing emotional, social, and academic adjustment. Moreover, when children experience erratic, hostile, or depressed parenting in the custodial residence, the efforts of the nonresidential parents have no helpful effect. In studies about children whose parents have divorced, several researchers have correlated those receiving effective parenting with those experiencing less appropriate parenting to conclude that the former children were better adjusted (Buchanan et al., 1996; Hetherington, 1999b; Kelly & Lamb, 2000; Lamb, 1999; Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992).

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:32 17 August 2014 Access Planning and Adjustment During the past 10 years, the father factor has received considerable attention in the literature (Lamb, 1999; McLanahan & Sandefor, 1994; Pruett & Pruett, 1998). The father’s involvement and the related impact on child adjustment after divorce appear to be linked to the intensity of conflict, parental involvement, and maternal acceptance, as well as to the regular payment of child support. Amato and Rezac (1994) reported that studies in which fathers maintained regular contact with their children demonstrated poorer adjustment for sons than for daughters when parental conflict is high. Hetherington (1999b) found that, after divorce, mother–son acrimony increases more than mother–daughter acrimony. This finding has interesting 502 M. A. Kushner

implications for child custody planning, suggesting that frequent contact with access fathers in high-conflict situations might increase turmoil for boys in the custodial home. Another strong influence on these children is the level of maternal dissatisfaction about the father. Hetherington’s study did not indicate whether maternal discomfort about visiting was a consequence of the father’s behavior and attitudes or the mother’s internal psychological state and anger postseparation. The literature also indicates that an adversarial process might limit parental involvement, which, in turn, restrains parental responsibility. Much of the current research indicates that boys, in particular, desire more time with their fathers than is generally permitted by the courts (Emery, Lauman- Billings, Waldron, Sbarra, & Dillon, 2001; Fabricus & Hall, 2000; Hetherington, 1999b; Lamb, 1999; Pruett & Pruett, 1998). With regard to nonresidential mothers and access (Depner, 1993; Hetherington, 1999b; Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992), the literature reports that they are more likely to engage in frequent visitation and remain engaged in parental functioning, and are less inclined to cease contact with their children.

Legal and Physical Custody Arrangements According to Kelly (2000), many early studies comparing children’s adjustment based on access arrangements report that children raised within the auspices of joint custody arrangements were better adjusted than children reared within sole custody regimes. However, the use of small samples in these studies has been criticized. Current studies with larger samples have found fewer differences in adjustment between these two custodial arrangements. Johnston (1995) and Pruett and Pruett (1998) established that higher parental income, education, and regular child support payments enhance the success of shared parenting arrangements and children’s adjustment. To date, research is not available about the influence of the father in joint custodial arrangements. Consequently, child custody planners need to be cautious when considering shared custody plans. Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:32 17 August 2014 Maccoby and Mnookin (1992) found that adolescents reared in shared parenting arrangements and exposed to low conflict were better adjusted than adolescents impacted by high conflict. Intractable conflict characteristic of high emotional intensity, frequent transitions between homes, and shared access were linked to increased emotional and behavioral problems, particularly among girls (Johnston, 1995). Johnston’s research demonstrates the need for child custody evaluators, when planning for these children, to make every effort to alleviate conflict between divorcing parents. It is well known among child custody evaluators that children exposed to triangulation and enmeshed familial systems experience poorer adjustment than children whose conflicted parents refrain from using their Child Development and Adjustment Postseparation 503

children to communicate their distress. In fact, the adjustment of children whose parents avoid placing them in the middle of their conflicts is much the same as that of youngsters in families experiencing low conflict (Buchanan & Heiges, 2001). These findings highlight the need for interventions and legal processes that will promote cooperation and reduce ongoing conflict.

Familial Dynamics The literature includes a range of studies about the dynamics of divorcing families and children’s adjustment to divorce (Allen, 1993; Amato, 2001; Amato & Gilbreth, 1999; Brentano, 2001; Buchanan & Heiges, 2001; Emery, 1999; Pagani-Kurtz & Deverensky, 1997; Ram et al., 2002; Whiteside & Becker, 2000). This professional doctrine also contains studies about the family’s influence on a child’s development (Brentano, 2001; Hetherington, 1999b; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Hetherington & Stanley-Hagen, 2000, 2001). These studies relate to family functioning and adjustment to divorce using a family system’s life-span framework. The use of consistent measures and similar constructs has permitted researchers to pool data from multiple studies. Such longitudinal studies have addressed family functioning and adjustment in divorced and nondivorced families. Also considered were maternal custody families, adaptation in stepfamilies with adolescent children, and varied sibling experiences. These investigations have been deemed remarkable in that they involved more than 1,400 divorcing families over three decades of research. Hetherington’s work is particularly significant because it provides a general understanding about the difficulties faced by divorcing family members. Her findings sensitize child custody experts to the trials and tribulations of divorcing families and, in turn, assist these professionals in their task of designing child custody and access plans that reflect the needs of these families. Buehler, Krisnakumar, and Stone (1998) studied parental conflict styles and frequency of conflict. Overtly hostile conflict styles were correlated with externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems for children. Covert conflict styles such as passive-aggressive behavior and triangulation were Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:32 17 August 2014 linked to internalized symptoms, such as depression, in children. Grych and Finchman (1993, 2001) found that severe marital conflict that focuses on children is more predictive of future adjustment problems than is marital conflict that is not focused on them. The literature reveals that children raised within high-conflict marriages appear to derive the most beneficial effects from their parents’ divorces. Booth and Amato (2001) reported that children exposed to midrange marital conflict have only slightly lower levels of psychological well-being. As this level of marital conflict represents only 50% of the families that divorce, it is not surprising that such a large number of children are resilient when it comes to surviving their parents’ marital breakups. 504 M. A. Kushner

Jaffee, Lemon, and Poisson (2003) were emphatic that the issue of domestic violence and divorce not be erased in the literature because of the contradictory research on children’s postseparation adjustment. They wrote:

When domestic violence ends in murder, there is no doubt about the danger of separation. Fatality reviews and inquests around the world point dramatically to the increased risk when abused women and children attempt to leave their batterer. In 1996, the rate of spousal homicide for separated women was seventy-nine per one million, compared with three per one million for married women. (p. 8)

Their work demonstrates a need for mental health professionals engaged in the work of child custody and divorce to educate the public about the real everyday, lived experiences of the children impacted by domestic abuse. Experts working in this field also need to be alert to the points of rupture between how these families experience their lives and how the literature describes them.

Adult Children Who Have Experienced Divorce Social scientists are beginning to investigate the impact that divorce has had on young adults. Writing about the common life experiences of adult children whose parents have divorced, Wallerstein et al. (2000) investigated the struggles of 131 children over a period of 25 years after their parents had divorced. The participants ranged in age from 28 to 43 years, and were interviewed as children, teens, and adults. These researchers were able to locate 80% of these adult children and interview them face-to-face. This longitudinal study also involved a comparison analysis of adults who grew up in the same community, thus discovering how children of divorced parents eventually view life differently from their peers raised in intact families. The study concluded that divorce is a “life-transforming experience. After divorce, childhood is different. Adulthood—with the decision to marry or not and have children or not—is different” (p. xxvii). Also, these young

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:32 17 August 2014 adults’ trust in committing to long-term intimate relationships and marriage is limited. According to Wallerstein et al. (2000), they lack an internal template of how a successful relationship works. Cartright (2006) conducted life-story interviews in New Zealand with 40 young adults between the ages of 19 and 29. These young adults had varied cultural backgrounds and had experienced parental divorce or separation during either childhood or adolescence. A minority of these children were positive about their parents’ separation, whereas the majority of the participants reported they had or were experiencing problems in everyday functioning, and problems with intimate relationships and family members, particularly with parents. Child Development and Adjustment Postseparation 505

Amato et al. (1995) completed a 12-year longitudinal study involving 471 adult children impacted by their parents’ divorce. This nationwide sample was obtained randomly from an investigation that commenced in 1980 with more than 2,000 married people. Various scales were used to assess psychological well-being, kin support, friend support, intimate relations, parent–child relations, and socioeconomic achievement. These measures were then subjected to factor analysis. The study concluded that the consequences of parental divorce for young adults are dependent on parental conflict prior to divorce. Also revealed is that children raised in high-conflict families are better adjusted as adults if their parents divorce rather than stay together. In low-conflict families, the opposite was found to be true. Mahl’s (2001) investigation into the influence of parental divorce on the romantic relationship beliefs of young adults is worthy of mention. This qualitative study involved 28 college students who were interviewed about their romantic relationships and their experiences associated with their parents’ divorces. Potential participants were selected after completing a pretest measure of students in three undergraduate classes. Unstructured interviews with individuals were then conducted on two occasions. Two questionnaires were also used to obtain additional information regarding the participants’ views of romantic relationships. Many of the participants indicated that they felt cautious about marriage. These adult children feared they would make the same mistakes in their relationships that their parents made and worried about feelings of rejection if their partner were to betray them. This fear is particularly salient for individuals who described having a distant and unsupportive relationship with their parents following divorce. Mahl’s (2001) study is informative to mental health practitioners because it reinforces the variability of divorce-related experiences and the varied ways offspring respond to divorce. It also expands the literature to include how the next generation of grown children impacted by divorce is functioning in intimate relationships. Two studies found that young adults who are the descendants of divorced parents marry earlier, report more dissatisfaction with their marriages, and are more likely to divorce than young adults from intact mar- Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:32 17 August 2014 riages (Amato, 1994; Booth & Amato, 2001). A surprising finding in these studies is that adult children who experienced their parents’ low-conflict marriages reported more problems with intimacy, feelings of isolation, and poorer psychological health than those whose parents exposed them to high conflict. Emery (1999) cautioned mental health professionals to be cognizant of the sleeper influence, a term that describes emotional problems due to divorce that lie hidden and might suddenly manifest themselves in adult life. The appearance of depression or anxiety is an example of this problem. To avoid the sleeper influence and prevent children from being labeled with the stigma associated with their parents’ divorce, it is important for the 506 M. A. Kushner

professionals who work with this population to understand that some children’s adjustment to divorce is influenced by resiliency.

The Resiliency Factor Children whose parents divorce are clearly not responsible for their parents’ difficulties. Nevertheless, media focus has thrust a certain stigma upon them. This moral overtone has resulted in an abundance of studies on the effects divorce has on children. The research completed during the past three decades demonstrates that the adjustment of children to divorce is related to various factors. Until the past decade, it was assumed that the future development of these children was at risk. However, current studies with sophisticated methodology report small differences between the adjustment of children exposed and not exposed to divorce. The consensus is that most children whose parents divorce do not suffer irreversible harm. This is a crucial finding that mental health professionals would be well advised to share with their clientele. Ahrons (2004) provided an excellent example of a longitudinal study that supports this consensus. Interviewing 173 grown children whose divorcing parents she had conferred with 20 years earlier, Ahrons was able to demonstrate their resiliency. Her research was one of the first longitudinal investigations to use a random sample, focus on a broad range of divorced families, and include parents, children, and stepparents in one study. Using telephone interviews, she located 173 adult children from 84 of the 98 families she had initially interviewed. She inquired how past and current co-parenting relationships affected the present quality of their parent–child relationships. Four major constructs represented the dependent variables in this study:

1. The quality of each parent–child relationship. 2. The absence or presence of loyalty conflicts and intensity of such conflicts. 3. The binuclear family cohesion. 4. The adult child’s self-assessment of the long-term effects of his or her parents’ divorce. Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:32 17 August 2014

Several analytic techniques, including cluster analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA), were used to determine family functioning. Ahrons’s (2004) findings demonstrate that parental divorce does not necessarily con- demn children to lives of misery. Rather, the storm clouds surrounding their parents’ marriages eventually disintegrated, and familial relationships eventually became serene. Specifically:

1. Most of the adult children emerged stronger and wiser. 2. The majority of the offspring were clear that divorce had positive outcomes for both themselves and their parents. Child Development and Adjustment Postseparation 507

3. More than half reported that relationships with their fathers improved after divorce. 4. The majority of these young adults felt connected to members of their blended families.

These positive findings assist in eliminating the stigma associated with being the descendant of a divorced familial system. Other studies also demonstrate children’s resilience (Cherlin et al., 1991; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; McLanahan, 1999; Zill et al., 1993). These longitudinal national studies involved psychological measures with clinical cutoff scores. They found that approximately 20% to 25% of children who are the descendents of divorced parents experienced serious psychological, behavioral, and social problems, compared with 10% of children raised in nondivorced families. Although this rate is two times higher than in nondivorced families, these figures indicate that 75% to 80% of children and young adults do not have significant problems with adjustment, adult relationships, or social behavior. As Kelly (2003) wrote, “They enjoy intimate relationships, have not divorced, and are not depressed or anxious, and do not appear to be scarred forever” (p. 247). This body of empirical research asserts the following protective factors as supporting resiliency for children whose parents divorce:

1. Involvement of the nonresidential parent (Amato & Gilbreth, 1999; Menning, 2002)—the father’s provision of financial support is especially significant to the children. 2. Diminished conflict following divorce (Buchanan, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1991; Hetherington, 1999a). 3. Living with the psychologically most competent parent (Emery, Waldron, Kitzman, & Aaron, 1999; Hetherington, 1999a). 4. Quality of parenting (Hetherington, 1999a; Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992)— these social scientists reinforce the need for warm and supportive parenting, authoritative discipline, age-appreciative expectations, and adequate monitoring. Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:32 17 August 2014 5. Joint custody—new reports on sole versus joint custody indicate that the latter has a positive influence on children’s adjustment (Bausermann, 2002; Lee, 2002); Lee found that children adjusted positively when they resided in two homes, but high parental conflict suppressed these effects.

These findings about resiliency are very much at odds with Wallerstein et al.’s (2000) study, which found that these children had not coped well with their parents’ divorce. They were reported as being anxious, depressed, burdened, and fearful of commitment. Kelly (2003) suggested that, because the participants in this sample experienced and relived considerable distress when speaking about their parents’ divorce, they might 508 M. A. Kushner

have confused pain and pathology. Kelly pointed out that “painful reflections in the past are not the same as an inability to feel and function in the present” (p. 249). These findings hold significant implications for the design of parenting plans postseparation. The amount of misinformation presented in earlier studies can be forgiven because of the immaturity and growing pains associated with the original research. What cannot be ignored is the influence that these data have had on child custody planning based on this child development discourse. This doctrine has clearly impacted the daily lives and future development of countless children. Consequently, the professionals who prepare child custody evaluations must be aware of the methodological limitations present within the child development discourse they rely on. This article is an attempt at bringing this text into line with what is in the best interests of these children. Failing to do so objectifies and falsifies the true experience of these children. The following section summarizes the research impairments that, if not revealed, will continue to normalize a child development discourse unaware of its own limitations.

A SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGICAL IMPAIRMENTS

Referencing the empirical literature about child development and family breakdown is key to the role and responsibilities satisfying the work of child custody and access planning. If decisions regarding custody and access are made with reference to the research on child development and this research contains serious methodological flaws, one does not wish to contemplate the influence that this text will have on the future development of these children. The following information provides a review of the methodological impairments inherent in the literature about the adjustment of children postseparation. Krauss and Sales (2000) attempted to unravel the knot of methodological problems inherent in child custody and access research by classifying Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:32 17 August 2014 the difficulties into three categories: operational definition problems, internal validity problems, and external validity problems. These categories explain a range of methodological impairments that, if not brought to the attention of child custody experts, might thwart the future development of these children.

Operational Definition Problems Social science researchers share the idea that they need to know exactly what they are studying to determine which factors are likely to affect it. In other words, lacking an operational definition prevents them from developing valid Child Development and Adjustment Postseparation 509

measurement techniques and standardized assessment instruments. No means of operationalizing constructs has been uniformly adopted by researchers. Consequently, outcome variables such as a child’s adjustment postseparation hinder or prevent comparison and summarization of research results. Hosley and Montemajor (1997) have pointed out that some of the instruments used to measure parenting should be redeveloped to be sensitive to the current views of fatherhood and the various ways that fathers define that role.

Internal Validity Problems Williams, Unrau, and Grinnell (1998) defined internal validity as the extent to which it can be demonstrated that the independent variable within a research study is the only cause of change in the dependent variable. According to Krauss and Sales (2000), “internal validity problems restrain researchers from interpreting direct causal relationships between changes in the independent variable or variables and changes in the dependent or outcome variable” (p. 850). Therefore, when researchers attempt to establish a relationship between any one factor and a specific outcome variable, they have a difficult, if not impossible, task in controlling factors such as age, gender, socioeconomic status, and parental conflict. Attempts to control these factors’ influences are rarely successful. It is also difficult to know how they relate to or affect one another. Hetherington et al. (1998) cautioned researchers that different risk and vulnerability factors come into play, and these factors vary in impact at different times in the transitions from a troubling marriage to divorce to single parenting. The inability of researchers to assign children randomly to varied custody arrangements and then follow them for several years to determine which child custody arrangements would be the most effective is another issue relating to internal validity. Bricklin (1995) described a third methodological issue: a time frame problem. Knowing how long to track these children and their families postseparation is difficult and not always possible to determine. Although the expense involved and sample attrition make Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:32 17 August 2014 longitudinal studies impractical, they are nevertheless worthy.

External Validity Problems External validity has to do with a study’s ability to generalize findings to other situations. Krauss and Sales (2000) noted that “generalizing findings from one jurisdiction to another is an issue researchers have been remiss in” (p. 853). Because legal jurisdictions have differing standards concerning joint legal custody, comparing outcomes across multiple jurisdictions is difficult. This review of the scholarly child custody development discourse notes the variety of samples used by researchers. These samples fall into three 510 M. A. Kushner

categories: clinical, convenience, and random. Clinical samples provide information about the kinds of problems presented by children experiencing adjustment problems related to divorce. The difficulty with clinical samples is that the results cannot be generalized to nonclinical populations. Convenience samples refer to children attending a local group setting or organization. Although participants from these groupings are relatively easy to obtain, they might not necessarily be children impacted by divorce. Random samples provide the most rigorous approach to research, for they enhance generalization. Unfortunately, they are the most difficult samples to obtain and are often costly. Random sampling was not carried out in Wallerstein and Blakeslee’s (1989) 20-year longitudinal study that involved children from Orange County. Consequently, this study has been criticized for lacking validity. As noted previously, the growing sophistication in social science research techniques during the past decade has made Wallerstein’s research vulnerable to criticism. Current research demonstrates advances in research methods (Amato, 2000, 2003; Hetherington, 2003). Emery (1999) has written about another sampling issue: the cohort effect. Cohort refers to a group of people defined by a shared experience within a given period of time. In describing the impact of the cohort effect on divorce research, Emery (1999) suggested that divorce is quite possibly different for children raised in the 1950s than for those reared in the 1970s or 1980s. Divorce was obviously less acceptable in the 1950s than in the later part of the 20th or 21st centuries. Social and legal policies have also been significantly altered, establishing the climate for dramatically modified divorce laws. Nowadays, no-fault divorce is permitted. The cohort effect is significant and must be given serious consideration as a sampling issue. Another sampling issue discussed by Emery (1999) is that divorce is not likely to occur equally among entire populations of families. Personality characteristics, genetic factors, and predivorce family dynamics are a few of the numerous unmeasured dimensions contributing to divorce. Emery also expressed concern about nonrandom selection and divorce studies that involve a third variable problem. He suggested that the best solution is to Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:32 17 August 2014 measure and statistically control potentially relevant third variables, particularly in longitudinal research. With more than 7,000 articles presenting themselves in computerized databases, it becomes apparent that child development, when presented as a discourse, is overwhelming. The professional doctrine concerned with planning for these children has an immense effect on their potential adjustment and future lives. This influence has not always been considered by the professionals engaged in the work of designing residential plans for these children. However, recent studies (Kelly & Lamb, 2005; Pruett et al., 2005; Solomon & Biringen, 2005) have begun to consider the implications of child development theory, empirical research, and child custody planning. The Child Development and Adjustment Postseparation 511

knowledge and energy that many researchers have devoted to this very young field of scholarly discourse is laudable.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

To conclude, it is easy to grow obsessed with this litany of research problems. Hence, one might disregard any study that does not meet the highest of standards. Is it not feasible that methodological differences among studies could be viewed as an unsolved mystery, which when solved could be construed into a more complete picture that ultimately helps to address the needs of children who have experienced their parents’ divorce? The risk, at present, is that the confusing and contradictory picture of how children are affected by family breakdown has led the general population, the media, politicians, policymakers, child custody evaluators, and judges to base strong and somewhat rigid views on empirical data that fail to address the numerous factors affecting children’s adjustment postseparation.

REFERENCES

Ahrons, C. (2004). We’re still family. New York: HarperCollins. Allen, K. R. (1993). The dispassionate discourse of children’s adjustment to divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 46–50. Amato, P. R. (1993). Children’s adjustment to divorce: Theories, hypotheses, and empirical support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 23–28. Amato, P. R. (1994). Lifespan adjustment of children to their parents’ divorce. Children and Divorce, 4, 143–164. Amato, P. R. (2000). Consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1269–1287. Amato, P. R. (2001). Parental pre-divorce relations and offspring post-divorce well- being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 197–212. Amato, P. R. (2003). Reconciling divergent perspectives: Judith Wallerstein, quantitative family research, and children of divorce. Family Relations, 52, 332–339. Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:32 17 August 2014 Amato, P. R., & Gilbreth, J. G. (1999). Non-resident father’s and children’s well being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 557–573. Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of the children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26–46. Amato, P. R., Loomis, L. S., & Booth, A. (1995). Parental divorce, marital conflict and offspring well-being during early childhood. Social Forces, 73, 895–915. Amato, P. R., & Rezac, S. (1994). Contact with residential parents, inter-parental conflict, and children’s behavior. Journal of Family Issues, 15, 191–207. Amato, P. R., & Wong, H. (2000). Predictors of divorce adjustment: Stressors, resources, and definitions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 655–668. Bausermann, R. (2002). Child adjustment in joint custody versus sole-custody arrangements: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Psychology 16, 91–102. 512 M. A. Kushner

Booth, A., & Amato, P. (2001). Parental pre-divorce relations and offspring well- being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 197–212. Brentano, C. (2001). Child custody, litigation and family adjustment: The role of procedural and distributive justice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine, CA. Bricklin, B. (1995). The child custody evaluation handbook: Research-based solutions and applications. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Brickman, A., & Chen, J. W. (1995). Implications of parental divorce for female development. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24, 538–544. Buchanan, C., & Heiges, K. L. (2001). When conflict after marriage ends: Effects of post conflict on children. In J. E. Grych & F. D. Finchman (Eds.), Interparental conflict and child development: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 337–362). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Buchanan, C., Maccoby, E., & Dornbusch, S. (1991). Caught between parents: Ado- lescents experience in divorced homes. Child Development, 62, 1008–1029. Buchanan, C., Maccoby, E., & Dornbusch, S. (1996). Adolescents after divorce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Buehler, C., Krisnakumar, A., & Stone, G. (1998). Interparental conflict styles and youth problem behaviors: A two sample replication study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 119–132. Cartright, C. (2006). You want to know how it affected me? Young adults’ perception of the impact of parental divorce. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 44(3–4), 125–143. Cherlin, A. J., Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., Lindsay, P., Chase-Landsdale, P. L., Kierman, K. E., Robins, P. K., et al. (1991). Longitudinal studies of effects of divorce on children in Great Britain and the United States. Science, 252, 1386–1389. Depner, C. E. (1993). Parental role reversal: Mothers and non-residential parents. In C. E. Depner & J. H. Bray (Eds.), Non-residential parenting: New vistas in family living (pp. 37–57). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Dunn, J., Davies, L., O’Connor, T., & Sturgess, W. (2001). Family lives and friendships: The perspectives of children in step-single-parent and nonstep families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 272–287. Emery, R. E. (1999). Marriage, divorce, and children’s adjustment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Emery, R. E., Lauman-Billings, L., Waldron, H., Sbarra, D. A., & Dillon, P. (2001). Child custody mediation and litigation: Custody, contact, and co-parenting 12 years after initial dispute resolution. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:32 17 August 2014 Psychology, 69, 323–332. Emery, R. E., Waldron, M., Kitzman, K. M., & Aaron, J. (1999). Delinquent behavior, future divorce, or nonmarital childbearing, and externalizing behavior among offspring: A 14-year prospective study. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 568–579. Fabricus, W. V., & Hall, J. (2000). Young adults’ perspectives on divorce: Living arrangements. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38, 446–461. Flowerdew, J., & Neale, B. (2003). Trying to stay apace: Children with multiple challenges in their post-divorce family lives. Childhood, 10, 147–161. Furstenberg, F. F., & Teitler, J. O. (1994). Reconsidering the effects of marital disruption: What happens to children of divorce in early childhood. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 173–190. Child Development and Adjustment Postseparation 513

Garrity, C. N., & Baris, M. A. (1994). Caught in the middle: Protecting the children of high conflict divorce. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Grych, J. H., & Finchman, F. D. (1993). Children’s appraisal of marital conflict: Initial investigation of the cognitive-contextual framework. Journal of Child Development, 64, 215–230. Grych, J. H., & Finchman, F. D. (2001). Interparental conflict and child development: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Guidubaldi, J., Cleminshaw, H. K., Perry, J. D., & McLoughlin, C. S. (1983). The impact of parental divorce on children: Report of the nationwide NASP study. School Psychology Review, 12, 300–323. Hetherington, E. M. (1999a). The adjustment of children with divorced parents: A risk and resiliency perspective. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 129–140. Hetherington, E. M. (1999b). Should we stay together for the sake of the children. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Coping with divorce, single parenting, and remarriage (pp. 93–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hetherington, E. M. (2003). Social support and the adjustment of children in divorced and remarried families. Childhood, 10, 217–236. Hetherington, E. M., Bridges, M., & Insabella, G. (1998). What matters? What does not? Five perspectives on the association between marital transitions and children’s adjustment. American Psychologist, 53, 167–183. Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1982). The influence of divorce on parents and children. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Non-traditional families (pp. 233–243). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hetherington, E. M., & Kelly, J. (2002). For better or worse: Divorce reconsidered. New York: Norton. Hetherington, E. M., & Stanley-Hagen, M. M. (2000). Diversity among stepfamilies. In D. H. Demo, K. R. Allen, & M. A. Fine (Eds.), Handbook of family diversity (pp. 173–196). New York: Oxford University Press. Hetherington, E. M., & Stanley-Hagen, M. M. (2001). Parenting in divorced and remarried families. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Being and becoming a parent (2nd ed., pp. 233–254). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hogan, D., Halpenny, A. M., & Greene, S. (2003). Change and continuity after Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:32 17 August 2014 parental separation: Children’s experiences of family transitions in Ireland. Childhood, 10, 163–180. Hosley, C., & Montemajor, R. (1997). Fathers and adolescents. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed., pp. 162–178). New York: Wiley. Jaffee, P., Lemon, N., & Poisson, S. (2003). Child custody and domestic violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Johnston, J. (1995). Children’s adjustment in sole custody compared to joint custody families and principles for custody decision-making. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 33, 415–425. Kalter, N. (1990). Growing up with divorce: Helping your child avoid immediate and later emotional problems. New York: Fawcett Columbine. 514 M. A. Kushner

Kalter, N., Reimer, B., Brickman, A., & Chen, J. W. (1995). Implications of parental divorce for female development. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24, 538–544. Kelly, J. B. (2000). Children’s adjustment in conflicted marriages and divorce: A decade review of the research. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 963–973. Kelly, J. B. (2003). Changing perspectives on children’s adjustment following divorce. Childhood, 10, 237–254. Kelly, J. B., & Emery, R. E. (2003). Children’s adjustment following divorce: Risk and resilience perspectives. Family Relations, 52, 352–362. Kelly, J. B., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Using child development research to make appropriate custody and access decisions for young children. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38, 297–311. Kelly, J. B., & Lamb, M. E. (2005). Using child development research to make appropriate custody and access decisions for young children. In A. I. Schepard & J. R. Johnston (Eds.), Overnights and young children: Essays from the Family Court Review (pp. 13–25). Madison, WI: Association of Family & Conciliation Courts (AFCC). Krauss, D. A., & Sales, B. D. (2000). Legal standards, expertise, and experts in the resolution of contested child custody cases. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 6, 843–879. Kushner, M. (2006). Child custody planning in a textually structured court system. National Library of Canada: UMI Dissertation Publication. Lamb, M. E. (1999). Non-custodial fathers and their impact on children of divorce in the post-divorce family. In R. A. Thompson & P. Amato (Eds.), The post-divorce family: Research and policy issues (pp. 105–125). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lee, M. Y. (2002). A model of children’s postdivorce behavioral adjustment in maternal- and dual-residence arrangements. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 672–697. Maccoby, E., & Mnookin, R. (1992). Dividing the child: Social and legal dilemmas of custody. Boston: Harvard University Press. Mahl, D. C. (2001). The influence of parental divorce on the romantic beliefs of young adults. In C. Everett (Ed.), Divorce and the next generation: Perspectives for young adults in the new millennium (pp. 89–118). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Clinical Press. McLanahan, S. (1999). Father absence and welfare of children. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Coping with divorce, single parenting, and remarriage (pp. 117–145). Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:32 17 August 2014 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. McLanahan, S., & Sandefor, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Menning, C. L. (2002). Absent parents are more than money: The joint effects of activities and financial support on youths’ educational attainment. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 648–671. Moxnes, K. (2003). Risk factors in divorce: Perceptions by the children involved. Childhood, 10, 131–146. Neher, L. S., & Short, J. L. (1998). Risk and protective factors for children’s substance use and anti-social behavior following parental divorce. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 58, 154–161. Child Development and Adjustment Postseparation 515

Nord, C. W., Brimhall, D., & West, J. (1997). Father’s involvement in their children’s schools. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Pagani-Kurtz, L., & Deverensky, J. L. (1997). Access by non-custodial parents: Effects upon children’s post-divorce coping resources. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 27(1–2), 43–55. Pam, A., & Pearson, F. (1998). Splitting up: Enmeshment and estrangement in the process of divorce. New York: Guilford. Pike, L. (2003). The adjustment of Australian children growing up in single-parent families as measured by their competence and self-esteem. Childhood, 10, 181–203. Pong, S. L., & Ju, D. B. (2000). The effects of change in family structure and income on dropping out of middle and high school. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 147–169. Pruett, M. K., Ebling, R., & Insabella, G. (2005). Critical aspect of parenting plans for young children: Interjecting data into the debate about overnights. In A. I. Schepard & J. R. Johnston (Eds.), Overnights and young children: Essays from the Family Court Review (pp. 85–105). Madison, WI: Association of Family & Conciliation Courts (AFCC). Pruett, M. K., & Pruett, K. D. (1998). Fathers, divorce and their children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 7, 389–407. Ram, A., Finzi, R., & Cohen, O. (2002). The non-custodial parent and his infant. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 36(3–4), 41–55. Rogers, K. N. (2004). A theoretical review of risk and protective factors related to post-divorce adjustment in young children. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 40, 3–4. Roseby, V., & Johnston, J. R. (1998). Children of Armageddon: Common developmental threats in high conflict divorcing families. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics, 7, 295–309. Smart, C., & Neale, B. (2000). “It’s my life too”: Children’s perspectives on post- divorce parenting. Family Law, 30, 163–169. Solomon, J., & Biringen, Z. (2005). Another look at the developmental research: Commentary on Kelly & Lamb’s “Using child development research to make appropriate custody and access decisions for young children.” In A. I. Schepard & J. R. Johnston (Eds.), Overnights and young children: Essays from the Family Court Review (pp. 28–37). Madison, WI: Association of Family & Conciliation Courts (AFCC). Stahl, P. (1999). Complex issues in child custody evaluations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stahl, P. (2004). A historical perspective on child custody evaluations. Thousand Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:32 17 August 2014 Oaks, CA: Sage. Vandewater, E., & Landsford, J. C. (1998). Influences of family structure and parent conflict on children’s well-being. Family Relationships, 47, 323–330. Wallerstein, J. (1991). Long-term effects of divorce on children: A review. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 349–360. Wallerstein, J., & Blakeslee, S. (1989). Second chances: Men, women, and children a decade after divorce. New York: Tickner & Fields. Wallerstein, J., & Kelly, J. B. (1980). Surviving the break-up: How children and parents cope with divorce. New York: Basic Books. Wallerstein, J. S., & Lewis, J. M. (2004). The unexpected legacy of divorce: Report of a 25-year study. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 21, 353–370. 516 M. A. Kushner

Wallerstein, J. S., Lewis, J. M., & Blakeslee, S. (2000). The unexpected legacy of divorce: A 25 year landmark study. New York: Hyperion. Wallerstein, J., & Tanke, T. (1996). To move or not to move: Psychological and legal considerations in the relocation of children following divorce. Family Law Quarterly, 30, 305–332. Warshak, R. A. (2001). Divorce poison. New York: Regan Books. Whiteside, M. F., & Becker, B. J. (2000). Parental factors and the young child’s post- divorce adjustment: A meta-analysis with implications for parenting arrangements. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 5–26. Williams, M., Unrau, Y. A., & Grinnell, R. M., Jr. (1998). Introduction to social work research. Itasca, IL: Peacock. Zill, N., Morrison, D. R., & Coiro, M. J. (1993). Long term effects of parental divorce on parent–child relationships, adjustment, and achievement in young adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 91–103. Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:32 17 August 2014 This article was downloaded by: [Northcentral University] On: 17 August 2014, At: 13:28 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Child Custody Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjcc20 Attachment Methodology in Custody Evaluation: Four Hurdles Standing Between Developmental Theory and Forensic Application Benjamin D. Garber a a HealthyParent.com , Merrimack, New Hampshire Published online: 14 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Benjamin D. Garber (2009) Attachment Methodology in Custody Evaluation: Four Hurdles Standing Between Developmental Theory and Forensic Application, Journal of Child Custody, 6:1-2, 38-61, DOI: 10.1080/15379410902894841 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15379410902894841

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions Journal of Child Custody, 6:38–61, 2009 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1537-9418 print=1537-940X online DOI: 10.1080/15379410902894841

Attachment Methodology in Custody Evaluation: Four Hurdles Standing Between Developmental Theory and Forensic Application

BENJAMIN D. GARBER HealthyParent.com, Merrimack, New Hampshire

Post-separation and post-divorce child custody guidelines have evolved from one-size-fits-all, gender-biased and adult-centered norms toward today’s resource-intensive, child-centered best- interests standard. For all of its broad appeal, the best-interest standard remains ill-defined. The present paper discusses attachment theory as an empirically rich, developmentally-informed and systemically-oriented model with great promise to some day inform child custody litigation but which remains, as yet, impractical and without adequate validation for this application. Four hurdles are identified which family law professionals must yet overcome before this wealth of data can begin to become part of best-psychological-interests custody evaluations.

KEYWORDS attachment, best interests, custody, family law, strange situation

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 In contemporary Western society, the concept of the Best Interests of the Child persists as a popularly endorsed beneficence without clear definition or reliable measure. Despite (or perhaps because of) these failings, the best-interests standard is as often invoked in support of genuinely wise and selfless decisions as it is misused to exacerbate conflict and fuel acrimony (Bartlett, 2002; Glendon, 1986; Jellum, 2004).1

Submitted April 29, 2008; Revised June 1, 2008; Accepted October 11, 2008. Address correspondence to Benjamin D. Garber, 32 Daniel Webster Highway, Suite 17, Merrimack, NH 03054-4859. E-mail: [email protected]

38 Attachment and the Child’s Best Interests 39

For all of its broad institutional application,2 there may be no context in which the best-interests standard has a more immediate and definitive impact on individual lives than that of post-separation and post-divorce custody litigation. In this venue, the best-interests standard represents the current state of the continuing evolution of placement standards from parent- centered, gender-biased, one-size-fits-all models toward child-centered, individually-tailored and developmentally-informed decisions (e.g., Bartlett, 2002; Carbone, 1995; van Krieken, 2005). As a post-separation=post-divorce placement criterion, the best- interests standard has been broadly endorsed (Krauss & Sales, 2000) and frequently modified to incorporate jurisdictional priorities (Emery, Otto, & O’Donohue, 2005).3 For example, the British Children’s Act (1989), The United States’ Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (1973) and the Michigan Custody Guidelines (2001) each recommend a diverse list of criteria with which the best-interests standard is to be applied. While this approach has its advocates (e.g., Kelly, 1997; Pearson & Munson, 1984), particularly by comparison with alternatives such as the Approximation Rule (American Law Institute, 2002; cf., Warshak, 2007), it has been frequently criticized as lacking reliable means of measurement and relative weighting of its constituent variables (Bartlett, 2002; Mnookin, 1975). Such psychometric concerns may be of little consequence to a justice system which depends largely upon judicial interpretation and case law precedent (Bradbrook, 1971; Emery, 1999; Glendon, 1986),4 but create tremendous obstacles for psychologists whose work is constrained by rigorous ethical (APA, 1994, 2002, 2009), procedural (Tippins & Wittman, 2005; cf., Bala, 2005) and evidentiary standards (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 1993; Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,1999;General Electric Co. v. Joiner,1997). The dilemma lies in the fact that the best-interests standard requires consideration of factors that go well beyond those social, emotional and cognitive variables that psychologists are prepared to address (APA, 2002, standard 2.01). These include, for example, matters of physical Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 health and the contesting parties’ respective financial abilities to provide for the child. However, even a narrower ‘‘best psychological interests’’ evaluation (Gould & Martindale, 2007) submitted to the trier-of-fact as one among many best-interests components remains an ethical and procedural minefield for psychologists. What is needed is an empirically sound model of child and family development which lends itself to reliable measurement and valid predictions of healthy outcomes. The present paper examines attachment theory as potentially such a model. The remainder of this paper is devoted to a discussion of attachment theory, its measures and the hurdlesyettobeovercomebeforeitcan become one part of a best-psychological-interests forensic evaluation. 40 B. D. Garber

WHAT IS ATTACHMENT THEORY?

Attachment theory is among developmental psychology’s most thoroughly researched, most frequently referenced and most comprehensively validated areas of study. Founded in Bowlby’s (1969, 1973) early work in ethology and first operationalized in Ainsworth’s Strange Situation Paradigm (SSP; Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Ainsworth & Witting, 1969), attachment theory has survived more than 40 years of intense international and (to a far lesser degree) interdisciplinary scrutiny to be recognized today as a robust cornerstone of our understanding of human development. Attachment theory describes the child’s learned experience of security in relation to each of his or her caregivers as a function of the specific caregiver’s sensitive responsivity (Howes, Galinsky, & Kontos, 1998; Marvin, Cooper, Hoffman, & Powell, 2002) within the context of the dynamic larger family’s dynamics (Schermerhorn, Cummings, & Davies, 2008). Attachment security is carefully defined and can be reliably measured as the child’s observable ability to use the caregiver as a secure base from which to explore and to which he or she can reliably return to be comforted when stress arises. ‘‘Infants who most easily seek and accept support from their parents are considered secure in their attachments and are more likely to have received sensitive and responsive caregiving than insecure infants; over time, they display a variety of socio-emotional advantages over insecure infants’’ (Johnson, Dweck, & Chen, 2007, p. 501). Attachment relationships are most broadly distinguished as secure and insecure. Insecure attachments can be further differentiated into those who are ‘‘resistant’’ and those who are ‘‘avoidant’’ (Ainsworth, 1964; Ainsworth et al., 1978; Cassidy & Berlin, 1992). A child’s relationship with a specific caregiver is considered secure to the extent that s=he successfully uses the caregiver’s presence and cues to manifest mature and adaptive cognitive, social, and emotional skills (e.g., exploring an unfamiliar environment, returning to the caregiver to be emotionally ‘‘refueled’’ and comforted when stressed). By contrast, an insecure-resistant attachment relationship describes a child who clings to his or her caregiver, apparently unable to separate in order to Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 explore and play in a healthy and mature manner. An insecure-avoidant attachment relationship describes a child who remains apart or aloof and unable or unwilling to seek comfort from his or her caregiver. Together, the secure and insecure attachment classifications account for approximately 60–80% of the population. A fourth type accounts for an additional 15–30%, in part as a function of socio-economic variables (van IJzendoorn, Schuengel, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 1999). These children are identified as having learned a disorganized attachment (Main & Solomon, 1986). Their experience of a chaotic caregiving environment leaves them unable to reliably predict the caregiver’s sensitive responsiveness. Attachment and the Child’s Best Interests 41

MEASUREMENT OF THE CONSTRUCT

Numerous alternative methods have been developed for measuring attachment security across contexts (e.g., home, office, playground) and across the lifespan from infancy through adulthood (Crowell & Treboux, 1995; Shaver, Belsky, & Brennan, 2000). These rely variously upon direct observation of the parent and child together (Crittenden, 1994; Cassidy & Marvin, 1992; Waters, 1995), on parent interviews and self-report measures (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987; Brennan, Clark & Shaver, 1998; George & West, 2001; Greenberg, Siegel, & Leitch, 1984; Hesse, 1999; Kerns, Tomich, Aspelmeier, & Contreras, 2000; Kobak & Sceery, 1988; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985; Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992; Zeanah & Benoit, 1995), on projective data (Bretherington et al., 1990; Bretherton, Ridgeway & Cassidy, 1990) and on child interview and self-report questionnaire methods (Target, Fonagy, & Shmueli-Goetz, 2003). Proper administration of many of these (including the SSP itself)5 requires intensive, specialized training and equipment and extensive time to review, score and interpret relevant data. A handful of others are relatively straightforward, brief, low-tech and user-friendly. Among the latter is the Attachment Q-set (e.g., Caldera, 2004; van IJzendoorn, Vereijken, Bakermans-Kreanenburg, & Riksen-Walraven, 2004; Vaughn & Waters, 1990; Waters & Deane, 1985; Waters, Garber, Gornal, & Vaughn, 1983). The Q-set allows a minimally trained observer (e.g., parent, clinician or forensic evaluator) to reliably rate the attachment security of a child between 12 and 48 months in a naturalistic setting (van IJzendoorn et al., 2004; Waters, 1995; Waters, personal communication, July 14, 2004). Ninety cards containing descriptions of children’s behaviors (e.g., ‘‘Easily becomes angry with adult’’) are sorted into nine piles with regard to relevance as descriptors of the particular child’s behavior. The resulting prioriti- zation can be matched to criterion profiles in order to place the child on a continuum of attachment security6 with impressive reliability and criterion validity (Moss, Bureau, Cyr, & Dubois-Comtois, 2006; Waters, 1995). Van IJzendoorn and colleagues (2004), for example, conducted a meta-analysis of 139 Q-set studies incorporating data collected from nearly Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 14,000 children. Q-set security ratings were strongly related to Strange Situa- tion attachment security ratings (r .42). Of perhaps greater relevance are relationships to independent measures¼ of maternal sensitivity, one of the cornerstones of attachment theory. Q-set security measures were at least as strongly related to maternal sensitivity (r .45) as is attachment when measured in the Strange Situation (r .24). ¼ Originally developed as a research¼ instrument, the Q-set has a number of very desirable qualities as a clinical or forensic assessment tool. As a purely observational measure, the Q-set allows for multiple, sequential assessments without confounding learning or sequence effects, as when a child is 42 B. D. Garber

observed in one instance with mother and in another instance with father and=or when successive observations are necessitated over the course of an extended evaluation. As a non-intrusive measure, the Q-set is very unlikely to stress the child (or the accompanying parent), whereas the forced separation=reunion required during the SSP, for example, can be quite stressful for some. Although each Q-set assessment requires between two and four hours, there is no need for video recording and subsequent review as is necessary for the SSP and for many other attachment assessment instruments. The Q-set has been successfully used to assess attachment among clinical and developmentally delayed populations (Naber et al., 2007; Rutgers, van IJzendoorn Bakermans-Kranenburg, van IJzendoorn, & van Berckelaer- Onnes, 2004; Rutgers, van IJzendoorn, et al., 2007), but is yet to be validated for use in forensic contexts. Yet to be determined is the instrument’s test–retest reliability and predictive validity whenadministeredwithsubjectswhoarein the midst of acute distress as is commonly the case for individuals caught up in divorce and custody litigation. Although requiring significant training for administration and interpretation,7 the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; Behrens, Hesse, & Main, 2007; Hesse, 1999; Main & Goldwyn, 1998; Roisman, Fraley, & Belsky, 2007; Roisman et al., 2007), offers similar promise as a best-psychological-interests evaluation tool. The AAI is a 20-item, 60–90-minute semi-structured interview suitable for participants from middle adolescence through adulthood. The AAI interview asks participants to talk about childhood experiences with their own historical attachment figures, including losses and traumas, and (as applicable) contemporary experiences with their own children.8 The recorded interview is subsequently transcribed and scored by qualified raters using scales which characterize childhood experience with each parent (mother and father: loving, rejecting, neglecting, involving, and pressuring) and discourse style (coherence of transcript and of thought, passivity, idealization, lack of recall, anger, derogation, fears of loss, and ‘‘meta-cognitive monitoring’’). The AAI identifies participants as one of four discrete attachment styles (secure=autonomous, insecure=dismissing, insecure=preoccupied, and unre- Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 solved). These categories have been shown to be highly stable over time (Crowell et al., 1996; Sagi et al., 1994), to demonstrate impressive reliability and discriminant validity (van IJzendoorn, 1995), and to be independent of gender, language and culture (van IJzendoorn & Bakersmans-Kranenburg, 1996). Crowell and Treboux (1995), for example, report two studies in which attachment security as assessed among infants in the Strange Situation maintains a very strong correspondence to AAI ratings more than a decade later. In one of these studies (Waters, 1995), the correspondence of the secure= avoidant=resistant groups across 20 years was as high as 64%. The AAI has particular promise in the forensic arena to the extent that it can, ‘‘predict parents’ responsiveness to their infants’ attachment signals’’ Attachment and the Child’s Best Interests 43

(van Ijzendoorn, 1995, p. 387) and that the tool, ‘‘systematically and predic- tably differentiates between families at risk and nonclinical families’’ (van IJzendoorn, 1995, p. 400). In fact, AAI clinical applications are quite promising (Ammaniti, Dazzi, & Muscetta, 2008; Black, Jaeger, McCartney, & Crittenden, 2000; Crowell &Hauser,2008;Fonagy,2001;vanIJzendoorn&Bakersmans-Kranenburg, 1996). For example, research demonstrates that AAI interviews with pregnant mothers reliably predict as much as 75% of the variance among their children’s attachment security in the SSP at 12 months of age (Fonagy, Steele, & Steele, 1991; Hesse, 1999). One interpretation of these data suggests that adults’ attachment experiences and expectations prior to giving birth bear directly upon children’s learned experience of attachment security. A number of adult self-report attachment measures have promise as potential forensic assessment tools (e.g., Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000; Shaver et al., 2000).9 These instruments typically ask adult respondents to qualify their own relationship patterns, in some instances with regard to romantic partners and in other instances with regard to their own parents and=or children. Although adult self-report data are at best only moderately related to AAI data (Fouladi et al., 2006; Jacobvitz, Curran, & Moller, 2002; Shaver et al., 2000), and have only begun to establish external validity (e.g., Berant, Mikulincer, Shaver, & Segal, 2005), research using self-report instruments has similarly begun to demonstrate that adult attachment style is related to parenting capacity and, thereby, child outcomes. Edelstein and colleagues (2004, p. 44), for example, using adult self-report attachment questionnaires find that, ‘‘over time, children of avoidant parents may develop perceptions that stressful situations are beyond their control.’’

FOUR HURDLES TO OVERCOME BEFORE ATTACHMENT MEASURES CAN BECOME PART OF THE CUSTODY EVALUATOR’S ARSENAL

Kelly’s (1997) call to breach the chasm between developmental research, Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 clinical application and child-centered litigation is slowly being heard (Garber, in press). Some clinics (e.g., Byrne, O’Connor, Marvin, & Whelan, 2005; Marvin et al., 2002; O’Connor & Byrne, 2007) and clinicians (Schmidt, Cuttress, Lang, Lewandowski, & Rawana, 2007; M. Ward, Personal electronic communication, September 6, 2007), some forensic professionals (e.g., Dyer, 2004) and even some courtrooms (O’Rourke v. O’Rourke 0172-06-2, Court of Appeals of Virginia, December 19, 2006) have begun to introduce attachment theory and measures into best-psychological-interests forensic evaluations. For all of these pioneering efforts, attachment assessment methodologies cannot become widely accepted into the forensic evaluator’s arsenal and will not withstand Frye (Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013; D.C. Cir. 1923) and Daubert 44 B. D. Garber

(Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 1993) scrutiny until at least four specific hurdles have been overcome.

Hurdle Number 1: Implementation Costs May be Prohibitive The attachment instruments that have received the most attention and established the most robust psychometric qualities are also the most equipment-, cost- and time-intensive. The SSP and the AAI, as primary examples, each require extensive training to administer, score and interpret. Both require that raters participate in standardized training to establish inter-rater reliability and subsequent periodic checks to minimize rating drift. In addition, the SSP requires that the evaluator maintain a specific physical arrangement including a playroom with a one-way mirror and video recording facilities while the AAI, in turn, requires audio recording facilities. There appear to be two ways over this hurdle. On the one hand, forensic psychologists are not at all unfamiliar with or necessarily adverse to investing in materials, training and procedures in the interest of providing the courts with valid assessments that meet Frye and Daubert standards. In fact, several of the most commonly used instruments are arguably just as resource intensive (e.g., Exner, 2003). The popularity of such instruments suggests that their established added-value to the conduct of custody evaluations justifies these costs (Erard, 2007). Thus, it is reasonable to conjec- ture that the costs of an attachment measure as resource intensive as the Strange Situation or the AAI would cease to be a hurdle if and when its added value were solidly established. Conceptually, these attachment measures appear to promise a wealth of added value. Every custody evaluator, child protective worker and family court professional dreams of having at their fingertips an empirically sound instrument capable of reliably distinguishing the quality of a child’s relationships with each of two conflicted caregivers and the developmental outcomes associated with each. For the moment, we are a very long way from demonstrating that any attachment measure even comes close to Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 fulfilling this dream and thus, the cost of the associated assessments remains a significant hurdle. Developmental research has, however, generated at least one attachment measure with impressive psychometric credentials and relatively low equipment-, cost- and time-requirements. The attachment Q-set methodology (van IJzendoorn et al., 2004) requires a minimum of training, materials and a relatively brief period for administration, scoring and interpretation. It demands no particular physical space or hardware. It is non-intrusive, invulnerable to sequence effects and strongly related to a variety of concurrent and predictive measures, albeit thus far exclusively among research samples. Attachment and the Child’s Best Interests 45

Hurdle Number 2: Research With Contested Custody Litigants Presents Special Ethical and Statistical Challenges The leap from validation within research samples to validation among forensic samples is complicated for any instrument (Lamb, 2005). At the broadest level, research with court-involved populations demands rigorous attention to relevant legal and ethical (APA, 2002, standard 8.02 Ethics) mandates regarding informed consent, data collection, coding, storage and publication and the use of experimental methods. Moreover, sampling problems associated with some litigants’ understandable reluctance to engage in any process that does not directly bear on the life-altering matters at hand threaten the generalizability of any conclusions. Wolman and Taylor (1991), for example, describe differential cooperation among custody litigants as a function of socio-economic class. In addition, the legal process of discovery puts the well-intended forensic evaluator-cum-researcher in the tenuous position to argue that some data collected in the course of custody evaluation are relevant to the legal process while others are of yet-to-be-determined validity and must be excluded from judicial scrutiny. In the alternative, the researcher who works independent of the forensic evaluator faces the dilemma of what to do when an otherwise benign research procedure uncovers information that is then deemed relevant to and may be demanded by the court. This is not to say that research with custody litigants and their children is untenable (cf., Doolittle & Deutsch, 1999; Johnston, 1993; Zuberbuhler, 2001). Getting over this hurdle may require jurisdiction-wide endorsement of the research procedure, uniform orders sealing the research data from discovery and=or the provision of incentives to willing participants in the form of post-litigation consultation (e.g., Johnston, 2003).

Hurdle Number 3: Are Custody-Based Attachment Security Measures Meaningful and Predictive of Later Functioning?

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 If the goal of a best-psychological-interests evaluation is to serve the child’s long-term social and emotional needs, then a child’s post-separation or post-divorce placement should be based upon variables which are known to have a strong relationship with healthy (or, conversely, pathogenic)10 developmental outcomes. Developmental research suggests that attachment security may be one such variable (Hamilton, 2000; Waters, Hamilton, & Weinfield, 2000; Waters, Merrick, Treboux, Crowell, & Abersheim, 2000). However, as Main (1999) highlights, the question must be understood not in terms of the stability of any particular behavior across time, but instead in terms of the continuity of the underlying constructs, a concept she refers to as developmental coherence. 46 B. D. Garber

More than 80% of children evidencing secure attachments between 12 and 18 months maintain comparable security when reassessed in kindergarten (Wartner, Grossman, Fremmer-Bombik, & Suess, 1994; Wein- field, Whaley, & Egeland, 2004). More than 70% assessed at 18 months remain unchanged at 20 years old (George, Kaplan, & Main, 1996). Research demonstrates that the quality of attachment assessed as young as one year old reliably predicts later cognitive skills (Bretheringon, 1985), social confidence (Laible, Gustavo, & Raffaelli, 2000), leadership skills (Deason & Ran- dolph, 1998), peer relationships (Barnett, Butler, & Vondra, 1999; Schneider, Atkinson, & Tardif, 2001), anxiety (Thompson, 2000), larger family dynamics (Cook, 2000), and marital and sexual satisfaction (Butzer & Campbell, 2008). The magnitude of these otherwise impressive relationships declines, however, as the socio-economic status of the children studied declines (Weinfield, Sroufe, & Egeland, 2000), such that the quality of attachment security is least stable for those children who experience the greatest number and intensity of life stressors. In short, real-life stressors such as loss, abuse and illness (Solomon & George, 1999), exposure to co-parental conflict (Schermerhorn & Cummings, 2008) and divorce (Booth, Clark-Stewart, McCartney, Owen, & Vandell, 2000; Kelly, 1988; Lewis, Feiring, & Rosenthal, 2000) have been shown to disrupt the stability or developmental coherence of attachment security.11 This means that attachment security is coherent across development to the extent that the environment is stable. As environmental stressors become more frequent and severe, early attachment security can be threatened and its coherence compromised. Given that only the most acrimonious of divorces typically require a best-psychological-interests custody evaluation, it is reasonable to suggest (but yet to be empirically demonstrated) that insecure and disorganized attachments may be much more common within this population than within others. The good news is that attachment security is adaptive. In the same way that security can be eroded in response to stress, it can be rebuilt in response to improved parental sensitivity (Broberg, 2000; Marvin et al., 2002; Travis, Binder, Bliwise, & Horne-Moyer, 2001). Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 Thus, the third hurdle to be overcome is that of developmental coherence. If, indeed, the very circumstances which prompt evaluation also corrupt the variables to be studied, then there is no point studying them in this context. In response to this concern, the American Psychological Association (1994, 2009) provides general guidelines and a select few personality tests have established custody-related norms with which to overcome this hurdle (e.g., Bathurst, Gottfried, & Gottfried, 1997; Medoff, 1999; Singer, Hoppe, Lee, Oleson, & Walters, 2008). In order for attachment assessment methodologies to overcome this hurdle, research must first demonstrate that (child and=or adult) attachment measures administered in the midst of custody litigation have some relevance as predictors of post-litigation well-being. Attachment and the Child’s Best Interests 47

Hurdle Number 4: What are the Custody Implications of Valid and Coherent Attachment Data? This hurdle asks the essential question of how forensic evaluators armed with empirically sound attachment data might interpret this information as part of a best-psychological-interests summary report or placement recommendation. At the broadest level, custody evaluators are well-advised to include some assessment of the quality of the child’s relationship with each of his (or her) caregivers as part of a best-psychological-interests evaluation (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, 2006; Gould & Martindale, 2007). Thus, Riggs (2005) objects to the American Law Institute’s (2002) Approximation Rule as a post-divorce placement standard based on the quantity of a child’s relationship with each caregiver. In a like manner, Holtzman (2006) argues that post-separation and post-divorce placement decisions should rely more on an understanding of the quality of a child’s relationships than on legal definitions of the family. More specifically, Kelly and Lamb (2000; cf., Gould & Stahl, 2001) advocate for parenting plans which accommodate the young child’s emerging ability to tolerate separations from attachment figures. Schmidt et al. (2007) call for the use of adult attachment questionnaires in parenting capacity= maltreatment evaluations with very young children. However, few firm guidelines have thus far been developed for applying particular attachment findings to custody and parenting time recommendations for specific case. At most, we have some potentially fruitful ideas that require further research and elaboration. For example:

A. Are the child’s needs more likely to be met in the care of a secure attachment figure than in the care of an insecure or disorganized attachment figure? Yes. All other things being equal, the attachment literature strongly suggests that a child’s experience of secure attachment estab- lishes a path toward healthier outcomes as compared with a child’s Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 experience of insecure attachment (e.g., Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2005). B. Are the child’s needs more likely to be met in the care of a secure or an insecure attachment figure than in the care of a disorganized attachment figure? Yes. The literature suggests that the experience of disorganized attachment sets the child on a course which is associated with the emergence of pathology by adolescence (Carlson, 1998; Ogawa, Sroufe, Weinfield, Carlson, & Egeland, 1997). C. What does comparable attachment security to each of two caregivers mean for post-separation=post-divorce placement? At least three scenarios apply: all other things being equal, a secure–secure outcome might 48 B. D. Garber

suggest that the child could succeed in either home or, better still, that the child could succeed in both.12 An insecure–insecure outcome raises concerns for the child’s well-being in any placement formulation. This outcome prompts further questions for study, including the extent to which the types of insecure attachment (Resis- tant versus Avoidant) might bear upon future, post-litigation outcomes. An insecure–insecure finding might best prompt interim recommendations for intervention in the interest of facilitating one or both caregivers’ sensitive responsivity (e.g., Marvin et al., 2002), in an effort to determine if either has the capacity to nurture a secure relationship. A disorganized–disorganized outcome must immediately raise red flags about both parents’ functioning and the child’s well-being. Immediate interventions intended to assure the child’s safety, to give the child a ‘‘port in the storm’’ (Garber, 2004a) and to determine the cause(s) of the parents’ instability (e.g., psychological testing, substance abuse evaluation) may be necessary. In more extreme instances, intensive in-home interventions, alerts to Child Protective Services, or even removal to foster care may be necessary. D. If a child evidences a secure attachment relationship with one parent and an insecure or disorganized attachment relationship with the other, does time spent with the latter corrupt the child’s experience of attachment security and compromise its’ positive developmental sequelae? Rutter and O’Connor (1999, p. 835) ask this question pointedly: ‘‘does the most important relationship predominate, is there a balance between differing relationships, or does one secure relationship compensate for insecurities in others?’’

Unfortunately, the attachment research has thus far been unable to answer this question (Cassidy, 1999). We do know, however, that children commonly evidence simultaneous secure and insecure attachments within the same home and across environments (Cugmas, 2007; Howes, 1999). Thus it appears that security and insecurity can co-exist as a function of discrete relationships. Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 Might the same inference also apply to a child who evidences a disorganized attachment to one parent? This is even less clear. On one hand, it is reasonable to infer that the extreme emotional and behavioral instability of a parent who fosters a disorganized attachment risks causing the child anxiety that would undermine his or her ability to benefit from another parent’s more appropriate, sensitive, responsive and consistent care. On the other hand, among children who grow up in chaos, abuse and trauma, those who have even one single, stable emotional anchor have the best chance of developmental success (e.g., Haggerty, Sherrod, Garmezy, & Rutter, 1996; Luthar, 2003). In like manner, parents who were themselves victims of chaos, abuse and trauma but who have healthy adult partners have the Attachment and the Child’s Best Interests 49

best chance of meeting their children’s needs (Sroufe et al., 2005), an observation which suggests the tremendous potential contribution of divorcing parents’ new partners in custody considerations. Pending further research, the author’s anecdotal experience and simple optimism suggest that the answer is no: a child’s experience of at least one secure attachment will, at least in some cases, confer a degree of insulation from the deleterious effects of other, insecure and even disorganized attachment relationships so as to serve his or her best interests.

E. Looking beyond the dyad. Psychology has long recognized the complex interactions among relationships within the family, but has only just begun to look at factors outside of each parent–child pair as they might color custody-related questions (Schermerhorn et al., 2008).13 The controversy regarding parental alienation (Garber, 2004b), for example, essentially introduces the idea that the quality of a child’s relationship with one caregiver must be understood as it exists in juxtaposition to the other. Thus, for all of its tremendous potential as a necessary part of a best- psychological-interests investigation, attachment theory must never be mistaken as sufficient. The evolutionary pressures that have driven us from those out-dated, adult-centered and gender-biased custody standards must ultimately continue to carry us forward into a genuinely systemic view of each child’s unique needs.

HOW ATTACHMENT RESEARCH CAN INFORM AND IMPROVE BEST-PSYCHOLOGICAL-INTERESTS CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN CURRENT FORENSIC PRACTICE

For all that we do not yet know, have yet to validate and still hope to learn about attachment theory in the context of custody evaluations, there is a great deal that child-centered forensic professionals can and should do today. We must understand a child’s relationship with each caregiver as a Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 unique, evolving and dynamic composite of the child’s experience of that caregiver’s sensitive responsiveness within the larger context of family dynamics, individual temperaments and acute stresses. We must work to understand a child’s secure relationship with a given caregiver as both a reflection of that caregiver’s sensitive responsiveness and the family’s support of that relationship, just as we must work to understand a child’s insecure relationship with a caregiver both as a reflection of that caregiver’s relative emotional unavail- ability and the contextual factors which might reinforce this (Garber, 2007). Understanding the dynamic and adaptive nature of the child–caregiver relationship, we must acknowledge that the acute pressures of intense co-parental conflict, contested custody litigation and recent or impending 50 B. D. Garber

adult separation (to name just a few) may at least temporarily distort (and at most may permanently corrupt) the quality of the child’s relationship with one or both caregivers. With this in mind, we must make every reasonable effort to understand the history of the child’s relationship with each caregiver and observe the quality of their present interaction in the least pressured, most natural environment possible. This author has found review of spontaneous family video recordings to be especially useful in this regard.14 We must include in our assessment of the quality of the child’s relationship with each caregiver observation of the child’s willingness to turn to the caregiver for support and reassurance in developmentally appropriate ways when stressed. This is one critical element underlying the attachment literature and one compelling factor related to the quality of that child–caregiver relationship. We must include in our assessment of each caregiver a sense of his or her capacity to be sensitive and responsive to each child’s unique developmental needs, particularly under stress. This is a second critical element underlying the attachment literature and another compelling factor related to the quality of the child–caregiver relationship. Our assessments must account for the quality of each caregiver’s acknowledged and observed support for the other caregiver’s relationship with the child, understanding that the quality of the child’s relationship with each caregiver can be reinforced or undermined by extra-dyadic influences. And, finally, we must understand each caregiver’s relationship history, including remembered (and continuing) relationships with his or her own caregivers. We must learn to consider an adult’s factually grounded report that his or her own caregivers were sensitive and responsive as one among many factors associated with his or her capacity to be a sensitive and responsive caregiver.

CONCLUSIONS

In the court’s hands, today’s best-interests standard is a wide net with which many and varied facets of a child’s well-being might be captured and interpreted Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 in consideration of post-separation andpost-divorcecustodial assignment. In the hands of an investigating psychologist, however, the same best-interests standard must be implemented in a manner consistent with the ethics and psychometrics required of the profession. Psychology’s efforts to operationalize the best-interests standard within these constraints have yielded much more heat than light, leaving the child-centered forensic professional to cobble together his or her own idiosyncratic means of assessing the child, the family and advising the court how to understand the best psychological interests of the child. Attachment theory and research have generated a wealth of data with tremendous potential to inform best-psychological-interests custodial Attachment and the Child’s Best Interests 51

investigations. In the abstract, attachment theory provides both a language and a conceptual framework within which to characterize a child’s unique relationship with each of his or her caregivers. As a practical matter, however, at least four critical hurdles must still be overcome before existing attachment measures can be routinely incorporated into forensic psychologists’ best-psychological-interests evaluations. These include: 1) practical issues associated with the training, administration, interpretation and physical requirements of the various attachment assessment tools; 2) ethical and legal issues that must be overcome before validation studies can be begun; 3) empirical questions related to the predictive validity or coherence of attachment assessments conducted under the acute stresses associated with contested custody litigation; and 4) the ‘‘now what?’’ question of how to interpret the attachment observations thus derived. In truth, this author set out to write this paper with the naı¨ve notion that forensic family evaluations should immediately incorporate existing attachment assessment instruments and that, in fact, one might operationalize that elusive best-psychological-interests concept in the language and methods of attachment theory. Instead, this paper has become a call for developmental researchers and forensic investigators to merge energies and expertise so that we might together learn how to understand the best interests of the child. In the interim, the riches of attachment research can help child-centered forensic evaluators to better conceptualize the unique and dynamic quality of the child’s relationship with each caregiver.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author is indebted to Robert Erard, Ph.D., Ginger Calloway, Ph.D., and Leslie Drozd, Ph.D. for encouragement, patience, insight, and invaluable editorial guidance in developing these ideas for publication.

NOTES

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 1. Judge Neely is quoted in Glendon (1986, p. 60) as stating that, ‘‘The vague and open-ended ‘best interests of the child’ test appears reasonable, he says, ‘until we understand how much sinister bargaining is carried on in the shadow of this unpredictable, individual-oriented system.’’’ 2. The best-interests standard pervades our contemporary institutions, from the United Nations’ 1959 Declaration for the Rights of Children (United Nations, 1959), to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (European Union, 2000). It is explicitly referenced by organizations as diverse as the American Academy of Pediatrics (e.g. Diekema, 2005), only the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (2003), the American School Counselor Association (2004), the National Association of Social Workers (1996), the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (2002) and the American Psy- chological Association (APA; 2002) and is no less popular among legal professional groups, throughout local, state and federal legislation and court rulings on all levels. By 2005, ‘‘every state ... indicates that custody decisions are to be made according to [the] ‘best-interests of the child’ standard’’ (Emery, Otto, & O’Donohue, 2005, p. 5). In one recent review (Garber, 2007b), over 90 references to serving the ‘‘best-interests of the child’’ (or a variant of the phrase) were identified in the Wisconsin statutes regarding, 52 B. D. Garber

‘‘Actions Affecting the Family’’ as in the direction that, ‘‘the Guardian ad litem shall be an advocate for the best-interests of the minor child.’’ 3. Pearson and Munson (1984) cite a 1979 study which found 299 published custody determination criteria. 4. Glendon (1986, p. 59) argues specifically that, ‘‘in divorce law, the traditional stronghold of judicial discretion, the judge’s discretionary power should be brought within a framework of clear, ordered and consistent principles.’’ 5. ‘‘The principal limitations of the Strange Situation procedure are that it is only applicable within a narrow age range (perhaps as narrow as 12–18 months), that repeated assessments have to be spaced to prevent strong carryover effects, and that the situation and scoring procedures do not lend themselves to research on developmental changes in the attachment control system. The procedure is also expensive to administer and score, and scoring is difficult to learn without direct instruction’’ (Waters & Deane, 1985, p. 47). 6. The literature has traditionally discussed the four major attachment types as categorical and distinct. The Q-set generates a continuous measure of attachment security, consistent with more recent theorists (e.g., Fraley & Spieker, 2003). 7. Two weeks of intensive training followed by 18 months of reliability testing. ‘‘The AAI is one of the most time-consuming instruments in the area of developmental and clinical psychology and developmental psychopathology. It requires extensive training and practice, careful verbatim transcription of 1-hr interviews, and mastery of a laborious coding procedure’’ (Steele & Steele, 2008, p. 85–86). 8. The AAI protocol is discussed in Hesse (1999) and available at: http:==www.psy chology.sunysb.edu/attachment/measures/measures_index.html 9. Many adult self-report attachment measures are reviewed at http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/labs/ Shaver/measures.htm 10. This perspective is embodied in the use of the Least Detrimental Alternative standard for custodial assignment (Goldstein, Freud, & Solnit, 1979). 11. Kelly and Lamb (2000, p. 302) summarize: ‘‘Although secure and insecure attachments were once thought to be fixed and stable over time, this appears to be true only when the infants experience reasonably stable family conditions .... Factors known to influence the security and stability of attachments include poverty; marital violence and high conflict between parents; and major life changes such as divorce, death, or the birth of a sibling, which in each instance are associated with more insecure attachments.’’ 12. It is this author’s clinical experience that children embroiled in high conflict divorce seldom have secure attachment relationships with either parent and rarely, if ever, appear to have secure attachment relationships to both parents. 13. The author notes with chagrin that the literature has largely neglected the role of the sibling group (e.g., Teti, Sakin, Kucera, Corns, & das Eisen, 1996) in custodial research and recommendations. 14. In some instances, viewing family video recordings with a child, a parent, a sibling group or a child–parent dyad proves an invaluable source of evaluative data.

REFERENCES

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1964). Patterns of attachment behavior shown by the infant in interaction with his mother. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 10, 51–58. Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ainsworth, M., & Wittig, B. (1969). Attachment and exploratory behavior of one year-olds in a strange situation. In B. Foss (Ed.) Determinants of infant behavior IV (pp. 111–136). London: Methuen. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (2002). Facts for families: The child and adolescent psychiatrist. Retrieved September 4, 2007 from http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/the_child_and_adolescent_ psychiatrist. Attachment and the Child’s Best Interests 53

American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. (2003). Core values. Retrieved September 4, 2007 from http://www.aapd.org/media/Policies_Guidelines/CoreValues.pdf American Law Institute. (2002). Principles of the law of family dissolution: Analysis and recommendations. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis. American Psychological Association (APA). (1994). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in divorce proceedings. American Psychologist, 49(7), 677–680. American Psychological Association (APA). (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved September 4, 2007 from http://www. apa.org/ethics/code2002.html American Psychological Association (APA). (2009). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in family law proceedings. Retrieved April 20, 2009 from http:// www.apa.org/practice/guidelines-evaluation-child-custody-family-law.pdf American School Counselor Association. (2004). Ethical standards for school counselors. Retrieved September 4, 2007 from http://www.schoolcounselor.org/ content.asp?contentid=173 Ammaniti, M., Dazzi, N., & Muscetta, S. (2008). The AAI in a clinical context: Some experiences and illustrations. In H. Steele & M. Steele (Eds.) Clinical applications of the adult attachment interview (pp. 236–269). New York: Guilford Press. Armsden, G.C., & Greenberg, M.T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16(5), 427–454. Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. (2006). Model standards of practice for child custody evaluation. Retrieved May 31, 2008 from http://www.afccnet. org/pdfs/Model%20Stds%20Child%20Custody%20Eval%20Sept%202006.pdf Bala, N. (2005). Tippins and Wittman asked the wrong question: Evaluators may not be ‘‘experts,’’ but they can express best interests opinions. Family Court Review, 43(4), 554–562. Barnett, D., Butler, C., & Vondra, J. (1999). Atypical patterns of early attachment: Discussion and future directions. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, 64(3), 172–191. Bartlett, K.T. (2002). Preference, presumption, predisposition and common sense: From traditional custody doctrines to the American Law Institute’s family dissolution project. Family Law Quarterly, 11(24), 11–25. Bathurst, K., Gottfried, A.W., & Gottfried, A.E. (1997). Normative data for the MMPI-2 in child custody litigation. Psychological Assessment, 9(3), 205–211. Behrens, K.Y., Hesse, E., & Main, M. (2007). Mothers’ attachment status as determined Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 by the Adult Attachment Interview predicts their 6-year-olds’ reunion responses: A study conducted in Japan. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1553–1567. Berant, E., Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P., & Segal, Y. (2005). Rorschach correlates of self-reported attachment dimensions: Dynamic manifestations of hyperacti- vating and deactivating strategies. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(1), 70–81. Black, K.A., Jaeger, E., McCartney, K., & Crittenden, P.M. (2000). Attachment models, peer interaction behavior, and feelings about the self: Indications of maladjust- ment in dismissing=preoccupied (Ds=E) adolescents. In P.M. Crittenden & A.H. Claussen (Eds.) The organization of attachment relationships: Maturation, context, and culture (pp. 300–324). New York: Cambridge University Press. 54 B. D. Garber

Booth, C., Clarke-Stewart, K.A., McCartney, K., Owen, M.T., & Vandell, D.L. (2000). Effects of parental separation and divorce on very young children. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 304–326. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Attachment (Vol. 1). New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Separation (Vol. 2). New York: Basic Books. Bradbrook, A. (1971). The role of judicial discretion in child custody adjudication in Ontario. The University of Toronto Law Journal, 21(3), 402–408. Brennan, K.A., Clark, C.L., & Shaver, P.R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (Eds.) Attach- ment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford Press. Bretherington, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1–2, Serial No. 209), 3–35. Bretherton, I., Oppenheim, D., Buchsbaum, H., Emde, R.N., & The MacArthur Narrative Group. (1990). MacArthur Story–Stem Battery, Unpublished manual. Bretherton, I., Ridgeway, D., & Cassidy, J. (1990). Assessing internal working models of the attachment relationship: An attachment story completion task for 3-year-olds. In M.T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E.M. Cummings (Eds.) Attach- ment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 273– 308). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. British Children’s Act. (1989). An Act of British Parliament. Retrieved April 24, 2008 from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/plain/ukpga_19890041_en Broberg, A. (2000). A review of interventions in the parent–child relationship informed by attachment theory. Acta Paediatrica, Suppl. 434, p. 41. Butzer, B., & Campbell, L. (2008). Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction: A study of married couples. Personal Relationships, 15(1), 141–154. Byrne, J.G., O’Connor, T.G., Marvin, R.S., & Whelan, W.F. (2005). Practitioner review: The contribution of attachment theory to child custody assessments. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(2), 115–127. Caldera, Y. (2004). Paternal involvement and infant–father attachment: a Q-set study. Retrieved May 25, 2008 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAV/ is_2_2/ai_n6121483/print Carbone, J. (1995). Child custody and the best interests of the child—A review from father’s property to children’s rights: The history of child custody in the United States. Family Law Quarterly, 29(3), 721–739. Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 Carlson, E. (1998). A prospective longitudinal study of disorganized=disoriented attachment. Child Development, 69, 1107–1128. Cassidy, J. (1999). The nature of the child’s ties. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.) Handbook of attachment (pp. 3–20). New York: Guilford. Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L.J. (1992). The insecure=ambivalent pattern of attachment: Theory and research. Unpublished manuscript. Cassidy, J., & Marvin, R.S. (1992). Attachment organization in preschool children: Procedures and coding manual (4th ed.). Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia. Cook, W.L. (2000). Understanding attachment security in family context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 285–294. Attachment and the Child’s Best Interests 55

Crittendon, P. (1994). Preschool assessment of attachment (2nd ed.). Unpublished manuscript, Miami, FL.: Family Relations Institute. Crowell, J.A., & Hauser, S.T. (2008). AAIs in a high-risk sample: Stability and relation to functioning from adolescence to 39 years. In H. Steele & M. Steele (Eds.) Clinical applications of the adult attachment interview (pp. 341–370). New York: Guilford Press. Crowell, J.A., & Treboux, D. (1995) A review of adult attachment measures: Implica- tions for theory and research. Social Development, 4, 294–327. Crowell, J.A., Waters, E., Treboux, D., O’Connor, E., Colon-Downs, C., Feider, O., et al. (1996). Discriminant validity of the adult attachment interview. Child Development, 67(5), 2584–2599. Cugmas, Z. (2007). Child’s attachment to his=her mother, father and kindergarten teacher. Early Child Development and Care, 177(4), 349–368. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2795 (1993). Deason, D., & Randolph, D. (1998). A systematic look at the self: The relationship between family organization, interpersonal attachment and identity. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13(3) 465–479. Diekema, D. S. (2005). Responding to parental refusals of immunization of children. Pediatrics, 115(5), 1428–1431. Doolittle, D.B., & Deutsch, R. (1999). Children and high-conflict divorce: Theory, research and intervention. In R.M. Galatzer-Levy & L. Kraus (Eds.) The scientific basis of child custody decisions. New York: Wiley and Sons. Dyer, F. (2004). Termination of parental rights in light of attachment theory: The case of Kaylee. Psychology, Public Policy and the Law, 10(1–2), 5–30. Edelstein, R.S., Alexander, K.W., Shaver, P.R., Schaaf, J.M., Quas, J.A., Lovas, G.S., et al. (2004). Adult attachment style and parental responsiveness during a stressful event. Attachment and Human Development, 6, 31–52. Emery, R.E. (1999). Changing the rules for determining child custody in divorce cases. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6(3), 323–327. Emery, R.E., Otto, R.K., & O’Donohue, W.T. (2005). A critical assessment of child custody evaluations: Limited science and a flawed system. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6, 1–29. Erard, R. (2007). Picking cherries with blinders on: A comment on Erickson et al. (2007), ‘Regarding the use of tests in family court.’ Family Court Review, 45(2), 175–184. European Union. (2000). The charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 Retrieved September 4, 2007 from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/ text_en.pdf Exner, J.E. (2003). The Rorschach: A Comprehensive System: Vol. 1: Basic Founda- tions and Principles of Interpretation (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Fonagy, P. (2001). Attachment theory and psychoanalysis. New York: Other Press. Fonagy, P., Steele, H., & Steele, M. (1991). Maternal representations of attachment during pregnancy predict the organization of infant-mother attachment at one year of age. Child Development, 62, 891–905. Fouladi, R.T., Moller, N.P., & McCarthy, C.J. (2006). Examination of internal consistency and construct validity of scores on the parental attachment scale: 56 B. D. Garber

Preliminary psychometric results. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 39(1), 2–30. Fraley, R.C., & Spieker, S.J. (2003). Are infant attachment patterns continuously or categorically distributed? A taxometric analysis of strange situation behavior. Developmental Psychology, 39, 387–404. Fraley, R.C., Waller, N.G., & Brennan, K.A. (2000). An item-response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350–365. Garber, B. D. (in press). From cradle to courtroom: Child and family development for family law professionals. New York: Springer. Garber, B.D. (2004a). Therapist alienation: Foreseeing and forestalling dynamics undermining therapies with children. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(4), 354–363. Garber, B.D. (2004b). Parental alienation in light of attachment theory: Considera- tion of the broader implications for child development, clinical practice, and forensic process. Journal of Child Custody, 1(4), 49–76. Garber, B.D. (2007). From theory to therapy to courtroom: Attachment security, co-parental conflict and the best interests of the child. Presentation to the Wisconsin Inter-professional Conference on Divorce, Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997). George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1996). Adult attachment interview (3rd ed.). Unpub- lished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Berkeley: University of California. George, C., & West, M. (2001). The development and preliminary validation of a new measure of adult attachment: The adult attachment projective. Attachment and Human Development, 3, 30–61. Glendon, M.A. (1986). Fixed rules and discretion in contemporary family law and succession law. Tulane Law Review, 10, 1165–1178. Goldstein, J., Freud, A., & Solnit, A. (1979). Beyond the best interest of the child. New York: Macmillan Books. Gould, J., & Martindale, D. (2007). The art and science of child custody evaluations. New York: Guilford Publications. Gould, J., & Stahl, P. (2001). Never paint by the numbers: A response to Kelly and Lamb (2000), Solomon and Biringen (2001), and Lamb and Kelly (2001). Family Court Review, 39(4), 372–376. Greenberg, M.T., Siegel, J.M., & Leitch, C.J. (1983). The nature and importance of Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 attachment relationships to parents and peers during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 12(5), 373–386. Haggerty, R.J., Sherrod, L.R., Garmezy, N., & Rutter, M. (Eds.) (1996). Stress, risk, and resilience in children and adolescents: Processes, mechanisms, and interventions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hamilton, C. (2000). Continuity and discontinuity of attachment from infancy through adolescence. Child Development, 71(3), 690–694. Hesse, E. (1999). The adult attachment interview: Historical and current perspectives. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.) Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 395–433). New York: Guilford Press. Attachment and the Child’s Best Interests 57

Holtzman, M. (2006). Definitions of the family as an impetus for legal change in custody decision making: Suggestions from an empirical case study. Law and Social Inquiry, 31(1), 1–37. Howes, C. (1999). Attachment relationships in the context of multiple caregivers. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.) Handbook of attachment (pp. 671–687). New York: Guilford. Howes, C., Galinsky, E., & Kontos, E. (1998). Child care caregiver sensitivity and attachment. Social Development, 7(1), 25–36 Jacobvitz, D., Curran, M., & Moller, N. (2002). Measurement of adult attachment: The place of self-report and interview methodologies. Attachment and Human Development, 4(2), 207–215. Jellum, L. (2004). Parents know best: Revising our approach to parental custody agreements. Ohio State Law Journal, 65(3), 615–656. Johnson, S.C., Dweck, C.S., & Chen, F.S. (2007). Evidence for infants’ internal working models of attachment. Psychological Science, 18(6), 501–502. Johnston, J. (1993). Children of divorce who refuse visitation. In C. Depner & J.H. Bray (Eds.) Non-residential parenting: New vistas in family living (pp. 109–135). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Johnston, J. (2003). Parental alignments and rejection: An empirical study of alienation in children of divorce. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31, 158–170. Kelly, J.B. (1988). Refining the concept of attachment in divorce. Journal of Family Psychology, 1(3), 329–332. Kelly, J.B. (1997). The best interests of the child: A concept in search of meaning. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 35(4), 377–387. Kelly, J.B., & Lamb, M.E. (2000). Using child development research to make appropriate custody and access decisions for young children. Family Court Review, 38(3), 297–311. Kerns, K.A., Tomich, P.L., Aspelmeier, J.E., & Contreras, J.M. (2000). Attachment-based assessments of parent–child relationships in middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 36(5), 614–626. Kobak, R.R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Development, 59(1), 135–146. Krauss, D., & Sales, B. (2000). Legal standards, expertise, and experts in the resolution of contested child custody cases. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 6(4), Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 843–879. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). Laible, D., Gustavo, C., & Raffaelli, M. (2000). The differential relations of parent and peer attachment to adolescent adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(1), 45–59. Lamb, H.R. (2005). Commentary: On research and forensic patients’ capacity. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33, 308–309. Lewis, M., Feiring, C., & Rosenthal, S. (2000). Attachment over time. Child Develop- ment, 71(3), 707–720. Luthar, S. (Ed.) (2003). Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 58 B. D. Garber

Main, M. (1999). Attachment theory: Eighteen points with suggestions for future studies. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.) Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 845–886). New York: Guilford Press. Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1998). Adult attachment rating and classification systems (Version 6.0). Unpublished manuscript, Berkeley: University of California. Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.) Growing Points of Attachment Theory and Research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1–2, Serial No. 209), 66–104. Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of a new, insecure-disorganized= disoriented attachment pattern. In T.B. Brazelton & M.W. Yogman (Eds.) Affective development in infancy (pp. 95–124). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Marvin, R.S., Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., & Powell, B. (2002). The circle of security project: Attachment-based intervention with caregiver-pre-school child dyads. Attachment and Human Development, 4, 107–124. Medoff, D. (1999). MMPI-2 validity scales in child custody evaluations: clinical versus statistical significance. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17(4), 409–411. Michigan Custody Guidelines (2001). Retrieved September 4, 2007, from http:// courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/publications/manuals/focb/custodyguide line.pdf Mnookin, R.H. (1975). Child-custody adjudication: Judicial functions in the face of indeterminacy. Law and Contemporary Problems, 39, 226–293. Moss, E., Bureau, J.-F., Cyr, C., & Dubois-Comtois, K. (2006). Is the maternal Q-Set a valid measure of preschool child attachment behavior? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30(6), 488–497. Naber, F., Swinkels, S., Buitelaar, J., Dietz, C., van Daalen, E., Bakermans- Kranenburg, et al. (2007). Joint attention and attachment in toddlers with autism. Journal Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(2), 899–911. National Association of Social Workers. (1996). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Retrieved September 4, 2007 from http:// www.socialworkers.org/pubs/codenew/code.asp O’Connor, T.G., & Byrne, J.G. (2007). Attachment measures for research and practice. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 12(4), 187–192. Ogawa, J., Sroufe, A., Weinfield, N., Carlson, E., & Egeland, B. (1997). Development and the fragmented self: Longitudinal study of dissociative symptomotology in a Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 non-clinical sample. Developmental Psychopathology, 9, 855–879. Pearson, J., & Munson, P. (1984). The child’s best interest principle: Theory and practice. Conciliation Courts Review, 22(1), 1–17. Riggs, S.A. (2005). Is the approximation rule in the child’s best interests? A critique from the perspective of attachment theory. Family Court Review, 43(3), 481–493. Roisman, G.I., Fraley, R.C., & Belsky, J. (2007). A taxometric study of the Adult Attachment Interview. Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 675–686. Roisman, G., Holland, A., Fortuna, K., Fraley, R.C., Clausell, E., & Clarke, A. (2007). The Adult Attachment Interview and self-reports of attachment style: An empirical rapprochement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 678–697. Attachment and the Child’s Best Interests 59

Rutgers, A.H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., Van IJzendoorn, M.H., & Swinkels, S.H.N. (2007). Autism and attachment: The attachment Q-Sort. Autism, 11, 187–200. Rutgers, A.H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., Van IJzendoorn, M.H., & Van Berckelaer-Onnes, I.A. (2004). Autism and attachment: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1123–1135. Rutgers, A., van Ijzendoorn, M.H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., Swinkels, S., van Daalen, E., Dietz, E., et al. (2007). Autism, attachment and parenting: A comparison of children with autism spectrum disorder, mental retardation, language disorder, and non-clinical children. Journal Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(2), 859–870. Rutter, M., & O’Connor, T.G. (1999). Policy applications of attachment theory. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.) Handbook of Attachment (pp. 823–844). New York: Guilford Press. Rutter, M., Quinton, D., & Hill, J. (1990). Adult outcome of institution-reared children: Males and females compared. In L.N. Robins & M. Rutter (Eds.) Straight and devious pathways from childhood to adulthood (pp. 135–157). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sagi, A., van IJzendoorn, M., Scharf, M., Koren-Karie, N., Joels, T., & Mayseless, O. (1994). Stability and discriminant validity of the Adult Attachment Interview: A psychometric study in young Israeli adults. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 771–777. Schermerhorn, A.C., Cummings, E.M., & Davies, P.T. (2008). Children’s representations of multiple family relationships: Organizational structure and development in early childhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(1), 89–10. Schmidt, F., Cuttress, L.J., Lang, J., Lewandowski, M.J., & Rawana, J.S. (2007). Assessing the parent–child relationship in parenting capacity evaluations: clinical applications of attachment research. Family Court Review, 45(2), 247–259. Schneider, B., Atkinson, L., & Tardif, C. (2001). Child–parent attachment and children’s peer relations: A quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 37(1), 86–100. Shaver, P.R., Belsky, J., & Brennan, K.A. (2000). Comparing measures of adult attachment: An examination of interview and self-report methods. Personal Relationships, 7, 25–43. Singer, J., Hoppe, C.F., Lee, S.M., Oleson, N.W., & Walters, M.G. (2008). Child custody litigants: Rorschach data from a large sample. In C.B. Gacono & F.B. Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 Evans (Eds.) The handbook of forensic Rorschach assessment (pp. 445–464). New York: Erlbaum. Simpson, J.A., Rholes, W.S., & Nelligan, J.S. (1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(3), 434–446. Solomon, J., & George, C. (1999). The measurement of attachment security in infancy and childhood. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.) Handbook of attachment. New York: Guilford. Sroufe, L.A. (2005). Attachment and development: A prospective, longitudinal study from birth to adulthood. Attachment and Human Development, 7(4), 349–367. 60 B. D. Garber

Sroufe, L.A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Collins, W.A. (2005). The development of the person: The Minnesota study of risk and adaptation from birth to adulthood. New York: Guilford Press. Steele, H. & Steele, M. (Eds.) (2008). Clinical Applications of the Adult Attachment Interview (pp. 85–86). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Target, M., Fonagy, P., & Shmueli-Goetz, Y. (2003). Attachment representations in school-age children: The development of the child attachment interview (CAI). Journal of Child Psychotherapy, 29(2), 171–186. Teti, D., Sakin, J., Kucera, E., Corns, K., & das Eisen, R. (1996). And baby makes four: Predictors of attachment security among preschool-aged firstborns during the transition to siblinghood. Child Development, 67, 579–596. Thompson, R. (2000). The legacy of early attachments. Child Development, 71(1), 145–152. Tippins, T.M., & Wittmann, J.P. (2005). Empirical and ethical problems with custody recommendations: A call for clinical humility and judicial vigilance. Family Court Review, 43(2), 193–222. Travis, L., Binder, J., Bliwise, N., & Horne-Moyer, H. (2001). Changes in clients’ attachment styles over the course of time-limited dynamic psychotherapy. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice and Training, 38(2), 149–159. Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act. (1973). 402 9A UCA, 197–198 (Amended 1975). United Nations (1959). Declaration of the rights of the child. Proclaimed by General Assembly Resolution 1386(XIV). Retrieved September 4, 207 from http:// www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/25.htm van IJzendoorn, M.H. (1995). Adult attachment representations, parental responsiveness, and infant attachment: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the Adult Attachment Interview. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 387–403. van IJzendoorn, M., & Bakersmans-Kranenburg, M. (1996). Attachment representations in mothers, fathers, adolescents and clinical groups: A meta-analytic search for normative data. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 64(1), 8–21. van IJzendoorn, M.H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J. (2007). Brief Attachment Screening Questionnaire (BASQ) Retrieved September 2, 2007, from http:// www.childandfamilystudies.leidenuniv.nl/index.php3?c=232 van IJzendoorn, M.H., Rutgers, A.H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., van Daalen, E., Dietz, C., Buitelaar, J.K., et al. (2007). Parental sensitivity and attachment in children with autism spectrum disorder: Comparison with children with mental retardation, with language delays, and with typical development. Child Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 Development, 78, pp. 597–608. van IJzendoorn, M.H., Schuengel, C., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J. (1999). Disorganized attachment in early childhood: Meta-analysis of precursors, concomitants, and sequelae. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 225–249. van IJzendoorn, M.H., Vereijken, C.M.J.L., BakermansKranenburg, M.J., & Riksen-Walraven, J.M. (2004). Assessing attachment security with the attachment Q-sort: Meta-analytic evidence for the validity of the observer AQS. Child Development, 75(4), 1188–1213. Van Krieken, R. (2005). The ‘‘best interests of the child’’ and parental separation: On the ‘‘civilizing of the parents.’’ Modern Law Review, 68(1), 25–48. Attachment and the Child’s Best Interests 61

Vaughn, B.E., & Waters, E. (1990). Attachment behavior at home and in the laboratory: Q-sort observations and strange situation classifications of one-year-olds. Child Development, 61, 1865–1973. Warshak, R. (2007). The approximation rule, child development research, and children’s best interests after divorce. Child Development Perspectives, 1(2), 119–125. Wartner, U.G., Grossman, K., Fremmer-Bombik, E., & Suess, G. (1994). Attachment patterns at age six in south Germany: Predictability from infancy and implications for preschool behavior. Child Development, 65, 1014–1027. Waters, E. (1995). The attachment q-set. In E. Waters, B.E. Vaughn, G. Posada, & K. Kondo-Ikemura (Eds.) Caregiving, cultural, and cognitive perspectives on secure-base behavior and working models. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60(2=3), serial no. 244, 247–254. Waters, E., & Deane, K.E. (1985). Defining and assessing individual differences in attachment relationships: Q-methodology and the organization of behavior in infancy and early childhood. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.) Growing Points in Attachment Theory and Research (pp. 41–65), Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1–2, Serial No. 209). Waters, E., Garber, J., Gornal, M., & Vaughn, B.E. (1983). Q-sort correlates of visual regard among preschool peers: Validation of a behavioral index of social competence. Developmental Psychology, 19, 550–560. Waters, E., Hamilton, C.E., & Weinfield, N.S. (2000). The stability of attachment security from infancy to adolescence and early adulthood: General introduction. Child Development, 71(3), 678–683. Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Abersheim, L. (2000). Attachment security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty year longitudinal study. Child Development, 71(3), 684–689. Weinfield, N.S., Sroufe, A., & Egeland, B. (2000). Attachment from infancy to early adulthood in a high-risk sample: Continuity, discontinuity, and their correlates. Child Development, 71, 695–702. Weinfield, N.S., Whaley, G.J.L., & Egeland, B. (2004). Continuity, discontinuity, and coherence in attachment from infancy to late adolescence: Sequelae of organization and disorganization. Journal of Attachment and Human Development, 6(1), 73–97. Wolman, R., & Taylor, K. (1991). Psychological effects of custody disputes on children. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 9(4), 399–417. Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:28 17 August 2014 Zeanah, C.H., & Benoit, D. (1995). Clinical applications of a parent perception interview in infant mental health. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 4, 539–554. Zuberbuhler, J. (2001). Early intervention mediation: The use of court-ordered mediation in the initial stages of divorce litigation to resolve parenting issues. Family Court Review, 39, 203–206. This article was downloaded by: [Northcentral University] On: 17 August 2014, At: 13:48 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Quest Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uqst20 Children’s Development Through Sports Competition: Derivative, Adjustive, Generative, and Maladaptive Approaches Hong Suk Choia, Britton Johnsona & Young K. Kimb a Health, Physical Education and Recreation, Missouri Western State University, St. Joseph, Missouri b The City University of New York, Queensborough Community College, Bayside, New York Published online: 24 Apr 2014.

To cite this article: Hong Suk Choi, Britton Johnson & Young K. Kim (2014) Children’s Development Through Sports Competition: Derivative, Adjustive, Generative, and Maladaptive Approaches, Quest, 66:2, 191-202, DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2013.861757 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2013.861757

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions Quest,66:191–202,2014 Copyright © National Association for Kinesiology in Higher Education (NAKHE) ISSN: 0033-6297 print / 1543-2750 online DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2013.861757

Children’s Development Through Sports Competition: Derivative, Adjustive, Generative, and Maladaptive Approaches

HONG SUK CHOI and BRITTON JOHNSON Health, Physical Education and Recreation, Missouri Western State University, St. Joseph, Missouri

YOUNG K. KIM The City University of New York, Queensborough Community College, Bayside, New York

Sports competition can play an important role for children because it contributes to developmental outcomes for a healthy lifestyle. Through sports competition, children can learn about physical, social, and cognitive skills. Sports competition can be either positive or negative in terms of development, depending on how experiences are perceived by children and how competitions is designed. This article examines derivative, adjustive, generative, and maladaptive approaches to sports to determine the positive and negative effects on the development of children. Competition in sports related to development in four principal ways: sports competition was a result of development, it can be a respite from developmental pressure, it was a source of development, and it can be detrimental to development. This article discussed the optimal youth competitive sports program after the positive and negative aspects of human development for children were considered. The inﬂuence of coaches and family members was important to children’s development and transforms the social, psychological, and emotional beneﬁts that children receive through sports competition.

Keywords Children, human development, sports, competition, cooperative games

In a postmodern society, competition is a pervasive phenomenon in an individual’s everyday life of work and leisure, regardless of age. Competitiveness is a social process that requires subjective evaluation of a situation. Sports competition is analyzed in terms of

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:48 17 August 2014 applying behavioral, psychological, social, and physiological capacities and its consequences. It also included positive, negative, or neutral feedback for future use (Baker, Cobley, & Fraser-Thomas, 2009;Scanlan,Babkes,&Scanlan,2005;Watson,1984;White &McTeer,2012). Sports competition has been considered positive leisure involvement because of its contribution to developmental outcomes for a healthy lifestyle. Through exposure to sports early in life, sports participation can bring sound behavioral development. In addition to the physical domain, psychosocial beneﬁts can result from sports participation. For example, youth sports provide an arena for the development of moral attitudes and social behaviors, including cooperation and healthy competition (Branta, Lerner, & Taylor, 1996;Holt,

Address correspondence to Hong Suk Choi, Health, Physical Education and Recreation, Missouri Western State University, 4525 Downs Drive, St. Joseph, MO 64507. E-mail: [email protected]

191 192 H. S. Choi, B. Johnson, and Y. K. Kim

Kingsley, Tink, & Scherer, 2011;Light,2010). These contexts allow for the development of positive and negative behavior ranging from empathy to aggression and from fairness to depersonalization of others. While competition in sports inﬂuences children’s development, there is also a different aspect of human development that is inﬂuenced through sports competition. Beside positive outcomes in competition, many studies have indicated the costs of competition in youth sports. Though youth sports participation has either been steady or increased in the United States (National Alliance for Youth Sports, 2013), the hurried pace of society places children in stressful and competitive environments. Parents and coaches either have too little guidance or too much involvement in their children’s development through sports (Lauer, Gould, Roman, & Pierce, 2010). Since most sports are taught by adults who are focused on winning, many sports create too many losers for each winner and teach a dangerously over- competitive principle (Scanlan et al., 2005). Therefore, competition in sports reinforces unacceptable and impractical behaviors, such as poor social skills, unrealistic expectations, and poorly developed self-concepts (Branta, 2010;Gould&Carson,2004;McCormack& Chalip, 1988). It is well proven that competition in sports both positively and negatively affects physical, psychosocial, behavioral, and spiritual aspects of development. While providing opportunities for engagement with others through competition in youth sports, these activities also provide contexts for learning (Theokas, 2009;White&McTeer,2012). Each context engages participants in a set of behaviors and rules that results in learning skills and a body of knowledge. Therefore, we examine the positive and negative implications of competition in sports on derivative, adjustive, generative, and maladaptive development in children. Then, we discuss a new games approach that promotes positive outcomes in a child development.

Derivative Development Derivative development drives children’s involvement in competitive sports. Traditionally, as people age, they go through different stages of development that are crucial to their success in life (Erikson, 1963;Piaget,1963). In the case of obtaining cognitive skills through competition, most 7-year-old children do not yet have the mental capacity to comprehend the role of their position when compared to most 15-year-old adolescents who can strate- gize in order to play well (Kleiber, 1999). While many theories abound as to how people develop in each of these areas, the most accepted theories of cognitive and psychosocial

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:48 17 August 2014 development are the developmental stages and tasks proposed by Erikson and Piaget. Changes in what children choose to do as they age reflect changing issues and tasks. Thus, children’s behavior and experience through competition in sports are merely expressions of the biological and social developments the children are going through (Barnett & Weber, 2008;Kleiber,1999). The earliest age children start to compete in sports is around three years of age, thus encompassing the third to fifth stages of Erikson’s theory (1963)and the preoperational to the formal operational stages of Piaget’s concept (1963). Within each stage, it is proposed that children establish a new orientation to themselves and other people in their social world. New social orientations, newfound conditions of life, and emerging developmental tasks influence and transform children’s activities (Kleiber). Further, competitive games provide significant contexts for childhood socialization (Baker et al., 2009; Ford, Collins, Bailey, Macnamara, Pearce, & Toms, 2012). While children’s competition in sports is externally driven by adult influences in Erikson’s (1963)thirdstage,childrenwanttobegoodattheirsportskillsandbetterthan Children’s Development Through Sports Competition 193

other children in the fourth stage. Through competition, children not only develop physically and enjoy feeling part of the group, but also gain an appreciation for physical activity, responsibility, and sportsmanship (Capps, 2007). Moreover, they are able to practice taking on rules and reciprocally influencing their peers. In the fifth developmental stage, adolescents begin to define themselves as unique and different from others. They may participate in various sports and leisure activities both alone and with peers, and those activities play a prominent role in the identity defining and competing processes (Kleiber, 1999). Meanwhile, Piaget (1963)believedthatchildrenactivelyconstructtheirownknowl- edge of the environment using what they already know to interpret new events and objects. He proposed that children’s development follows an invariant sequence, and, thus, children’s play will change as they move through the various periods of development. As children develop, their methods of play change through competition. Competition, life and leisure events, and children’s social expectations and role responsibilities all influence behavior. Competition may make life events more tolerable and manageable (Fox & Riconscente, 2008). When children engage in associative play (e.g., imitate each other or play pretend) during Piaget’s (1963)preoperationalstage,theyparticipateingameswithrules.They organize themselves collectively for play activities in the concrete operational stage. Games and sports are the primary context for children to learn organizational skills such as the ability to manage and cope with a diversity of perspectives, adjudicate disputes, and work for collective goals (Curelaru, Abalasei, & Cristea, 2011;James,2001;Light,2010). Through trial and error in play and the constant repetition of practice for sports competition, children can increase their self-esteem and self-confidence (Schumacher Dimech & Seiler, 2011;Singer&Gerson,1980;Weiss,2008). Thus, sports competition provides excellent opportunities to strengthen children’s character. In the concrete operational stage, adolescents further develop the ability to use propositional, inductive, and deductive logic (Piaget, 1963). These skills are demonstrated in a typical high school football game as strategies are outlined by the team members in a huddle and players remember plays, where to go and what to do (Bibace, 2013;Malerstein&Ahern,1979;Nakagaki,2011;Valsiner,2005). Children develop their social adjustment, integration, and emotional growth through sports competition. Sports activity among children helps establish and maintain social affinities (Curelaru et al., 2011). Interaction with others while playing can be beneficial for the development of normal social behavior. One of the most important social functions of sports competition is enabling the children to learn proper social communication (Light, 2010). During competitive sports, children can learn patterns of social cooperation without

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:48 17 August 2014 exceeding certain limits of aggression (Russell, 2007). Playing with other children is perhaps the major context for learning social skills, and it is regarded as an important factor in social integration. Competition in sports brings out cooperative efforts among teammates pursuing a common goal (James, 2001;Wong&Bridges,1995). Involvement in sports is encouraged because it is thought to contribute to the child’s ability to work with others in the achievement of shared goals. Therefore, competition in sports helps children to learn to work together to strive for mutual goals and reduce the overemphasis and pressure on winning (Lauer et al., 2010).

Adjustive Development Adjustive development maintains that sports competition allows for a respite from the developmental pressures and stresses of life (Kleiber, 1999). Kleiber believed that people can 194 H. S. Choi, B. Johnson, and Y. K. Kim

learn valuable lessons through negative life events. Since individuals likely perceive various constraints (intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural components) differently, they adopt distinctive patterns of negotiation to continue participation in sports (Crawford, Jackson, &Godbey,1991;Hwang&Choi,2012). To be engaged in sports competition, children must successfully utilize negotiating strategies to overcome the effects of constraints by acquiring information, altering the scheduling of games, and developing specific sport skills (Scott, 1991). Jackson and Rucks (1995)empiricallyexaminedvariousapproachesofnegotiation strategies in sports participation among high school students. When adolescents confronted constraints, they used various negotiation strategies such as cognitive resources (e.g., ignore problems, be positive, and have fun) and behavioral resources (e.g., modifying time and commitments, acquiring skills, changing interpersonal relations, improving finances, undergoing physical therapy, and changing leisure aspirations). Because constraints are connected to sports competition, adolescents often negotiate a specific constraint by implementing negotiation strategies related to that particular constraint (e.g., engaging in sports with people of similar age to overcome interpersonal constraints). Different populations with chronic disabling conditions also experience constraints when they participate in physical activities (Henderson, Bedini, Hecht, & Schuler, 1995; Lyu, Oh, & Lee, 2013). Individuals who participate in any given sport repeatedly implement various strategies to alleviate the effects of constraints, either by altering their sport or modifying other aspects of their lives (Hwang & Seo, 2009). For example, Henderson and her associates (1995)describedthatwomenwithchronicpainconditionsweresuccess- fully involved in physical activities through the use of negotiation strategies, which allowed them to respond to constraints actively rather than passively, resist gender role expectations, and balance the benefits and costs of participation. According to a study about magazine portrayal of recovery and adjustment following men’s spinal cord injuries, three themes (a commitment to battle, heroic qualities, and heroic action) affect an individual’s successful adjustment to his or her injuries (Hutchinson & Kleiber, 2000). This type of approach may improve psychosocial and emotional development by providing a positive impact on adjustment to men’s spinal cord injuries. In another study of the emotional adjustment and continuity of leisure activities in people with spinal cord injuries, participants continued participating in activities they did prior to their injuries, but struggled emotionally in attempting to find reasons to continue the activity (Lee, Dattilo, Kleiber, & Caldwell, 1996). When the patient was able to establish a connection to life before the injury occurred, he or she was on the road to recovery. Sports as well as leisure activities are adjustive at times

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:48 17 August 2014 because they provide a degree of continuity in the face of loss. Children’s identities can be transformed and developed through sports competition. Groff and Kleiber (2001)foundthatchildrenwithdisabilitieswhoparticipatedinsportsdis- covered a freedom to express themselves and had a decreased awareness of their disability. Further, based on personality traits, individuals with disabilities adopt diverse negotiation strategies to participate in sports (Lyu et al., 2013). Similar results were found in a study on self-efficacy in the constraints negotiation process among people with fibromyalgia syndrome (Loucks-Atkinson & Mannell, 2007). Higher levels of negotiation efficacy increased both motivation and negotiation efforts while higher levels of motivation increased efforts to negotiate and participate. Therefore, the majority of children in adapted sports programs show remarkable improvements in skill, competence, emotional expression, and social interaction with others while decreasing awareness of their own disability. Sports, as well as leisure activities, come into play both in the experience of loss and in the process of adjustment and transformation. Physiologically, activities that bring about Children’s Development Through Sports Competition 195

laughter, peace, and ﬂow are potentially restorative and therapeutic. In addition, meaningful activities, such as sports or leisure for those with disabilities, can be a respite or abuffer.AsKleiber(1999)suggested,enjoymentofleisuresportsmayindeedbethe best medicine in some cases because such enjoyment provides fun, meaningful patterns of personal expression, in the course of personal transformation, and adjustment.

Generative Development Generative development asserts that competition in youth sports fosters development. Competition can be beneficial to children in several ways. Because of the benefits of competition, many children are encouraged to participate in sports (Holt et al., 2011;Weiss, 2008). Competition provides a background for creating personal growth and transformation (Curelaru et al., 2011;Watson,1984). For children, experimental play generates alternatives that are distinctive, while repetitive practice play offers conforming, adaptive purpose (Gould & Carlson, 2004;Wong&Bridges,1995). There is no doubt that competition provides children with excellent opportunities to build their skills. According to Murphy (1999), a competitive urge is crucial for improving the skills of an individual; improvement of skills leads to higher levels of performance. In competition, children learn and improve not only skills, but also mental, emotional, and spiritual strength by setting goals to achieve them. Children are motivated by others through competition. Better performances are produced when children are challenged by their competitors (James, 2001). Competition encourages children to reflect on their behavior under emotionally intense situations and to develop strong emotional intelligence (Scanlan et al., 2005). In competition, children learn effective emotional and psychological skills and strategies to deal with winning and losing, as well as success and failure. Competitive sports that promote a sense of self-determination and competence tend to enhance intrinsic motivation. Experience and self-determination significantly influence both perceived competence and motivation (Light, 2010;Singer&Gerson,1980). These are helpful for children throughout their life- time. Therefore, the value of competition results in long-term success; it helps children be better prepared for the challenges they will face in the future. Although competition produces anxiety, pressure, and stress, competitive sports are no more anxiety-evoking than other experiences such as test taking in the classroom. Many studies regarding sports competition revealed that constant exposure to, or experience under, stress can result in the development of the ability to function adequately

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:48 17 August 2014 in stressful situations (Branta, 2010;Holtetal.,2011;Light,2010;Lindner&Johns, 1991). For instance, in golf, pressure increases children’s motivation to practice and boosts their concentration, which helps them with a difficult shot, and supplies extra energy or adrenaline for a long drive. Through this experience, children can better handle emotional and psychological pressures. According to Boyd and Callaghan (1994), there is a direct, fundamental link between competence and performance and an indirect link between competence and physical achievement. Further, control and competence are correlated. External control negatively determines both perceived competence and a preference for a challenge. An internal perception of control positively influences children’s preference for a challenge. Feelings of anxiety and the behavior of coaches significantly influence children’s perception of control. Children who perceive themselves as competent persist longer and maintain greater interest in a particular skill domain. It is assumed that unknown control is associated with higher levels of physical performance and is predictive of an intrinsic motivational orientation. 196 H. S. Choi, B. Johnson, and Y. K. Kim

It seems obvious that most people compete in games voluntarily because it challenges them and gives them pleasure. The voluntary control of attention in most competition enhances both enjoyment and developmental impact (Siegenthaler & Gonzalez, 1997; Weiss, 2008). Control of attention during free-time activities, as it is applied to improving competence and maintaining enjoyment, results in the kind of self-discipline that is necessary for success in other areas of life (Hofferth & John, 2001). For this reason, competition in sports can be a major source of joy. In children’s play, derivative, adjustive, and generative development can overlap. Development is an active process, not something that simply happens to someone. Children are likely to choose which sports activities they engage in (either alone or with others) based on whether or not the activities are enjoyable or self-expanding (Findley & Bowker, 2009). In other words, play may be an expression of a new stage of cognitive development, a way of working through fears and anxieties in play therapy, or a bold venture into new representations of reality (Kleiber, 1999).

Maladaptive Development Although there are many beneﬁts of competition, there are also costs and downfalls. Competition can hinder children’s development because there is the possibility of over- investment in competition. Competition is a process of social evaluation against an objective standard. Due to adults’ pervasive behaviors surrounding competitiveness, children also may focus on winning rather than on the task orientation aspect of the competition. Competition provides a circumstance that could produce the fear and stress of failure (Ramsey & Rank, 1997;SchumacherDimech&Seiler,2011). For instance, children who are introverts may tend to cope more productively with successive events by becoming more active, demanding, and inquisitive of their surroundings than before. Children can enjoy sports activities when they are intrinsically motivated. However, if they are unable to deal with the pressure or there is too much emphasis on winning, children are no longer intrinsically motivated to compete. This may cause children to withdraw from sports and may also distract from their psychosocial and cognitive development. In competition, rigid rules and extrinsic rewards are imposed. For this reason, competition can be counter-productive. Rather than motivating children to play, improve their skills, and experience intrinsic rewards from the activity itself, competition imposes an external form of control that simply shifts attention to extrinsic factors. These factors can cause people to focus their attention on the goal at the expense of learning the task. Competition also

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:48 17 August 2014 causes children to derive satisfaction from external sources rather than from themselves, and they subsequently may lose interest (Findley & Bowker, 2009). According to developmental theory, motivation generally drops in the teen years due to cognitive developmental changes such as realization of lack of talent, not liking the coach, or the emphasis on competition (Butcher, Lindner, & Johns, 2002). Children who lose interest in competition tend to look for other activities that interest them outside of the immediate sport milieu. Competition does not always produce superior performance but instead can actually hurt performances. In today’s sports world, the intense anxiety, pressure, and frustration produced by competition can often choke children’s performances (Scanlan et al., 2005). For example, in a junior golf tournament, many talented players make bad shots at crucial moments and ruin their game due to the mental pressure of making a good shot. This can cause children to be in a slump, and they can lose self-conﬁdence and self-esteem in the competition. According to competence motivation theory, when children realize they lack competence or are unable to satisfactorily demonstrate achievements, they are no Children’s Development Through Sports Competition 197

longer interested in competition but may look for other sports or leisure activities to give them pleasure (Lindner & Johns, 1991). However, once children withdraw from competition, they may be at-risk to become involved in dangerous, delinquent situations or gang activities. Competition can be ego deflating. It can bring down self-esteem and self-confidence. In competition, someone always has to be the loser. The success of one participant or team causes the failure of another. The experience of losing can be quite damaging to the early stages of building children’s self-esteem. However, the experience of success does not always boost self-esteem. According to achievement orientation theory, when children perform to their ability during competition, they are acknowledged for their achievements from their peers or others (Butcher et al., 2002). Therefore, competition can be positive or negative in terms of self-esteem and confidence. Competition can diminish the enjoyment of the sports activities that have become competitive. In youth sports, many children are playing to win. Pressure to compete can cause children to experience psychological stress disorders with distinct symptomatic behaviors and feelings of mental exhaustion. In elite sports, children may risk prematurely narrowing their identity and neglecting other developmental tasks due to competition (Lauer et al., 2010;Singer&Garson,1980). Further, children may feel they are letting someone down if they lose. The original intention of joining in the play and activities for fun and enjoyment is gone because of the intense competition. According to social exchange theory, the social and psychological changes that come with increasing age cause other leisure and social activities to become more attractive to children (Butcher et al., 2002). Children evaluate the benefits they are deriving from the sports participation against the input that is required and the sacrifices that have to be made. If they discover other beneficial activities, they withdraw from the sport. Competition can produce hostility and aggression among participants (Ramsey & Rank, 1997). Intense levels of competition can cause children to take an aggressive approach to the world. Aggression during competition causes children to do whatever it takes to win, which can result in cheating, loss of sportsmanship, substance abuse, and even intentionally injuring an opponent (Ramsey & Rank). In addition, the competitive orientation of athletics can create a dehumanized, stereotypical perception of the opponent. Because of this, the game resembles a miniature war, because everyone loves his or her own team, but hates the other. Lastly, adults use children’s sports activities as opportunities for their own social interactions. Moreover, adults try to fulfill their need for satisfaction and success through their

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:48 17 August 2014 children. As a result, adults and coaches behave inappropriately at their children’s sports events. Though the structure of youth sports is prohibitive to an aggressive and obtrusive approach, a growing number of parents and coaches seem to be out of control, even using violence and verbal abuse toward their children instead of encouragement (Lauer et al., 2010).

New Games Movement Children’s withdrawal from organized sports is usually due to one of three main reasons: sports-related, milieu-related, and developmental change with age (Butcher et al., 2002). Approximately 75% of kids drop out of sports programs by the time they are 13 years of age because of lack of basic skills or lack of enjoyment (NAYS, 2013). For instance, when the sport no longer satisﬁes the participants, they drop out. Some may return to the sport later, but at a more recreational level because of other developing interests, puberty, sports 198 H. S. Choi, B. Johnson, and Y. K. Kim

burnout, less chance to play, too much pressure, negativity from the coach and the club, competence, injury, and ability (Barnett & Weber, 2008;Butcheretal.,2002). There is no doubt that these issues limit children’s psychosocial, cognitive, and emotional development. One hypothesis for sports withdrawal is that non-sport inﬂuences, such as studying, family commitments, and leisure activities, are often stronger motives for sport disassocia- tion than dissatisfactions with the sport (Lindner & Johns, 1991). Reasons for withdrawal change with age. Activities that increase in preference among adolescents are leisure activities, such as dating, going out, and visiting with friends. Girls’ interests, especially, often shift from sports to more leisurely activities. For instance, the sports dropout rate for girls is six times higher than the dropout rate for boys (Lench, 2013). Among females, sports activities were ranked number 1 among extracurricular activities in grade 6 while sports activities ranked number 5 by grade 10 (Butcher et al., 2002). Alternatives become appealing when the sport no longer fulﬁlls the need. Whether children enjoy their leisure activities or competitive sports, active involvement produces positive outcomes in human development. Currently, approximately 40 million children in the United States participate in organized sports, beginning as young as 4 years of age (NAYS, 2013). In addition to investigated information on dropout patterns and reasons for dropout from competitive sports, youth sports dropouts cannot be considered as a single entity. Since winning does not become important for children until around the age of 10 or 11 years, challenge and cooperation are emphasized along with non-competitiveness (Findley & Bowker, 2009). Through cooperative sports, kids can develop cooperation, creativity, and choice because cooperative games emphasize helping others, collaboration, and cooperation (James, 2001). In this sense, cooperative games, as a serious physical activity in youth sports, are excellent for children’s physical, psychosocial, and cognitive development. In cooperative sports, the group as a whole is more important than individual achievement. Without hindering children’s cognitive and psychosocial development, cooperative sports build social skills that allow children to progress as effective contributing members of society (Branta, 2010). For instance, lessons learned in cooperative sports, such as lower- ing aggressive behavior and violence, carry over to other aspects of life because cooperative games lead to positive socialization with others. Cooperative sports focus on process rather than outcome and strive for a common interest among children. Research on cooperative games has shown increased personal self-esteem, decreased aggressive behaviors, increased cooperation, and enhanced positive socialization among participants (Light, 2010). For example, children discover hidden

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:48 17 August 2014 talents through cooperative sports. They can pass on new information to others and test their new abilities. As a result, cooperative sports increase children’s happiness with the new tasks and abilities they have learned. The combination of cooperative and competitive games is a workable option that should be utilized whenever possible. According to child development and socialization research, parents played the largest role in influencing the healthy development of their children (McCormack & Chalip, 1988; NAYS, 2013). Parenting skills can help avoid specific practices that increase the risk for adolescent problem behaviors. Verbal give-and-take characteristics of parents and children foster cognitive and social competence in children (Lauer et al., 2010). Both parents and children may be reciprocally affecting each other. For instance, authoritative parenting provides nurturing and involvement. It creates an environment more positive and recep- tive to parental influence while giving the children a chance to share their opinions with their parents. Positive parenting can encourage sports participation and may set appropriate development goals for children’s performance in sports. Children’s Development Through Sports Competition 199

If success is experienced when failure was expected and successful performances occur more often than unsuccessful ones, children may begin to attribute this success to their ability. Children who perceive powerful others or unknown sources as being responsible for outcomes in sports report lower levels of competence (Butcher et al., 2002). The more anxious children are, the more likely they are to endorse external sources as being responsible for outcomes in sports. According to attribution theory, children make causal explanations about their own behavior and the behavior of others (Boyd & Callaghan, 1994). Ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck would be factors that children attribute to their behavior. These could be major characteristics of intrinsically motivated behavior. Children should be evaluated on effort rather than on the outcome of the competition. Research has revealed that children with an intrinsic motivational orientation and low parental pressure to participate in sports reported higher levels of season-long enjoyment than did other children (Lauer et al., 2010;Wong&Bridges,1995). The use of external rewards must be used judiciously or else discarded. If used, external rewards should be carefully selected so children understand where, when, and for what actions rewards will be given. Participation in competition should be rewarded rather than actual performance outcomes. The most desirable outcome of participation in competitive youth sports would be the development of positive self-esteem (Curelaru et al., 2011). Coaches and their feedback influence children’s perceived competence and motivation (NAYS, 2013). Adults should lead children to focus on interaction with the activity rather than on defeating an opponent. Applications, such as coach’s training or methods of structuring youth sports, should be used so that children continue to be intrinsically motivated and enjoy their experience. Parents and coaches should give children opportunities to demonstrate mastery or task accomplishment during sports participation and completion rather than through peer comparison (Lauer et al., 2010; Kanters & Estes, 2002). According to social cognitive theory, ataskgoalperspectivereferstoamasteryapproach,self-improvement,andperforming beyond personal expectations; a task goal perspective induces perceptions of competence (Boyd & Callaghan, 1994). This perspective also increases the likelihood that children will continue to maintain healthy, physically active lifestyles and will participate in sports in the long term; this is especially true for children who have yet to acquire motor skill proficiency (Barnett & Weber, 2008;Boyd&Callaghan).

Conclusion

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:48 17 August 2014 We have examined the importance of competition in youth sports in children’s development. Competition in youth sports combines derivative, adjustive, generative, and maladaptive development. Competition is derivative from other aspects of development; it is adjustive in allowing for some respite to developmental pressures and life events; it is generative of developmental changes; it is maladaptive because it can hinder development (Kleiber, 1999). Although unhealthy outcomes such as maladaptive development and sports withdrawal are always possible, we desire the positive aspects of competition in children’s development. The development of children from infancy to adulthood requires substantial parental and community investments of time, as well as psychosocial and emotional effort (Hofferth &John,2001). When adults with healthy beliefs and attitudes are in charge, competition can be used for teaching conﬂict resolution that could lead to the reduction of antisocial behaviors and the enhancement of responsibility and empathy (Theokas, 2009). The sports setting can be a natural place for these behaviors to be modeled and reinforced. 200 H. S. Choi, B. Johnson, and Y. K. Kim

The role of coaches and parents is important to the children’s cognitive development and influences the social, psychological, and emotional benefits the children receive through competition. Coaches and parents can educate children about cooperation, helping, sharing, and how to handle losing in competitions. However, the benefits of competition can be compromised when parents and coaches use youth sports for their own leisure purposes, become violent, or use abusive language towards children participating in youth sports (Kanters & Estes, 2002). The key to using sports as a context for the healthy development of behavior is to start early with programs that use positive role models, reinforce appropriate behaviors, and teach healthy competition and conflict resolution. Participation in cooperative sports is likely to be associated with healthy behaviors because such activities are likely to improve children’s self-esteem through the development of physical and social skills. The outcomes can be extremely positive for youth because the sports context lends itself very well to the development of two qualities—empathy and fairness (Theokas, 2009). In addition to the necessary behavioral skills that are taught, children can practice organizational skills when playing games and become introduced to the issues of personal space, control of force and violence, and respect for others (Gould & Carson, 2004;Hofferth& John, 2001). The children can also become involved in remediation of disputes as the setting becomes a natural context for the development of social skills. Moreover, cooperative sports are linked to both cognitive and psychosocial development. Those who play cooperative sports are better problem solvers and have fewer emotional problems (Ramsey & Rank, 1997). The cognitive skills learned on the playing field contribute to problem solving, and the social and physical skills developed contribute to better emotional adjustment (Light, 2010). The cooperative sports context can be used as an alternative way to teach healthy competition or to limit the development of aggression. Foremost, children’s activity should be personally meaningful and challenging or personally expressive whether the activity is a competition, a leisure activity, or a cooperative sport. Through these activities, children can obtain a sense of self and the realization of personal potential (Kleiber, 1999). By participating in these activities, children can feel comfortable being themselves rather than basing their self-perceptions on the evaluations of others. No matter which activities children enjoy, they intrinsically associate the activity with self-expression. Thus, competition, leisure activities, and cooperative sport that are intrinsically motivated can all have a positive influence on the development of children.

References Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:48 17 August 2014 Baker, J., Cobley, S., & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2009). What do we know about early sport specialization? Not much! High Ability Studies, 20,77–89. Barnett, L. A., & Weber, J. J. (2008). Perceived beneﬁts of children from participation in different types of recreational activities. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 26(3), 1–20. Bibace, R. (2013). Challenges in Piaget’s legacy. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 47(1), 167–175. Branta, C. F. (2010). Sport Specialization: Developmental and learning issues. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 81(8), 19–28. Branta, C. F., Lerner, J. V., & Taylor, C. S. (1996). Physical activity and youth sports: Social and moral issues. Journal of Peace Psychology, 2,301–303. Boyd, M., & Callaghan, J. (1994). Task and ego goal perspectives in organized youth sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 22, 411–424. Butcher, J., Lindner, K., & Johns, D. (2002). Withdrawal from competitive youth sport: a retrospec- tive ten-year study. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25, 145–163. Children’s Development Through Sports Competition 201

Capps, D. (2007). Mother, melancholia, and play in Erik H. Erikson’s childhood and society. Journal of Religion & Health, 46, 369–383. Crawford, D. W., Jackson, E. L., & Godbey, G. C. (1991). A hierarchical model of leisure constraint. Leisure Sciences, 13,309–320. Curelaru, M., Abalasei, B., & Cristea, M. (2011). Psychosocial correlates of the need for physical education and sports in High School. Journal of Social Sciences, 7, 521–528. Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and Society.NewYork,NY:W.W.Norton. Findley, L. C., & Bowker, A. (2009). The Link between competitive sport participation and self- concept in early adolescence: A consideration of gender and sport orientation. Journal of Youth Development, 38,29–49. Ford, P., Collins, D., Bailey, R., Macnamara, A., Pearce, G., & Toms, M. (2012). Participant development in sport and physical activity: The impact of biological maturation. European Journal of Sport Science, 12, 515–526. Fox, E., & Riconscente, M. (2008). Metacognition and self-regulation in James, Piaget, and Vygotsky. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 373–389. Gould, D., & Carson, S. (2004). Fun and games. Youth Studies Australia, 23,19–26. Groff, D. G., & Kleiber, D. A. (2001). Exploring the identity formation of youth involved in an adapted sports program. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 35, 318–332. Henderson, K. A., Bedini, L. A., Hecht, L., & Schuler, R. (1995). Women with disabilities and the negotiation of leisure constraints. Leisure Studies, 14,17–31. Hofferth, S., & John, S. (2001). How American children spend their time. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 295–308. Holt, N. L., Kingsley, B. C., Tink, L. N., & Scherer, J. (2011). Beneﬁts and challengers associated with sport participation by children and parents from low-income families. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 12, 490–499. Hutchinson, S. L., & Kleiber, D. A. (2000). Heroic masculinity following spinal cord injury: Implications for therapeutic recreation practice and research. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 34, 42–54. Hwang, S., & Choi, H. S. (2012). Testing the mediated effects of leisure constraints negotiation on recreation specialization among alpine skiers. Journal of Leisure & Recreation Studies, 36(2), 41–65. Hwang, S., & Seo, H. (2009). Relationship among leisure constraints, leisure constraints negotiation, and serious leisure. Korean Journal of Sport Science, 20, 298–307. Jackson, E. L., & Rucks, V. C. (1995). Negotiation of leisure constraints by junior-high and high- school students: An exploratory study. Journal of Leisure Research, 27,85–105. James, J. D. (2001). The role of cognitive development and socialization in the initial development of team loyalty. Leisure Studies, 23, 233–261. Kanters, M., & Estes, C. (2002). Parents and youth sports. Parks and Recreation, 37,20–27. Kleiber, D. A. (1999). Leisure experience and human development: A dialectical interpretation.New Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:48 17 August 2014 York, NY: Basic. Lauer, L., Gould, D., Roman, N., & Pierce, M. (2010). Parental behaviors that affect junior tennis player development. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 487–496. Lee, Y., Dattilo, J., Kleiber, D., & Caldwell, L. (1996). Exploring the meaning of continuity of recreation activity in the early stages of adjustment for people with spinal cord injury. Leisure Sciences, 18, 209–225. Lench, B. (2013). Sports dropout rate for girls six times rate for boys. Retrieved from http:// www.momsteam.com/successful-parenting/youth-sports-parenting-basics/parenting-girls/sports- dropout-rate-for-girls-six Light, R. L. (2010). Children’s social and personal development through sport: A case study of an Australian swimming club. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 34, 379–395. Lindner, K. J., & Johns, D. P. (1991). Factors in withdrawal from youth sports: A proposed model. Journal of Sport Behavior, 14,3–20. 202 H. S. Choi, B. Johnson, and Y. K. Kim

Loucks-Atkinson, A., & Mannell, R. C. (2007). Role of self-efficacy in the constraints negotiation process: The case of individuals with fibromyalgia syndrome. Leisure Sciences, 29,19–36. Lyu, S. O., Oh, C. O., & Lee, H. (2013). The influence of extraversion on leisure constraints negotiation process: A case of Korean people with disabilities. Journal of Leisure Research, 45, 233–252. Malerstein, A. J. & Ahern, M. M. (1979). Piaget’s stages of cognitive development and adult character structure. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 33,107–118. McCormack, J., & Chalip, L. (1988). Sport as socialization: A critique of methodological premises. The Social Science Journal, 25,83–92. Murphy, S. (1999). Cheers and the tears: A healthy alternative to the dark side of youth sports today. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Nakagaki, A. (2011). The significance and potential of Piaget’s developmental stage theory. Japanese Journal of Developmental Psychology. 22, 369–380. National Alliance for Youth Sports (NAYS). (2013). The start smart sports development programs. Retrieved from http://www.nays.org/Sports_Programs/start_smart/sport_development_program. cfm Piaget, J. (1963). The Origins of Intelligence in Children.NewYork,NY:InternationalUniversities Press. Ramsey, G., & Rank, B. (1997). Rethinking youth sports. Parks and Recreation, 32,30–36. Russell, J.S. (2007). Children and dangerous sport and recreation. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 34, 176–193. Scanlan, T. K., Babkes, M. L., & Scanlan, L. A. (2005). Participation in sport: A developmental glimpse at emotion. In J. L. Mahoney, R. W. Larson, & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after-school and community programs (pp. 275–310). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Schumacher Dimech, A., & Seiler, R. (2011). Extra-curricular sport participation: A potential buffer against social anxiety symptoms in primary school children. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12, 347–354. Scott, D. (1991). The problematic nature of participation in contract bridge: A qualitative study of group-related constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13, 321–336. Siegenthaler, K. L., & Gonzalez, G. L. (1997). Youth sports as serious leisure. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 21, 298–314. Singer, R. N., & Gerson, R. F. (1980). Athletic competition for children: Motivational considerations. International Journal of Psychology, 11, 249–262. Theokas, C. (2009). Youth Sport Participation—A view of the issues: Introduction to the special section. Developmental Psychology, 45, 303–306. Valsiner, J. (2005). Participating in Piaget. Society. 42(2), 57–61. Watson, G. (1984). Competition and intrinsic motivation in children’s sports and games: A conceptual analysis. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 15, 205–218. Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:48 17 August 2014 Weiss, M. R. (2008). 2007 C. H. McCloy lecture: “Field of Dreams”: Sport as a context for youth development. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79, 434–449. White, P., & McTeer, W. (2012). Socioeconomic status and sport participation at different developmental stages during childhood and youth: Multivariate analyses using Canadian national survey data. Sociology of Sport Journal, 29, 186–209. Wong, E. H., & Bridges, L. J. (1995). A model of motivational orientation for youth sport: Some preliminary work. Adolescence, 30,61–69. Developmental Review 32 (2012) 337–359

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Developmental Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dr

Children’s lies and their detection: Implications for child witness testimony

a, b Victoria Talwar ⇑, Angela M. Crossman a Department of Counselling and Educational Psychology, McGill University, 3700 McTavish Street, Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 1Y2 b Department of Psychology, John Jay College-CUNY, 524 W 59th Street, New York, NY 10019, United States article info abstract

Article history: The veracity of child witness testimony is central to the justice sys- Received 3 June 2012 tem where there are serious consequences for the child, the Available online 16 July 2012 accused, and society. Thus, it is important to examine how children’s lie-telling abilities develop and the factors that can inﬂuence Keywords: their truthfulness. The current review examines children’s lie-tell- Deception ing ability in relation to child witness testimony. Although Lie-telling Honesty research demonstrates that children develop the ability to lie at Child witness testimony an early age, they also understand that lie-telling is morally unacceptable and do not condone most types of lies. Children’s ability to lie effectively develops with age and is related to their increasing cognitive sophistication. However, even children’s early lies can be difﬁcult to detect. Greater lie elaboration requires greater skill and children’s ability to lie effectively improves with development and as a function of cognitive skill. Different methods of promoting children’s truthful reports as well as the social and motivational factors that affect children’s honesty will be discussed. Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Scientists and laypersons alike have long been fascinated by children’s lie-telling. Not only can it have practical consequences, it also can serve as a lens through which one can examine a multitude of behaviors, including children’s developing cognitive, social, and moral abilities (Darwin, 1877; Hall, 1891; Hartshorne & May, 1928; Stern & Stern, 1909/1999). The scientific study of the development of lying began around the turn of the 20th century, when the field of developmental psychology was just being established. However, given the broader field’s shift away from examining social influences and

Corresponding author. ⇑ E-mail address: [email protected] (V. Talwar).

0273-2297/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2012.06.004 338 V. Talwar, A.M. Crossman / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 337–359 mental activity toward behaviorist principles, the investigation of deception lay dormant for nearly half a century. During the last three decades, as cognitive factors regained acceptance among developmental scientists as playing a role in the development of intentional systems in children, lying has again become a focus of investigation. The widespread prevalence of lying in everyday life (e.g., DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein, 1996), coupled with a strong emphasis on the promotion of children’s truthful behaviors in society (e.g., Aldridge & Cameron, 1999; Bull, 1995; Goodman & Bottoms, 1993), have also made the topic of interest to parents, educators, and professionals who work with children in clinical and forensic settings. Research on children’s lying behavior has been of particular interest to psychology-law and forensic scholars studying child witness testimony. In recent years, there has been a steady increase in the number of children testifying in court proceedings in North America (Bala, Lee, Lindsay, & Talwar, 2000), and courts have been concerned about the reliability of such witnesses (London & Nunez, 2002; Morris, Laney, Bernstein, & Loftus, 2006; Robinson & McGuire, 2006; Talwar, Lee, Bala, & Lind- say, 2004). However, even young children are able to produce accurate accounts of past events (Koriat, Goldsmith, Schneider, & Nakash-Dura, 2001). Although young children can be suggestible (Bruck & Ceci, 1999), children as young as 3 years of age are capable of accurately responding to questions during interviews, despite an interrogator using misleading questioning techniques (Ornstein, Gordon, & Larus, 1992). Hence, children’s ability to recall and report events from memory is not as poor as once suspected and children can make competent witnesses when truthfully recalling an event. Beyond their capacity to testify, children’s truthfulness when testifying is of critical importance. However, few studies have investigated children’s abilities to tell fabricated stories. Unlike a false memory, where a person truly believes their memory is accurate or their statement is truthful, a fabricated story is a report where a person intentionally lies. Research investigating children’s lying (and/ or barriers to their truth-telling) might be especially relevant to custody proceedings or child abuse cases. Thus, forensic psychologists and justice system professionals are interested in understanding the motivations for and development of children’s lie-telling behavior, whether child witnesses understand the importance of honesty, whether there are ways of distinguishing between children’s truthful and deceitful statements, and what measures can be taken to facilitate children’s truthful reports. Forensically, it is crucial to identify false reports. Children’s testimony can be the deciding factor when assessing the guilt of a defendant or the outcome of a custody hearing. False or coached reports can have severe consequences if an innocent person is accused. Moreover, if children’s honest testimony is perceived as untrustworthy and lacking in credibility, then actual child abuse victims may be doubted, remain in danger, and justice will not be served (Goodman, 2006). The current review will describe the development of deception in children and explore the implications of lie-telling and the detection of children’s lies for child witness testimony.

The development of lying in children

Motivations for lying

Lying is commonly defined as a statement communicated with the intent to mislead another into believing something to be true that the lie-teller knows to be false (e.g., Bok, 1978/1999; Chisholm & Feehan, 1977; Coleman & Kay, 1981; Lee, 2000). That is, there is a discrepancy between what is said by the lie-teller and what the lie-teller knows to be true. Although most of our daily communications with others are truthful, lying is more than an occasional occurrence. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that adults tell lies on a daily basis (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998; DePaulo et al., 1996), with a multitude of underlying motivations and rationales for doing so. Some lies are antisocial in nature. These lies are typically self-serving, told to protect oneself from harm or for personal gain. For instance, a child may choose to lie because they fear punishment after committing a transgression and wish to protect themselves from that negative consequence. Anecdotal evidence and observational studies suggest that the earliest lies children tell are to escape imminent punishment. These early lies tend to be unsophisticated, often readily detected with some probing, and are generally self-protective in nature, not intended to harm others (Talwar & Crossman, 2011). Indeed, the most frequent lies that V. Talwar, A.M. Crossman / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 337–359 339 children tell tend to be lies to conceal misdeeds (Newton, Reddy, & Bull, 2000; Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986; Wilson, Smith, & Ross, 2003). Other early lies that children tell are lies to obtain a reward, and these may be motivated first by a desire for material benefits (i.e., a cookie from a forbidden cookie jar) and later by a desire for social rewards (e.g., self-presentation lies). For instance, children might lie to claim someone else’s work as their own to win a prize. One might also lie for impression management, as when a child lies to their peers about their athletic abilities to appear more attractive or accomplished. In forensic contexts, children may lie for material/financial reasons (e.g., to get disability benefits or accommodations), to avoid punishment (e.g., feign incompetence), to please another person (e.g., custodial parent) or to be seen as important or credible by adults. For example, Lyon and colleagues (e.g., Evans & Lyon, 2011) have demonstrated that children will answer court competency examination questions incorrectly, despite knowing the correct answers, ostensibly for fear of seem- ing dishonest, but in ways that likely undermine their own credibility (e.g., stating that they have never lied before). While some lies are primarily self-serving, other types of lies are told to benefit others. These lies might be prosocial in nature, but they are not necessarily so. For example, some lies are told to be polite, such as telling Grandma that you love the knitted, itchy, woolen socks she made for you, even though you dislike them. Such politeness lies are often told to prevent hurt feelings and to smooth social relations and tend not to be judged harshly by others (Crossman et al., submitted for publication; Ning & Crossman, 2007). However, one can also lie to conceal another’s transgression, perhaps for their protection. For instance, an adolescent might lie to help a peer get out of a difficult situation (e.g., perjury for a friend), a lie that does benefit another, but would not be perceived as prosocial or socially acceptable. While there has been extensive research on adults’ lie-telling behavior (e.g., Bond et al., 1992; DePaulo & Kashy, 1998; DePaulo et al., 1996; Ekman, 1985; Ekman & O’Sullivan, 1991), research is limited on the motivations for children’s lie-telling. However, in large part, it appears that children are motivated to tell lies for the same reasons as adults (Newton et al., 2000; Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986; Wilson et al., 2003). As children’s lies about their own or another person’s wrongdoings are most relevant to child witness testimony, this review will focus on those types of lies (see Talwar & Crossman, 2011, for discussion of the development of prosocial lie-telling).

Children’s understanding of lies

Early research on children’s lying examined their conceptual and moral understanding of lies (e.g., Piaget, 1932/1965). This research demonstrated that children’s understanding of what it means to lie evolves over time, seemingly from a concrete, literal conceptualization to an abstract construct (e.g., Bussey, 1992, 1999; Bussey & Grimbeek, 2000; Peterson, Peterson, & Seeto, 1983; Piaget, 1932/1965; Strichartz & Burton, 1990). Specifically, children’s initial understanding of truth and lies emerges early in the preschool years. Piaget (1932/1965) first reported that young children did not differentiate among types of inaccurate statements (e.g., lies versus guesses), making factuality rather than intentionality critical, and that they primarily distinguished a lie from the truth based on the degree to which the lie-teller would be punished for their false statement. However, Peterson et al. (1983) found that 5-year-olds did not judge a punished lie any worse than an identical, unpunished self-protective lie. They also found the transition in lie-telling to be more gradual than Piaget had originally thought, as 75% of 9-year-olds, but only 28% of 11-year-olds cited punishment as their only motivation for not telling lies and that lies were wrong regardless of the possible consequences (Peterson et al., 1983). Indeed, other studies have also found that even very young children rate lying as a negative behavior, particularly for self-serving lies, and recommend that story characters tell the truth (e.g., Bussey, 1992, 1999; Crossman et al., submitted for publication; Talwar, Lee, Bala, & Lindsay, 2002; Wagland & Bussey, 2005). In terms of children’s understanding of the defining qualities of truths and lies, Strichartz and Burton (1990) also found that children as young as 3 years defined a statement as a lie solely based on factuality (see also Lyon, Carrick, & Quas, in press). It was not until ages 6–10 years that children tended to consider the speaker’s beliefs and intentions when characterizing the honesty of their statements (Strichartz & Burton, 1990). However, others have shown that even young children (aged 340 V. Talwar, A.M. Crossman / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 337–359

4 years) can differentially evaluate lies told with different intentions (e.g., to harm or protect another; Bussey, 1992, 1999; Crossman et al., submitted for publication; Siegal & Peterson, 1996). Yet, this ability seems to develop unevenly over time, as Lyon et al. (in press) found that 3- to 5-year-olds were better at identifying truths than lies, while Bussey (1992) found that 8- and 11-year-olds were more accurate at identifying lies than 5-year-olds. Indeed, children seem initially to include all good acts in their concept of truth and all negative acts in their concept of a lie, coming to distinguish between honesty and valence of an action across the preschool years (Wandrey, Quas, & Lyon, in press). Thus, children’s conceptual and moral understanding of lies increasingly differentiates with age, as they develop an appreciation for the intentionality component of lies. That is, ‘‘children understand that lies are false before they understand that lies are intentionally false’’ (Lyon et al., in press, p. 14). Moreover, with age, children begin to differentiate lies from honest mistakes, guesses, exaggerations, jokes, and eventually sarcasm and irony (Creusere, 1999; Perner, 1997). Children also gradually take into consideration the social context in which lies are told. Overall, by early adolescence, children’s conceptual and moral understanding of lying and truth-telling becomes comparable to adults. Beyond its developmental significance, the research on children’s conceptual understanding of truth- and lie-telling has important legal implications. In many jurisdictions, unlike adult witnesses, children must undergo examinations to determine whether they are legally competent to offer sworn testimony (Bala et al., 2000; Haugaard, Reppucci, Laird, & Nauful, 1991; Lyon, 2011). Ques- tions are asked to test the child’s conceptual understanding of truth-telling and lying and to establish the child’s moral commitment to truth-telling (Bala et al., 2000; Haugaard et al., 1991; Lyon, 2000). If the judge is satisfied with the child’s answers, the child will be asked to promise to tell the truth and then be allowed to testify. If not satisfied with the child’s answers, the judge might allow the child to offer unsworn testimony or the child might not be permitted to testify at all. While it is not clear that providing unsworn testimony undermines child credibility (Crossman, 1999), lack of testimony could result in a guilty offender’s acquittal and release. A child’s understanding of truth and lies thus plays a crucial role in court determinations of testimonial competence and potentially of trial outcomes (Bala et al., 2000; Haugaard, 1993; Haugaard et al., 1991; Lyon, 2000, 2011). Indeed, prosecutors in a 1993 survey reported that, in most sexual abuse cases, the testimonial competence of child witnesses was an issue at trial (Smith & Elstein, 1993). It is not uncommon for many attorneys and judges to continue to inquire into children’s understanding of truth and lies (Myers, 2005). In Galindo v. United States (1993), the court stated that a child is competent to testify if he or she is able to ‘‘recall the events which are the subject of the testimony; and ... understand[s] the difference between truth and falsehood and appreciates[s] the duty to tell the truth’’ (pp. 206– 207). In that case, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals upheld a decision that a 3-year-old was competent to testify because of the child’s ‘‘repeated spontaneous insistence that she doesn’t tell lies, that she does tell the truth, that she in her mind feels it was important to tell the truth and not to tell a lie’’ (p. 207). The same court in Owens v. United States (1996) upheld a trial judge’s ruling that an 8- year-old was not competent to testify because ‘‘she specifically stated that she did not understand the difference between the truth and a lie’’ (p. 404). Recently, the significance of children’s ability to demonstrate understanding of such concepts as part of the oath-taking competency in criminal requirements was increased by the United States Supreme Court. Defendants’ rights against the admissibility of hearsay from declarants who fail to testify at trial were expanded (Crawford v. Wash- ington, 2004; Davis v. Washington, 2006), which means that as children who fail to qualify as testimo- nially competent are rendered unavailable, this prohibits admission of their ‘‘testimonial’’ hearsay, including statements to the police and forensic interviewers. This approach has led to the reversal of a number of convictions for crimes allegedly committed against children (e.g., State v. Henderson, 2007; State v. Hooper, 2007). The types of questions that children are asked to establish competency in the courts are often developmentally inappropriate and likely underestimate children’s understanding of these terms (Bala et al., 2000; Evans & Lyon, 2011). This raises concerns about the usefulness of such questioning with child witnesses. More importantly, it is not clear how such evaluations relate to children’s actual lie-telling behavior, which is of greater consequence for the legal system. V. Talwar, A.M. Crossman / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 337–359 341

The relation between beliefs and action

As noted above, child witnesses are typically asked about their understanding of truth and lies as a means of assessing their competence to testify, whether in court or in pretrial interviews (Lyon, Carrick, & Quas, 2010). Such questioning is based on the assumption that once one knows and has internalized that lying is bad, then behavior falls in line and one remains honest. Yet, a moment’s reflection reveals the glaring simplicity of such an argument. Adults tell lies despite knowing that lie-telling is considered morally wrong under most circumstances (Batson & Thompson, 2001) and perjury laws exist to enforce truthfulness in court, as it cannot be assumed. Understanding the concept of lies does not ensure that a child’s statements are true, nor does a lack of clear understanding ensure a child’s dishonesty (Lyon et al., in press; Talwar et al., 2002). Children can tell the truth well before they can define it (Lyon et al., in press). Unfortunately, there has been limited research to examine the association between children’s understanding of lies and their actual lying behavior. Talwar et al. (2002) found no relation between children’s actual lie- and truth-telling and their conceptual and moral understanding of lies. The majority of children reported that lying to conceal a transgression was bad, could correctly identify such a lie, and recommended that others tell the truth. Nevertheless, most of them told lies to conceal their own transgressions. Another study by Talwar et al. (2004) found a significant but modest correlation between children’s conceptual and moral understanding and their lie-telling behavior to conceal a parent’s transgression. Taken together, these studies suggest that typical competency questioning, which asks about children’s understanding of truth and lies in order to assess their likely truthfulness, is an unnecessary barrier to children’s testimony in court. Such a practice might prevent children who are able to give truthful, accurate and useful testimony from testifying. In both Talwar et al. (2002, 2004) studies, children’s conceptual and moral understanding was assessed using typical court procedures for assessing competency (Bala et al., 2000; Lyon, 2000). The procedures were very brief and only assessed whether children had a minimal understanding of lying and truth-telling. As a result, there was low variability in children’s scores, which may have obscured a genuine relationship between children’s developing conceptual and moral knowledge of lies and their lie-telling behavior. However, it is possible that more extensive, developmentally appropriate questioning might find a relation between moral understanding and behavior. To address this possibility, Talwar and Lee (2008) used a battery of measures that assessed the conceptual and moral understanding of lying and honesty in children between 3 and 8 years of age, along with the temptation resistance paradigm for assessing lying behavior. Using this more extensive assessment, Talwar and Lee found that children’s lying behavior was related not to their understanding of lies, but to their moral evaluations of truthful and untruthful statements. Children who admit- ted their transgression were more likely to value truthfulness and give it higher ratings regardless of the situation. In contrast, children who chose to lie tended not to have stringent views about the need to be truthful. These results suggest that children who hold more relativist views about the moral implications of lying might be more inclined to tell lies, while those holding more stringent moral views about lying might be more likely to confess their own transgressions. Thus, while children’s ability to classify whether a statement was the truth or a lie (a common courtroom technique with children) was not related to their behavior, their perceptions of the acceptability of lie-telling were significantly related to lie-telling about their own transgressions. However, it remains unclear how their moral evaluations relate to providing actual testimony in court or to lie-telling about another person’s transgressions.

Children’s lies about their own behavior

Recently, researchers have turned their attention to examining children’s actual lie-telling abilities. Most of this research has examined basic questions about when lie-telling emerges, what types of lies children tell, and their relation to cognitive abilities, particularly children’s meta-representational abilities. Greater clarity in these areas of development can help in assessing whether and when child witnesses might engage in deception. 342 V. Talwar, A.M. Crossman / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 337–359

In theory, lies for self protection or enhancement ought to begin appearing after a sense of self has emerged, which is typically around 2 years of age (Lewis, Stanger, & Sullivan, 1989). One must have a sense of self in order to seek to protect it or enhance it. Indeed, anecdotal evidence and observational studies suggest that children start telling lies as early as 24 months of age (Bussey, 1992; Darwin, 1877; Leekam, 1992; Newton et al., 2000; Wilson et al., 2003). The most frequent lies committed by children this young tend to be antisocial lies used to conceal their misdeeds and protect themselves from the consequences of their transgressions (Newton et al., 2000; Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986; Wilson et al., 2003). While there are reports of children telling self-protective lies to avoid punishment as early as 2½years of age (Newton et al., 2000), experimental studies examining children’s lies to avoid negative consequences and for self-interest have focused mainly on preschool children ages three and up (e.g., Lewis et al., 1989; Polak & Harris, 1999; Talwar & Lee, 2002a), when children’s verbal abilities tend to be better for telling such lies more consistently. Experimental studies contribute heavily to recent research on deception because lying is difficult to observe. By its very nature, it is a behavior that is concealed and can be difficult to detect. As a result, observational studies may not easily capture lying, especially if it is successful. Furthermore, researchers need to know the factual truth (i.e., who ate the cookie) to know if a statement (‘‘no, I didn’t eat it’’) is true or false. However, to effectively capture children’s everyday lie-telling abilities researchers cannot simply instruct children to lie, because that does not create a realistic situation in which the liar is motivated to create a false belief in the listener’s mind. When individuals lie, they typically do so spontaneously, without instructions to do so by the lie-recipient. Thus, researchers have created experimental paradigms to examine children’s spontaneous lie-telling in the laboratory. To best observe lying as it exists in everyday situations, one must create naturalistic conditions in which an individual can spontaneously choose to lie or tell the truth (i.e., are self-motivated to lie) and where the truth is objectively verifiable. A common paradigm used to examine children’s spontaneous lying is the modified temptation resistance paradigm (Lewis et al., 1989; Talwar & Lee, 2002a, 2008; modified from Sears, Rau, & Alpert, 1965). In this paradigm, children are given an opportunity to commit a transgression and are later asked about their behavior. For example, preschool children are commonly invited to play a guessing game where they are instructed not to peek at a toy when an experimenter momentarily leaves the room (e.g., Polak & Harris, 1999; Talwar & Lee, 2002a). Some children choose to peek, others do not. Upon the experimenter’s return, children are asked whether or not they peeked at the toy. Children can choose to lie or tell the truth. This situation is usually videotaped using a hidden camera so that children’s true peeking behavior can be verified and compared with their responses to the experimenter. Children’s behavior in this situation is spontaneous and self- motivated, as they are not directed how to behave. Thus, children who do peek can choose to confess or lie about their transgression. Using such a procedure, researchers have been able to mimic the natural settings in which children lie for their own self-protection and examine their lie-telling abilities. Using this modified temptation resistance paradigm, Lewis et al. (1989) found that a third of 3-year-olds who peeked at the forbidden toy denied peeking. To investigate whether children understood that they had committed a transgression by peeking at the toy, Polak and Harris (1999) replicated the procedure used by Lewis et al. (1989) with 3- and 5-year-olds, and included a control group of children who were permitted to look at the toy. Polak and Harris (1999) found that, compared to control children (i.e., who had permission to look at the toy), children who were prohibited from looking hesitated to look and peeked at the toy less often, as they did interpret peeking as a transgression. Similarly, Talwar and Lee (2002a) investigated children’s lie-telling behavior between 3 and 7 years of age. They found that the majority of children between 4 and 7 years of age lied about peeking at a toy, whereas only about one-third of 3-year-olds lied, a rate similar to that found by Lewis et al. (1989). Talwar, Gordon, and Lee (2007) adapted the temptation resistance paradigm for older children, between 7 and 12 years of age, by asking them to answer trivia questions whose answers were on the back of the exam cards. As with younger children, older children had a chance to peek at a difficult answer when the experimenter left the room and then lie about it upon the experimenter’s return. The majority of older children lied about peeking at the answer. Thus, it appears that some children as young as 2 or 3 years of age, and most children by 4 years of age, do tell lies to conceal transgressions, perhaps to avoid potential punishment. These findings have potentially important legal V. Talwar, A.M. Crossman / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 337–359 343 ramifications. While preschoolers are unlikely to be accused of a criminal transgression, beginning in preschool, any child witness could be motivated to lie to conceal an event that they perceive to be a transgression or for which they anticipate punishment if they tell the truth. In such cases, younger children may be especially influenced by their perceptions of the possibility of punishment (Wagland & Bussey, 2005), highlighting the importance of reassurance to children when interviewing them. Moreover, it highlights both the risk of older children lying about their own transgressions, as well as the risk that they could falsely confess to a crime if their perceptions of the consequences for admission versus continued denial are sufficiently manipulated (Leo, 2009). It is worth noting that the age pattern in which 3-year-olds are relatively less inclined to lie about their transgression than older children has been observed among American, Canadian, British, Chinese, Japanese, and West African children (Lewis, 1993; Polak & Harris, 1999; Talwar & Lee, 2002a, 2011; Talwar et al., 2002; Xu & Lee, 2007). Hence, there is convergent evidence to suggest that this age pattern could be a universal phenomenon and suggests that less concern might be warranted regarding lie-telling among the youngest preschoolers. There is also evidence that children’s lie-telling for personal gain starts to emerge in the preschool years as well. In one study, for instance, children were taught to mislead a puppet about the location of a prize in order to keep the prize for themselves (Sodian, Taylor, Harris, & Perner, 1991). Four-year-old children were reliably capable of committing this deception. In a similar study, Peskin (1992) found that 87% of 5-year-olds lied about the location of a prize to the puppet, whereas only 29% of 3- year-olds did so. Finally, in a recent study, we found that children as young as 3 years of age would falsely claim someone else’s work as their own for personal gain (Crossman, Talwar, Mandelbaum, Saykaly & Segovia, 2011). Hence, it is possible that children could lie in forensic contexts for personal gain – such as feigning severe injury following an accident for financial gain (Carmody & Crossman, 2005, 2011). Overall, these findings demonstrate that children can lie from as early as 2 or 3 years of age and escaping negative consequences is a powerful motivator for these early lies. Thus, in some forensic contexts, children could be motivated to lie to conceal their own misdeeds (real or imagined) if they anticipate punishment for those deeds. In addition, young children are able to lie for their own gain, though it is not clear how frequently they do so in legal settings. However, there is clear risk of older children and adolescents falsely admitting misdeeds to avoid negative consequences and/or to protect loved ones (Leo, 2009; Redlich, Silverman, Chen, & Steiner, 2004). In fact, of particular forensic concern are instances where children testify about transgressions committed by someone else. In these cases, children might be coached to lie about the events and threatened with negative consequences if they tell the truth.

Children’s lies about another’s wrongdoing

An important concern with regard to children in legal settings is the possibility that they may experience coaching by an adult to fabricate, misrepresent or deny an event (e.g., abuse). It has often been claimed that children can be readily manipulated into reporting events that did not actually happen (Ekman, 1989). In particular, it is argued that children may fabricate a report of an alleged event at the behest of an adult, such as abuse allegations against one parent during a custody dispute (Bala & Schuman, 1999; Brennan, 1994; Haugaard & Reppucci, 1992; Jones & McGraw, 1987). In court, de- fense attorneys frequently argue that children fabricated reports of abuse because they were coached to do so (Brennan, 1994). Consequently, research investigating children’s fabricated reports is especially relevant to address issues that might arise during custody proceedings or child abuse cases (putting aside the contentious issue of how frequently such fabricated allegations truly occur; Lyon, 1995; Mikkelsen, Gutheil, & Emens, 1992). Little evidence currently exists regarding children’s intentionally fabricated reports. Lyon, Malloy, Quas, and Talwar (2008) found that children would lie to conceal an adult’s transgression, and that children would fabricate details about an event at the request of an adult. However, we are not aware of any other investigation of children’s intentionally false denials and false assertions or children’s ability to maintain such assertions convincingly when questioned. Yet, it is important to examine whether children can be coached to fabricate false events or false details of an interaction or conceal 344 V. Talwar, A.M. Crossman / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 337–359 a transgression to protect an adult. Children’s ability to maintain such false reports is of particular importance, given the potential implications for forensic settings. In abuse cases, children are typically testifying about another’s transgressions during events that involved an interaction between themselves and an adult. At times, the adult involved may ask the child to keep parts of the events secret and lie to protect the adult (Lyon et al., 2008; Talwar et al., 2004). The scant research on children’s understanding of secrets has reported that younger children are both more (Pipe & Goodman, 1991) and less (Watson & Valtin, 1997) inclined to believe that secrets should be kept. Children’s evaluation of secrets is likely dependent on several factors, including inducements to secrecy by the adult instigator and inducements to disclose by the interviewer. There may also be developmental influences. Older children and adolescents may be less susceptible to inducements to lie due to internalized moral standards against lying, whereas younger children may be less able to remember the instigator’s coaching, less aware of the negative consequences of disclosure and less able to sustain a lie (Bussey & Grimbeek, 1995). Nevertheless, some children may be motivated to tell lies for others to conceal their transgressions. Wilson and Pipe (1989) had an unfamiliar adult ‘‘magician’’ ask 5- and 6-year-olds to conceal the adult’s accidental spillage of ink on a pair of gloves. They found that the children did not spontaneously mention the accident when later interviewed. In a similar study, Pipe and Wilson (1994) had 6- and 10-year-olds participate in a ‘‘magician show’’ in pairs. One child was made an assistant to the magician and the other was a spectator. During the magic show, the magician spilt ink on the assistant’s gloves and asked the child to keep it secret. They found that 6-year-olds were significantly more likely than 10-year-olds to keep the secret about damage caused by the unfamiliar adult when later asked about the event (Pipe & Wilson, 1994). However, of the younger children, 60% revealed the truth about the accident when first interviewed, while 84% of older children revealed the truth. Thus, although some children did comply, particularly younger children, most children were unwilling to lie to conceal the magician’s transgression, which is consistent with an early finding that children would not lie for another child, even though the child had helped them previously (Greenglass, 1972). One possible explanation for Pipe and Wilson’s (1994) finding that most children refused to lie for the magician is that the adult was unfamiliar to the children. Thus, the children did not have a strong motivation to help them by lying for them. If this is true, children should be more likely to lie for someone with whom they are highly familiar. This is, of course, relevant to legal cases in which children are induced to lie by adults with whom they have a close interpersonal relationship, such as maltreatment cases, which are overwhelmingly likely to involve a relative (or partner of a relative; U.S. Department of Health, 2011). Under such circumstances, children may feel a greater motivation to conceal a transgression and may fear negative consequences for their interpersonal relationship if they reveal the truth. Findings by Bottoms, Goodman, Schwartz-Kenney, and Thomas (2002) partially support this explanation. In their study, while the experimenter was out of the room, mothers and children played with ‘‘forbidden’’ toys. Mothers ‘‘accidentally’’ broke one toy and told the children to keep it a secret that they had played with the forbidden toys because she might get in trouble. In this study, older children withheld information when asked to keep their mother’s secret, while younger children did not. Thus, it appears that older children, at least, would be willing to conceal their parents’ transgression, perhaps out of loyalty to them. Children’s loyalty to their parents, however, is rather fragile as evidenced by the findings of Talwar et al. (2004). In their study, parents committed a minor transgression (i.e., breaking a puppet) while the experimenter was out of the room. They coached their child not to tell the experimenter that the parent had broken the puppet because they might get in trouble if the experimenter found out. Later, children were interviewed about what happened to the puppet either with or without parents present. Regardless of condition, the majority of children told the truth and did not conceal their parent’s transgression. In fact, many of the children told on their parents immediately, even though the experimenter had not yet ‘‘noticed’’ the broken puppet. Interestingly, children were more likely to lie for their parents after it was clear to the children that they themselves would not be blamed for breaking the puppet. These results suggest that children will tell lies for others, but may be motivated to do so only when that lie does not impinge on their own self-interest. It may also be that the identity of the interviewer affects children’s disclosure of the truth. In a recent study by Williams, Kirmayer, Simon, and Talwar (submitted for publication), children were more V. Talwar, A.M. Crossman / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 337–359 345 likely to disclose a transgression to a parent than to an unfamiliar researcher. In fact, children’s perceptions of the acceptability of lying are affected by the familiarity and status of the lie-recipient (e.g., adult versus child), as well as the type of lie involved, (Crossman et al., submitted for publication; Ning & Crossman, 2007; Seiter, Bruschke, & Bai, 2002). Hence, it will be important in future studies to examine the influence of familiarity and perceived authority of the interviewer on children’s truth and lie- telling. The impact of such variables is of particular importance to the courts, where children are often interviewed by unfamiliar adults who may (or may not) be perceived as authority figures. How the influence of such variables interacts with inducements by other adults to lie is an important issue for investigation. Overall, then, whether or not children decide to deceive in a situation seems to be based on the child’s assessment of whether doing so will result in a positive or favorable outcome for themselves in adverse circumstances (e.g., reduced punishment or no hurt feelings), and whether it will lead to attainment of some goal, regardless of whether or not the goal is functional (Rogers, 1990). The weighting of various factors in such a cost/benefit analysis likely evolves and broadens with age. For instance, younger children may simply consider immediate concerns, such as the relative benefit or cost to themselves (Popliger, Talwar, & Crossman, 2011) when deciding whether or not to lie. Older children and adolescents, however, may weigh both the immediate benefits of truth- versus lie-telling, as well as longer-term considerations, such as the interpersonal costs of getting caught in a lie (e.g., parental disappointment, peer rejection), as the adaptiveness of lie-telling as a strategy likely shifts with age as well (Talwar & Crossman, 2011). A recent study by Talwar and Lee (2011) illustrates the influence fear of punishment can have on younger children’s lie-telling behavior. In this study, West African children in two schools participated in a temptation resistance paradigm. In one school, a punitive, corporal punishment model was used to punish children and correct their behavior, while the other school did not use corporal punishment. Talwar and Lee found that children in the punitive discipline school were more likely to lie about their transgressions and were better at maintaining their lies in follow-up questioning than children from the non-punitive school. Thus, children in the former school may have learned that lying is a successful strategy for avoiding adverse consequences (Talwar & Lee, 2011). Perhaps they learned that if they committed a transgression, they had nothing to lose by lying: they would be punished severely for the transgression if discovered (and if their lie was discovered), but if they lied successfully, they could possibly avoid punishment completely. Lying was a more adaptive choice than being honest in such an environment. Similarly, children seem more likely to lie for another when the costs or consequences to themselves are minimized (e.g., Popliger et al., 2011; Talwar et al., 2004). Therefore, in attempting to elicit children’s complete and honest reports (and potentially overcome inducements to lie), forensic interviewers must bear in mind the potential impact of this cost-benefit analysis and address children’s perceptions of the consequences of lie- and truth-telling. In addition, when children do decide to lie, it is important to investigate factors that affect their ability to maintain plausible fabricated reports – that is, what factors make their lies successful.

Lie-telling and children’s cognitive development

The creation and maintenance of a lie is a relatively complex task that requires a sophisticated level of cognitive development. A successful liar must take into account another individuals’ knowledge, construct a false statement that differs from their own true beliefs, and readily adapt or manipulate their non-verbal and verbal expressions to remain convincing. Thus, deception is considered to be a hallmark of cognitive maturity that emerges once children begin to understand another’s mental states and consciously control their own behaviors (Talwar & Crossman, 2011). Children’s lie-telling skills continue to evolve throughout their first decade of life (Talwar & Lee, 2008; Talwar et al., 2007) and these improvements appear to coincide with significant advancements in cognition, specifically ‘‘Theory of Mind’’ understanding and executive functioning development (Talwar & Lee, 2008). Similar developmental timelines have led researchers to suspect that these cognitive abilities are closely related to children’s deceptive practices (Carlson, Moses, & Hix, 1998; Lewis et al., 1989; Talwar & Lee, 2002a). However, only recently have researchers begun to empirically investigate the role that 346 V. Talwar, A.M. Crossman / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 337–359 these specific cognitive factors play in children’s abilities to successfully lie (Polak & Harris, 1999; Talwar & Lee, 2008; Talwar et al., 2007).

Theory of mind understanding and lying Theory of mind understanding is commonly defined as the ability to attribute mental states to oneself and others and to recognize that others’ beliefs, desires, and intentions may differ from one’s own (Baron-Cohen, 1999; Wimmer & Perner, 1983). Thus, lying is closely related to this ability as, by definition, telling a lie requires one to intentionally instill a false belief in the mind of another (Bok, 1978; Chandler, Fritz, & Hala, 1989; Polak & Harris, 1999; Talwar & Lee, 2002a; Yirmiya, Solomonica-Levi, & Shulman, 1996). Doing so successfully necessitates an awareness that other peoples’ knowledge of a situation may vary from one’s own and, moreover, awareness that this knowledge can be manipulated through deceit (Talwar & Crossman, 2011). Lying is thus theory of mind in action (Talwar & Lee, 2008) and acts of deception have been identified as early indicators of at least a rudimentary understanding of belief and false belief (Baron-Cohen, 1992; Hala, Chandler, & Fritz, 1991; Sodian, 1991; Sodian et al., 1991). Previous research suggests that children’s theory of mind understanding progresses through two developmental phases (Talwar & Lee, 2008). In the first phase, children acquire a basic awareness of others’ mental states, or first-order belief understanding, around 3–4 years of age (e.g., Chandler et al., 1989; Ruffman, Olson, Ash, & Keenan, 1993; Sodian, 1991; Wellman, Cross, & Watson, 2001). The development of this relatively simple insight corresponds with the emergence of children’s lie- telling behavior (e.g., Lewis et al., 1989; Polak & Harris, 1999; Talwar & Lee, 2002a, 2008). At and after 4 years of age, the majority of children will readily tell a lie to conceal their own transgression which, according to Talwar and Lee (2008), only requires them to represent a belief that is different from the true state of affairs. Indeed, Polak and Harris (1999) reported that most children who chose to lie and deny a minor transgression had high first-order theory of mind understanding scores. Thus, children’s initial lies may reflect their ability to represent a false belief that is different from their own belief about the true state of affairs. Talwar and Lee (2008) also found that children’s performance on false belief tasks predicted false denials of their transgressions. However, at this stage, children appear to have difficulty maintaining their lies. Their subsequent statements following an initial false statement tend to be inconsistent with the initial lie and thus make their deception readily detectable by naïve adults (Talwar & Lee, 2002a). Polak and Harris (1999) also reported that the majority of children (63%), including those with high theory of mind understanding scores, were unable to sustain their lies by appropriately responding to follow-up questions regarding their behavior. In light of this, researchers have suggested a developmental model of deception whereby the decision to tell a lie requires a relatively simple understanding of false beliefs, whereas the ability to maintain the lie during follow-up questioning requires a more advanced belief understanding (Polak & Harris, 1999; Talwar & Lee, 2002a, 2008). At approximately 6 or 7 years of age, children begin to develop a more advanced theory of mind, or second-order belief understanding (Perner & Wimmer, 1985; Sullivan, Winner, & Hopfield, 1995) and it has been suggested this is crucial to the second developmental stage of lying (Talwar & Lee, 2008). Polak and Harris (1999) and Talwar and colleagues (e.g., Talwar & Lee, 2002a, 2008; Talwar et al., 2007) have suggested that this more sophisticated awareness is necessary to sustain a false denial successfully. Children must exercise ‘‘semantic leakage control’’ (i.e., control the semantic content of their statements to avoid providing contradictory information) to feign ignorance and respond consistently to follow-up questions (Talwar & Lee, 2002a, 2002b; Talwar et al., 2007). This requires them to create a false belief in another individual (e.g., ‘‘I didn’t peek at the toy’’) and then infer what belief they ought to have, given the false belief (e.g., ‘‘I don’t know what the toy is’’; Talwar & Lee, 2002a). In other words, they must be able to create a belief based on a false belief, or a second-order belief representation. At this stage, children become gradually more and more sophisticated at semantic leakage control. Children will tell a deliberate lie while ensuring that their subsequent statements do not contradict the initial lie and thus make their deceptive statements difficult to distinguish from statements made by a non-liar. For instance, Talwar et al. (2007) investigated children’s lie-telling practices and second- order belief understanding. Children, 6–11 years of age, participated in the modified temptation V. Talwar, A.M. Crossman / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 337–359 347 resistance task using trivia questions. A series of follow-up questions assessed the children’s ability to exercise semantic leakage control and sustain their initial false denials. As predicted, Talwar et al. (2007) discovered that children with higher second-order belief scores were more likely to successfully control semantic leakage and feign ignorance when responding to follow-up questions by the experimenter. Talwar and Lee (2008) found a similar relationship with their sample of children aged 3–8 years who were told not to peek at a forbidden toy. That is, they reported that children who performed better on first-order belief tasks were more likely to tell an initial lie, and those children who performed better on second-order belief tasks were more likely to provide plausible explanations for knowing the identify of a toy they should not have otherwise known. Further support for a link between children’s false belief understanding and lie-telling abilities comes from studies involving children with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). ASD is commonly associated with deficits in theory of mind understanding (Baron-Cohen, 1992; Baron-Cohen, Leslie, & Frith, 1985). In addition, most research suggests that children with ASD tend to be poor lie-tellers (Baron-Cohen, 1992; Sodian & Frith, 1992). For instance, Baron-Cohen (1992) found that children with ASD demonstrated greater difficulty in the penny hiding deception task compared to typical 3- to 4- year-olds and a mental age-matched, developmentally delayed group. While participants with ASD were able to deceive their opponent by keeping the desired penny out of sight (i.e., object occlusion), they were not able to conceal information about location of the penny (i.e., information occlusion). Furthermore, children’s success on the deception game was significantly correlated with their performance on a false belief task. More recently, Li, Kelley, Evans, and Lee (2010) concluded that although children with ASD tell lies, they tend to have difficulty controlling their verbal expressions and as a result are less able to maintain their initial false denials during follow-up questioning. Talwar, Ras- mussen, Zwaigenbaum, Manji, and Loomes (2012) examined children with ASD’s lie-telling behavior and its relation to false belief understanding with a comparison group of typically developing children. While almost all of the typically developing control children lied about peeking at a toy, significantly fewer children with ASD lied. In addition, children with ASD were poorer at maintaining their lies than the control group and liars had higher false belief scores than truth-tellers. Taken together, research on the development of children’s lying behavior indicates that a significant relationship between lie-telling and theory of mind understanding exists among typically and non-typically developing children. While these studies show a seemingly consistent relationship pattern between lying, lie maintenance, and false belief understanding, it is likely that other variables, such as executive functioning, facilitate and support the development of children’s lie-telling capabilities.

Executive functioning and lying There is some evidence to suggest that children’s lie-telling behaviors are related to their executive functioning abilities (Carlson et al., 1998; Hala & Russell, 2001; Talwar & Lee, 2008), though this area remains largely unexplored. Executive functioning refers to a set of higher-order psychological processes that serve to monitor and control thought and action (Welsh, Pennington, & Groisser, 1991; Zelazo & Muller, 2002). Executive functioning encompasses a variety of cognitive skills, including self-regulation, inhibitory control, planning, attentional flexibility, and working memory (Welsh et al., 1991; Zelazo, Carter, Reznick, & Frye, 1997), all of which could theoretically contribute to successful lie-telling. Executive functioning skills have been shown to emerge during late infancy and develop throughout childhood (Welsh & Pennington, 1988; Zelazo & Muller, 2002), a time when researchers have also noted increases in lie-telling behavior (Polak & Harris, 1999; Talwar & Lee, 2002a). Thus, it has been suggested that advances in executive functioning may be associated with improvements in children’s deceptive capabilities (Carlson et al., 1998; Hala & Russell, 2001; Talwar & Lee, 2008). In particular, researchers have posited that inhibitory control and working memory are directly related to children’s lying behaviors (Carlson & Moses, 2001; Carlson et al., 1998; Hala & Russell, 2001; Talwar & Lee, 2008). Inhibitory control refers to the ability to suppress interfering thought processes or actions (Carlson, Moses, & Breton, 2002), while working memory is a system for temporarily holding and processing information in the mind (Baddeley, 1986). When choosing to tell a lie, children must suppress the truth (i.e., conceal the transgression or misdeed), while simultaneously representing and communicating false information that differs from reality to avoid being detected (Carlson 348 V. Talwar, A.M. Crossman / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 337–359 et al., 1998; Talwar & Lee, 2008). To maintain their lies, liars must carefully inhibit any verbal or nonverbal behaviors that may contradict their false statement while maintaining in their memory the contents of their lie (Talwar & Lee, 2008). That is, a liar must hold in their mind conflicting alternatives regarding what they actually did and what they said they did in order to sustain their initial lie and remain undetected (Talwar & Crossman, 2011). Carlson and colleagues (1998) were among the first to examine the link between children’s executive functioning and their deceptive abilities. Carlson et al. (1998) reported that by overloading children’s inhibitory control skills, children’s ability to physically deceive a research assistant was less successful. Specifically, children who were told to deceive under conditions that required a high degree of inhibition (i.e., pointing to a misleading location to deceive a research assistant as to the whereabouts of a prize) were less successful, compared to children in relatively low inhibitory control conditions (i.e., using a picture of an arrow to deceptively direct the researcher). Similar results were reported by Hala and Russell (2001). Based on these findings, researchers concluded that young children’s difficulties with deception may be related to their underdeveloped inhibitory control skills. However, while previous studies examined non-verbal deception, only one published study to date has explicitly examined the relationship between executive functioning and verbal lie-telling behavior in children. Talwar and Lee (2008) investigated the roles of inhibition and working memory in the development of children’s lying. Children ranging in age from 3 to 8 years participated in the modified temptation resistance paradigm. Children also completed several executive functioning tasks that examined their inhibitory control and working memory. Talwar and Lee (2008) found that children’s false denials were related to their performance on a Stroop task, a test that measures both inhibition and working memory skills. Specifically, children with higher Stroop task scores were more likely to lie about their transgression regarding peeking at a forbidden toy. Based on these results, Talwar and Lee (2008) concluded that lying may require a dual ability to remember the rule that was violated while simultaneously inhibiting any mention of the wrongdoing, as it was the combined effect of both these abilities that was significantly related to lying. Similarly, findings emerging from a longitudinal study of children’s developing lie-telling indicate that children with higher scores on executive function measures (i.e., inhibitory control and card sort tasks) were more likely to engage in early prosocial lie-telling (Crossman et al., 2011).

Summary: Lie-telling and children’s cognitive development In summary, although children begin telling lies from an early age, they are not yet skilled at maintaining these lies or concealing the truth, as they tend to leak information either verbally or nonver- bally that reveals the truth. Once children are in elementary school, they become better at telling lies and have better skills to maintain their lies beyond their initial false statements. Being able to lie with increasing ease requires a sophisticated understanding of beliefs and false beliefs, as well as executive functioning abilities, including working memory and inhibitory control. The necessity of relatively sophisticated cognitive skills for elaborate lie-telling has implications for evaluating the reliability of child witness testimony. First, it suggests that children who struggle cognitively, either due to developmental delays or speciﬁc disorders, such as ASD, are less likely to be capable of generating and/or maintaining credible false reports. It also suggests that younger child witnesses are less capable of lying effectively when verbal elaboration is required. Finally, particularly in terms of the development of executive functioning, it suggests means of detecting children’s lie- telling through interviewing techniques, as described below.

Lie-telling success

Children’s verbal and nonverbal expressive behavior Lie-telling, whether for personal gain or for the beneﬁt of another, can have grave consequences if one’s lies are detected. To be successful, lie-tellers must control both their verbal and nonverbal behavior. This behavioral control must be exerted not only during the initial lie statement, but also throughout all subsequent conversations about the topic. Successful lying thus requires inhibition of one’s genuine verbal and nonverbal reactions to a situation and maintenance of expressive behavior in a manner congruent with the lie. V. Talwar, A.M. Crossman / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 337–359 349

As noted above, verbal control is referred to as semantic leakage control (Talwar & Lee, 2002b). The ability to control one’s bodily movements and facial expressions to avoid arousing suspicion due to incongruent nonverbal displays requires ‘‘nonverbal leakage control’’ (Ekman & Friesen, 1969). For instance, when lying to deny eating a forbidden cookie, one has to avoid saying anything that is incongruent with that lie (e.g., saying how good it tasted), remember the false details to remain consistent over time, and avoid displaying any non-verbal cues to the lie (e.g., fidgeting, looking nervous) to arouse suspicion. Similarly, an individual feigning sickness must alter their non-verbal appearance to appear ill, while regulating their verbal statements to be consistent with that lie. Lie-telling that effectively manages semantic and nonverbal leakage control is no simple task, particularly for children. Nevertheless, while research has found that children may show a few non-verbal signs of their deception, there are no non-verbal cues that reliably distinguish between lie-tellers and truth-tellers or help adults consistently detect children’s lies (Lewis et al., 1989; Talwar & Lee, 2002a; Talwar, Murphy, & Lee, 2007). For instance, Talwar and Lee (2002a) found that lie-tellers between 3 and 7 years of age were almost indistinguishable from truth-tellers. While analysis of the children’s non-verbal behaviors revealed one small difference between lie-tellers and truth-tellers (i.e., smiling behavior), when video-clips were shown to adults, they could not differentiate the lie-tellers from the truth-tellers on the basis of their non-verbal behaviors. However, verbal behaviors might have greater potential to be revealing. More difficult than simply denying a transgression, sustaining an elaborate lie requires a situation- specific assessment of what should (and should not) be said (Polak & Harris, 1999). Young children struggle to do so (Talwar & Lee, 2002a; Talwar et al., 2007, 2007). In one study, for instance, younger children were overwhelmingly likely to reveal incriminating information in subsequent statements after falsely denying a transgression, while approximately half of 6- and 7 year-olds were able to conceal and maintain their lies when answering follow-up questions (Talwar & Lee, 2002a). When adults were asked to judge which children were lying based on transcriptions of the children’s verbal reports, they easily detected the younger children who revealed their transgressions verbally, while the older children maintained their lies and were indistinguishable from children who told the truth. Subse- quent studies have found similar developmental patterns in children’s lie-telling to conceal a transgression, and children’s ability to maintain those lies in subsequent statements improves with age through childhood and adolescence (Evans & Lee, 2010; Talwar & Lee, 2008; Talwar et al., 2007). Thus, younger children are limited in their skills at maintaining their lies and consequently are not effective lie-tellers. As children get older, however, they become more sophisticated at concealing their lies verbally. Furthermore, adults find older children’s statements more credible and experience greater difficulty differentiating between their true and deceptive statements (Feldman & White, 1980; Leach, Talwar, Lee, Bala, & Lindsay, 2004; Talwar, Lee, Bala, & Lindsay, 2006). In other words, the older one becomes, the more likely one is able to convincingly deceive others and, as discussed earlier, this ability is related to their growing cognitive sophistication.

Detecting children’s lies Given that children seem to master effective lie-telling by school age, it is important and forensically relevant to determine how children’s honesty can be accurately assessed. The majority of research in this domain has focused on the abilities of jurors, law professionals and especially adults (lay-persons) to ‘‘intuitively’’ identify whether or not a child is being truthful or deceitful. Intuitive lie detection implies that individuals make decisions about the truthfulness of a statement based solely on their opinion, with no use of deception detection techniques, such as a polygraph (Leach et al., 2004). While research on the detection of adult deception has found that adults identify deceit in other adults at near chance levels (e.g., Bond & DePaulo, 2006; Hartwig & Bond, 2011; Leach et al., 2009), the handful of studies investigating detection of children’s lies have obtained mixed results. Some research has found that younger children’s lies are easier to detect than those told by adolescents and adults (Chahal & Cassidy, 1995; Feldman, Jenkins, & Popoola, 1979; Feldman & White, 1980) and that, as children get older, adults find it harder to detect their lies. Feldman et al. (1979) suggested that this is because children become better able to control their facial expressions with age. However, in most of these studies children were asked to ‘‘fake’’ their responses and thus their lies were not spontaneous 350 V. Talwar, A.M. Crossman / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 337–359 or naturalistic. More recent work has shown that adults may have difficulty detecting younger children’s deceit when the lies are more ecologically valid (e.g., Crossman & Lewis, 2006; Lewis et al., 1989; Talwar, Crossman, Gulmi, Renaud, & Williams, 2009; Talwar & Lee, 2002a). Overall, adult detection rates for children’s lies hover around chance levels (e.g., Bond & DePaulo, 2006; Edelstein, Luten, Ekman, & Goodman, 2006; Talwar et al., 2006). For instance, Talwar et al. (2006) investigated adults’ judgments of the veracity of children’s coached true and fabricated reports during a mock court proceeding. Undergraduate students viewed video files of children between the ages of 4 and 7 years describing events that are common, but not universally experienced (such as going camping). Half of the children gave true accounts; half of the children gave false accounts. Chil- dren assigned to the false condition were coached by a parent to describe an event they never experienced. When adult laypersons viewed the video tapes, they were not able to reliably discriminate between the child lie-tellers and truth-tellers. In fact, the adult detectors demonstrated a truth bias, such that they had a tendency to judge children’s reports as truthful, regardless of study condition. However, adults’ judgments of children’s veracity were significantly predicted by their perceptions of the children’s maturity, suggestibility, as well as integrity. Similarly, Edelstein et al. (2006) showed undergraduate observers videotapes of adults (undergraduate students) and children (between 5 and 7 years) discussing an event (a play session) involving a male research assistant (RA). During the event, the RA had touched half of the participants on their bare stomach, nose and neck (in the context of the game). Participants that were touched gave truthful accounts while participants who were not touched were asked to lie and state they were in fact touched on their bare stomach, nose and neck. Results showed an overall lie-detection accuracy rate of 50% for both children’s and adult’s statements. Despite the low detection rate, overall, observers were significantly more accurate at detecting children’s versus adult’s lies. Also, observers were more accurate at detecting truths in adults than they were with children. It is possible that results differed between studies due to the nature of the stories that children were telling (i.e., a story involving personal touching versus a story about innocuous events like camping). However, further strengthening the argument that adults are poor at intuitive detection deception, Leach et al. (2009) found that undergraduate students’ lie detection performance for both adults and children was not reliable across five experiments. Although these studies illustrate a shift toward more ecologically valid research paradigms and methodologies, it is not clear that existing lie detection studies are relevant to clinical and forensic contexts, as their findings are typically based on one or two short statements provided by child participants. In real settings, children might be interviewed for long periods of time and be questioned repeatedly during extensive interviews (Cross, Jones, Walsh, Simone, & Kolko, 2007; Goodman et al., 1992; Malloy, Lyon, & Quas, 2007). There remains a need for research that not only examines children’s true and fabricated statements over multiple interviews, but also includes interviews that are lengthy and repeated to better replicate the real-life settings encountered by child witnesses. Nevertheless, they demonstrate the challenge inherent in differentiating between true and false child witness reports.

Factors that aid deception detection To facilitate better discrimination between true and false testimony, researchers have begun to focus on practices that can help improve deception detection with child witnesses. This includes research on both interview techniques and interviewer skills. For example, some research suggests that detection accuracy can improve when children are observed under forensically relevant interview conditions and when they are asked follow-up questions (e.g., Leach et al., 2004; Orcutt, Goodman, Tobey, Batterman-Faunce, & Thomas, 2001; Talwar et al., 2007). Speciﬁcally, Leach et al. (2004) found that asking children questions about lies or eliciting a promise to tell the truth (similar to court competence examinations) led to greater accuracy in adult observers’ detection of children’s lies. Thus, the interview technique of making truth-telling salient to child witnesses improved raters’ lie detection, despite the fact that raters did not view the actual truth-telling/promise discussions. Other approaches also seek to enhance the presence of cues to deception. One particularly promising technique involves manipulating cognitive load, which refers to information-processing V. Talwar, A.M. Crossman / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 337–359 351

(attentional or working-memory) demands (Block, Hancock, & Zakay, 2010), which are heightened when one lies. That is, when truth-tellers recall information, they are not likely to be preoccupied with appearing convincing because they are telling the truth. A liar, in contrast, cannot take their credibility for granted and so must regulate their thoughts, feelings, behaviors and mental states to appear convincingly truthful to others, as well as plan and recall their story and remain consistent in their reports (DePaulo, Lindsay, Malone, Muhlenbruck, Charlton, & Cooper, 2003; Kassin, 2005; Vrij et al., 2008). Hence, liars may be simultaneously monitoring an interviewer’s reactions to determine if their account is believable (Buller & Burgoon, 1996), monitoring their own non-verbal behaviors (DePaulo et al., 2003) and trying to actively suppress the truth, while simultaneously telling the lie, all of which is more cognitively taxing than recall of a true story (Gilbert, 1991). Thus, telling and maintaining a believable lie is a complex endeavor that, in itself, increases one’s cognitive load. Researchers have suggested that the use of questioning techniques that further tax liars’ cognitive load (e.g., Vrij, Fisher, Mann, & Leal, 2006; Vrij et al., 2008) might help to increase the leakage of cues to deception. For example, Vrij et al. (2008) manipulated cognitive load of adult participants by asking half to recount their story in reverse order. They found that raters perceived liars as more nervous and as needing to think more about their responses. This procedure yielded better detection rates by police ofﬁcers than traditional questioning techniques. Similarly, because liars may be more likely to plan their lies in advance and anticipate likely questions, cognitive load can also be taxed using unanticipated questions. Faced with such questions, liars must decide whether to reconcile their story and create plausible responses or feign ignorance, which could raise credibility questions (Colwell, Hiscock-Anisman, Memon, Rachel, & Colwell, 2007; Liu et al., 2010). Children might be particularly vulnerable to such effects, as they have less well developed planning abilities, working memory, and abilities to read social cues. To explore this possibility, Liu et al. (2010) asked unanticipated questions of children 10–12 years of age who had been asked to report a true life event or a fabricated life event. Consistent with expectations, children in the lying condition reported having to plan their stories more and there were differences in their responses to unexpected questions, compared to truth-tellers. With the exception of Liu et al. (2010), all other research on the role of cognitive load in deception has examined adults’ lies. Given that children’s ability to lie is related to their developing cognitive abilities, it may be that children will be particularly susceptible to these types of interview methods and less likely to be able to maintain their lies when their cognitive load has increased. However, it is also possible that such techniques may adversely affect truth-tellers as well. More research is needed in this area to investigate cognitive load as a potential means of improving the discrimination of children’s truth- and lie-telling. Beyond interviewing techniques, researchers also have investigated interviewer skills in detecting children’s lies. It has been suggested that professionals who have extensive experience working with many children over a range of contexts may have an advantage detecting children’s lies (Crossman & Lewis, 2006; O’Sullivan, 2005), but only a couple of studies have examined this question. Westcott, Davies, and Clifford (1991), for instance, found that professionals who interact with children as part of their work (e.g., educational psychologists, occupational psychologists) were more accurate in detecting children’s deception than others. However, the children had been instructed to falsely report about a trip to a museum, a relatively mundane event which children may not have been motivated to conceal. Talwar, Crossman, Williams, and Muir (2011), on the other hand, examined detection of children’s naturalistic lies. They demonstrated that professionals with increasing amounts of varied experience with different children were somewhat better at detecting lies than were less experienced individuals or those with more narrow experience (e.g., parents; see also Crossman & Lewis, 2006). In contrast, Chahal and Cassidy (1995) reported that parents were better at detecting children’s lies than other adults, suggesting that even this more narrow experience with children might facilitate detection skill. Again in this study, however, children were instructed to make a false report about a TV program they had watched. Thus, the children’s lies might not have been representative of the lies they tell in more naturalistic situations. In addition, Talwar and Renaud (2010) found that parents may have a general bias to believe that their children are honest, perhaps as a protective strategy to avoid negative feelings about their children or the quality of their parent–child relationship. This would likely interfere with their ability to detect their own children’s lies. In general, however, it 352 V. Talwar, A.M. Crossman / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 337–359 appears that lay-people (e.g., jurors) discriminate poorly between children’s true and fabricated reports, but that emerging interviewing techniques might facilitate better detection of children’s lies.

Promoting truth-telling

Along with efforts to elicit cues to children’s deception and to detect their lies when told, another promising strategy is to use truth promotion techniques with child witnesses. There is some evidence that simply asking children to promise to tell the truth increases their truth-telling (Lyon et al., 2008; Talwar et al., 2002, 2004). Talwar et al. (2002), for example, found that children who promised to tell the truth were less likely to lie about their own peeking behavior. Also, Talwar et al. (2004) found that promising to tell the truth decreased the likelihood that children would lie for their parents and Lyon et al. (2008) found that promising to tell the truth increased the likelihood that children would truthfully report an adult’s transgression. Unfortunately, the mechanism for the effectiveness of such appeals is currently unclear. It could be that truth promotion impacts children’s behavior through their assessment of whether honesty versus dishonesty impinges on their self-interest (Bandura, 1991; Bussey, 1992; Lyon, 2000). For example, abuse victims often report that their decision to disclose the abuse (or not) was affected by their expectations for how others would react to the disclosure and the effects of disclosure on themselves and others close to them (Anderson, Martin, Mullen, Romans, & Herbison, 1993). Some children might fear telling the truth because of what they believe will happen to them if they disclose (Bussey & Grimbeek, 1995). Similarly, some adolescents falsely confess to criminal acts because they fear what might happen to themselves or their loved ones if they do not (Leo, 2009; Redlich et al., 2004). Thus, children’s motivations to lie may be affected by whether they expect negative or positive consequences for disclosing the truth or lying, a cost-benefit analysis that might be influenced by truth promotion techniques. Consistent with these findings, Bandura’s (1991) social cognitive theory of moral action asserts that people’s beliefs about outcomes expected for different types of conduct play a central role in determining their behavior. Children go through a normative process of socialization as they begin to internalize moral standards held by their parents and society. Over the course of this socialization process, children’s behavior is influenced by both external and internal factors (Bandura, 1986). Young children initially rely on guidance from others to encourage their behaviors either through external physical factors (i.e., punishments) or external social factors (i.e., social rewards for pleasing another person), and as children internalize their culture’s moral standards, they are also affected by internal social factors (i.e., pleasing oneself by doing the ‘‘right’’ thing). Preliminary findings suggest that even very young children’s honesty can be increased by exposing them to models of reward for truth-telling, while modeling punishment for lying does not increase honesty (Talwar & Arruda, 2012). Specifically, Talwar and Arruda (2012) found that children were less likely to lie about a transgression when their ‘‘interrogators’’ appealed to either external or internal motivations to tell the truth, but not when external consequences were raised. To the extent that this theoretical mechanism can explain the impact of truth promotion techniques on child witness honesty, it suggests potential future avenues for both research and practice. That is, recognizing and helping to develop children’s internal motivations for honesty could help adults bolster social incentives for truth-telling and remove competing social barriers to honesty. Currently, it is unclear what impact truth-induction methods will have on children’s willingness to lie for another who asked them to keep a transgression secret. Making consequences salient (e.g., through moral stories, appeals for promises of honesty) could possibly enhance honesty, as children fear getting into trouble for another’s wrongdoing. Alternatively, it could highlight the risk to the child and adult of getting caught lying, and encourage better lies. Children also might respond differently depending on their understanding of the interrogative situation. In one study (Hartwig & Wilson, 2002), 6- to 7-year-olds reported that child story characters would interpret an interviewer’s repeated questions as a signal that they had done something wrong (i.e., were lying or keeping a secret), and that they would change their answers in response. They also indicated that story characters would be more likely to tell the truth about a secret when faced with a more threatening interviewing strategy (e.g., suggesting a child would get in trouble if she did not tell), versus a ‘‘friendlier’’ approach (e.g., V. Talwar, A.M. Crossman / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 337–359 353 interviewer invokes child’s friendship as incentive to tell truth). Hence, different truth induction methods might be effective in eliciting children’s honest reports under different circumstances, such as when they fear getting into trouble themselves or when they have been coached to lie. The only study to examine truth induction and coaching found that promising to tell the truth did increase honesty when children were coached to lie (Lyon et al., 2008), suggesting that even the effects of coaching may be ameliorated by some truth induction methods. Again, however, more research is necessary to determine the boundary conditions for the effectiveness of truth promotion techniques with child witnesses.

Legal implications

Courts are particularly concerned with the veracity of young children’s testimony. Research suggests that although children’s lie-telling emerges in the preschool years, children are not skilled lie-tellers until the later elementary school years. Children can be coached to lie for another, although such lies do not come as early or as readily to children as lies to protect themselves. Children’s decisions to lie are motivated by their evaluation of the potential consequences to self and a desire to minimize negative consequences. Thus, if a child believes that lying will protect them from such consequences, they may decide to conceal or fabricate information. It should be noted, however, that this research does not imply that children are more dishonest than adults. Research with adults finds that they commonly tell lies (DePaulo et al., 1996), and that children lie for the same reasons as adults. Yet, children’s lies are less elaborate and they have difficulty sustaining them when questioned. Therefore, the risk of harm from children’s lie-telling in court is, at worst, no greater than it is for adult witnesses. Nevertheless, concern remains about children’s lie-telling and its potential forensic impact. Indeed, a key concern with much of the literature discussed thus far is that the situations explored do not mimic the conditions in actual courtrooms – that they lack ecological validity. Lies produced in experimental paradigms are not typically high stakes lies, such as those found in legal settings. For ethical reasons, it is difficult to replicate the same conditions that children who are testifying might be faced with (e.g., physical or sexual abuse; coaching to falsely allege abuse). Thus, most of the paradigms used to examine children’s lie-telling have relied on ethically acceptable situations that elicit lies analogous to the types of lies children might tell in court. This may lead one to conclude there is limited relevance to actual legal situations. It should be noted, however, that what we consider high stakes is perceived through an adult lens rather than a child’s. For young children, lying in the modified temptation resistance paradigm might be high stakes, as they could fear possible punishment for their transgression and they may be concerned about getting caught in their lie. Furthermore, a number of studies examining children’s coached lies for others have endeavored to make these situations highly relevant to forensic situations. Nevertheless, more research is needed to better approximate the types of lies children tell in legal contexts. This will require creativity by researchers to create situations that are ecologically valid and ethically acceptable. Despite the need for extrapolation, however, the current findings have a great deal to offer to the legal system in terms of understanding children’s lie-telling and implications for how to address child witness participation in legal settings. In particular, research findings suggest that different lie motivations are likely to generalize to different forensic contexts. That is, coached lies may be more likely to occur in contexts such as custody disputes or when a child seeks to protect another individual, such as an abusive parent. Self-protective lie-telling may be more likely when a child commits an illegal act and lies to avoid punishment for it, but also could occur if a child denies their own victimization to avoid family disruption. Such lies may also be differentially effective. Lies of omission, for example, in which a child denies an event (e.g., abuse by a trusted adult), seem likely to be more credible than lies of commission, for which a child must elaborate (e.g., make up an alibi or an allegation), which has important implications for the prosecution of child abuse allegations. Research findings also suggest that the characteristics of real-life cases will enhance the honesty of child witnesses. As there are negative consequences for lie-telling in real life that often do not exist in experiments and given the research findings which suggest children are motivated to lie or tell the truth based on the desire to reduce negative consequences to self, children are less likely to lie in actual forensic cases than in researchers’ experimental procedures. This 354 V. Talwar, A.M. Crossman / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 337–359 assumes, however, that the benefit of the lie (e.g., acquittal) does not outweigh the risk of getting caught in the lie. In addition, young children’s weak lie maintenance abilities make it unlikely, though not impossible, that they would successfully deceive interviewers during elaborate investigative interviewing. Finally, promises to tell the truth influence children’s honesty, suggesting that in actual cases, children who swear an oath or promise to tell the truth are less likely to testify dishonestly in court, compared to children participating in research. Additionally, literature on children’s moral understanding and evaluation of lie-telling demonstrates clearly that children begin to understand the (im)morality of lying by age 2–3 years. Although children may initially over-generalize the concept of a lie, and seem to understand truths earlier than lies, they do recognize self-serving and hurtful lies as lies and perceive most lie-telling as a negative behavior. However, their conceptual and moral understanding of lies and truths does not seem to be diagnostic of honest behavior. As a result, questioning children about the difference between truths and lies is not likely to be diagnostic of their ability or willingness to provide a truthful and/or accurate account in court. These findings suggest that competency evaluations that rely on children’s truth-lie knowledge or definitions are of little utility in ensuring that children offer truthful testimony or in helping the courts determine if a child is capable of testifying truthfully and accurately. At best, these assessments are ineffectual, as they are not diagnostic of children’s honesty. At worst, they could contribute to a mis- carriage of justice, if an otherwise competent child is barred from testifying. Moreover, they are often not developmentally appropriate. Asking about the intent of hypothetical honest or deceptive speak- ers, for example, might unnecessarily confound a young, but honest child witness. In addition, they may encourage children to lie in an effort to seem credible (e.g., ‘‘I have never lied’’), undermining a potentially competent child’s credibility. In these ways, they are likely to underestimate young children’s competency. The findings also highlight the important distinction between children’s understanding of lie-telling and their motivations for lie-telling. As with adults, understanding what lies are and that they are ‘‘wrong’’ does not eradicate them. Children’s decisions about whether or not to lie are often motivated by their perceived self-interest, which in some instances appears to run counter to their objectively- defined self-interest. Interviewing child witnesses in ways that acknowledge and address their motivations for truth- or lie-telling might be more effective at eliciting honesty. In addition, assessing their moral evaluations of truth- and lie-telling might be more diagnostic of their honest behavior. Thus, another implication for the legal system is that novel procedures are needed to enhance and encourage children’s motivations for truth-telling. Investigators must attempt to evaluate the motivations that might be driving children’s behaviors, including those that appear self-destructive. Reassur- ing children that their self-interests are served by truth-telling and reducing negative consequences for honesty would be beneficial as well. Finally, eliciting children’s promises that they will tell the truth (or use of other truth induction techniques) may help to heighten the salience of honesty and shift children’s motivations toward truth-telling. While truth induction techniques seem to create interviewing conditions that elicit children’s honest reports, and require very little in the way of intervention (e.g., asking children to promise to tell the truth), some children and adolescents might still be motivated to lie in forensic contexts. However, research convincingly demonstrates that most laypersons (e.g., jurors) have difficulty distinguishing fact from fiction in children’s reports. Adults are poor at lie detection generally. Some of this difficulty is due to the lack of consistent nonverbal cues to deception for adults to use. They are left with intuitive theories about how lie-tellers behave, which could be misleading, non-diagnostic and unfairly undermine children’s credibility. Fortunately, interviewing techniques that seem to increase cues to deception can be deployed with relative ease. Indeed, emerging studies on the use of cognitive load may be of great value to legal and forensic professionals who wish to assess the veracity of children’s reports. As young children’s lie- telling abilities are developing, their lies may be more readily revealed, mainly through verbal chan- nels. Yet, children’s skills improve with age and the usefulness of such interview techniques may thus increase for older children and adolescents. However, caution is warranted, as children’s cognitive immaturity and those with cognitive delays might be vulnerable to greater inaccuracy if faced with V. Talwar, A.M. Crossman / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 337–359 355 heightened cognitive load. Nevertheless, legal professionals may eventually be able to apply such techniques effectively to enhance the distinction between children’s truths and lies. Hence, the final implication of these findings is that deception detection tactics must be further developed and employed. Lie detection skill is unequivocally poor, even for children’s lies. But a few techniques seem promising. Younger children have greater difficulty with verbal deception and semantic leakage control, hence requesting elaboration may be sufficient to undo a false preschooler. However, for older children and adolescents, whose lie-telling skills are better developed, modestly increasing the cognitive load might be more effective. Whether through use of unanticipated questions or reverse story order, even recall of nonsense syllables, careful use of the procedure could potentially help to discriminate false from honest child witnesses. The goal for future researchers will be to continue identifying the developmental progression of children’s lie-telling abilities and testing techniques and procedures for helping to ensure child witness testimony will be complete, accurate and honest, as well ensuring reliable discrimination between children’s lies and truths. Additional approaches that could prove fruitful include exploring the likelihood, role and impact of deception in early relationships, particularly for delinquent youth (Baker, Tabacoff, Tornusciolo, & Eisenstadt, 2003; Stouthamer-Loeber & Loeber, 1986; Warr, 2007) and seeking to identify brain-level correlates of deception, even among children (Kozel et al., 2005; Kruesi & Casanova, 2006). In this way, we can hope to better protect children and adults from the impact of lies in the legal system.

References

Aldridge, J., & Cameron, S. (1999). Interviewing child witnesses: Questioning techniques and the role of training. Applied Developmental SCIENCE, 3(2), 136–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0302_7. Anderson, J., Martin, J., Mullen, P., Romans, S., & Herbison, P. (1993). Prevalence of childhood sexual abuse experiences in a community sample of women. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 911–919. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Baker, A. J. L., Tabacoff, R., Tornusciolo, G., & Eisenstadt, M. (2003). Family secrecy: A comparative study of juvenile sex offenders and youth with conduct disorders. Family Process, 42, 105–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2003.00105.x. Bala, N., Lee, K., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Talwar, V. (2000). A legal and psychological critique of the present approach to the assessment of the competence of child witnesses. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 38(3), 409–451. Bala, N., & Schuman, J. (1999). Allegations of sexual abuse when parents have separated. Canadian Family Law Quarterly, 17(2), 191–243. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.). Handbook of moral behavior and development (Vol. 1, pp. 45–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Baron-Cohen, S. (1992). Out of sight or out of mind? Another look at deception in autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 1141–1155. Baron-Cohen, S. (1999). The evolution of a theory of mind. In M. C. Corballis & S. E. G. Lea (Eds.), The descent of mind: Psychological perspectives on hominid evolution (pp. 261–277). New York: Oxford University Press. Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a ‘‘theory of mind’’? Cognition, 21, 37–46. Batson, C. D., & Thompson, E. R. (2001). Why don’t moral people act morally? Motivational considerations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 54–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00114. Block, R. A., Hancock, P. A., & Zakay, D. (2010). How cognitive load affects duration judgments: A meta-analytic review. Acta Psychologica, 134(3), 330–343. Bok, S. (1978). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. London: Quartet Books. Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214–234. Bond, C. F., Jr., Omar, A., Pitre, U., Lashley, B. R., Skaggs, L. M., & Kirk, C. T. (1992). Fishy-looking liars: Deception judgment from expectancy violation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 969–977. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.63.6.969. Bottoms, B. L., Goodman, G. S., Schwartz-Kenney, B. M., & Thomas, S. N. (2002). Understanding children’s use of secrecy in the context of eyewitness reports. Law & Human Behavior, 26, 285–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015324304975. Brennan, M. (1994). The battle for credibility-themes in the cross-examination of child victim witnesses. International Journal of Semiotics of Law, 7, 51–73. Bruck, M., & Ceci, S. J. (1999). The suggestibility of children’s memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 419–439. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.403. Bull, R. (1995). Innovative techniques for the questioning of child witnesses, especially those who are young and those with learning disability. In Zaragoza, M., Graham, J. R., Hall, G. C. N., Hirschman, R., Ben-Porath, Y. S. (Eds.), Memory and testimony in the child witness (pp. 179–194). Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203–242. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00127.x. Bussey, K. (1992). Lying and truthfulness: Children’s deﬁnitions, standards, and evaluative reactions. Child Development, 63, 129–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb03601.x. 356 V. Talwar, A.M. Crossman / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 337–359

Bussey, K. (1999). Children’s categorization and evaluation of different types of lies and truths. Child Development, 70, 1338–1347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00098. Bussey, K., & Grimbeek, E. J. (2000). Children’s conceptions of lying and truth-telling: Implications for child witnesses. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 5(Part 2), 187–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/135532500168083. Bussey, K., & Grimbeek, E. J. (1995). Disclosure processes: Issues for child sexual abuse victims. In K. J. Rotenberg (Ed.), Disclosure processes in children and adolescents (pp. 166–203). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carlson, S. M., & Moses, L. J. (2001). Individual differences in inhibitory control and children’s theory of mind. Child Development, 72, 1032–1053. Carlson, S. M., Moses, L. J., & Breton, C. (2002). How specific is the relation between executive functioning and theory of mind? Contribution of inhibitory control and working memory. Infant and Child Development, 11, 73–92. Carlson, S. M., Moses, L. J., & Hix, H. R. (1998). The role of inhibitory control in young children’s difficulties with deception and false belief. Child Development, 69, 672–691. Carmody, D. P., & Crossman, A. M. (2005). Youth deception: Malingering traumatic stress. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 16(3), 477–493. Carmody, D. P., & Crossman, A. M. (2011). Artful liars: Malingering on the Draw-A-Person task. The Open Criminology Journal, 4, 1–9. Chahal, K., & Cassidy, T. (1995). Deception and its detection in children: A study of adult accuracy. Psychology, Crime & Law, 1(3), 237–245. Chandler, M., Fritz, A. S., & Hala, S. (1989). Small scale deceit: Deception as a marker for two-, three-, and four-year olds’ early theories of mind. Child Development, 60(6), 1263–1277. Chisholm, R. M., & Feehan, T. D. (1977). The intent to deceive. The Journal of Philosophy, 74(3), 143–159. Coleman, L., & Kay, P. (1981). Prototype semantics: The English word lie. Language, 57, 26–44. Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C., Memon, A., Rachel, A., & Colwell, L. H. (2007). Vividness and spontaneity of statement detail characteristics as predictors of witness credibility. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 25, 5–30. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). Creusere, M. A. (1999). Theories of adults’ understanding and use of irony and sarcasm: Applications to and evidence from research with children. Developmental Review, 19(2), 213–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/drev.1998.0474. Cross, T. P., Jones, L. M., Walsh, W. A., Simone, M., & Kolko, D. (2007). Child forensic interviewing in Child Advocacy Centers: Empirical data on a practical model. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 1031–1052. Crossman, A. M. (1999). Oaths and honesty: Perceptions of child witness credibility. In Paper presented at the meeting of the International Academy of Law and Mental Health, Toronto, Canada. Crossman, A. M., Talwar, V., Mandelbaum, J., Saykaly, C., & Segovia. D. (2011, June). Exploring children’s ability to tell elaborate lies. In Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, New York, NY. Crossman, A. M., Talwar, V., Arruda, C., Brunet, M., Buonaugurio, A., & Rufino, K. (submitted for publication). What’s in a lie? Perceptions of lying among children and adults. Crossman, A. M., & Lewis, M. (2006). Adults’ ability to detect children’s lying. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 24, 703–715. Darwin, C. (1877). A biographical sketch of an infant. Mind, 2, 285–294. Davis v. Washington 547 U.S. 813 (2006). DePaulo, B. M., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 63–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.63. DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 979–995. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.979. DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74. Edelstein, R. S., Luten, T. L., Ekman, P., & Goodman, G. S. (2006). Detecting lies in children and adults. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 1–10. Ekman, P. (1985). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, marriage, and politics. New York: W.W. Norton. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 32(1), 88–106. Ekman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46(9), 913–920. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003- 066X.46.9.913. Ekman, P. (1989). Why lies fail and what behaviors betray a lie. In J. C. Yuille (Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 71–81). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Evans, A. D., & Lee, K. (2010). Promising to tell the truth makes 8- to 16-year-olds more honest. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 801–811. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.960. Evans, A. D., & Lyon, T. D. (2011). Assessing children’s competency to take the oath in court: The influence of question type on children’s accuracy. Law and Human Behavior. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0093957 (Advance online publication). Feldman, R. S., Jenkins, L., & Popoola, O. (1979). Detection of deception in adults and children via facial expressions. Child Development, 50, 350–355. Feldman, R. S., & White, J. B. (1980). Detecting deception in children. Journal of Communication, 30, 121–128. Galindo v. United States 630 A.2d 202 (1993). Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. The American Psychologist, 46, 107–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0003- 066X.46.2.107. Goodman, G. S. (2006). Children’s eyewitness memory: A modern history and contemporary commentary. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 811–832. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00488.x. Goodman, G. S., & Bottoms, B. L. (Eds.). (1993). Child victims, child witnesses: Understanding and improving testimony. New York: Guilford Press. Goodman, G. S., Taub, E. P., Jones, D. P. H., England, P., Port, L. K., Rudy, L., et al (1992). Testifying in criminal court: Emotional effects on child sexual assault victims. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(5). Greenglass, E. R. (1972). Effects of age and prior help on ‘altruistic lying’. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 121(2), 303–313. V. Talwar, A.M. Crossman / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 337–359 357

Hala, S., Chandler, M., & Fritz, A. S. (1991). Fledgling theories of mind: Deception as a marker of three-year-olds’ understanding of false belief. Child Development, 62, 83–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1130706. Hala, S., & Russell, J. (2001). Executive control within strategic deception: A window on early cognitive development? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 80, 112–141. Hall, G. S. (1891). Children’s lies. Pedagogical Seminary, 1, 211–218. Hartshorne, H., & May, M. S. (1928). Studies in the nature of character. Studies in deceit (Vol. 1). New York: Macmillan. Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 643–659. Hartwig, J., & Wilson, J. C. (2002). Factors affecting children’s disclosure of secrets in an investigatory interview. Child Abuse Review, 11(2), 77–93. Haugaard, J. J. (1993). Young children’s classification of the corroboration of a false statement as the truth or a lie. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 645–659. Haugaard, J. J., & Reppucci, N. D. (1992). Children and the truth. In S. J. Ceci, M. D. Leichtman, & M. Putnik (Eds.), Cognitive and social factors in early deception (pp. 29–45). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Haugaard, J. J., Reppucci, N. D., Laird, J., & Nauful, T. (1991). Children’s definitions of the truth and their competency as witnesses in legal proceedings. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 253–271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01061712. Jones, D. P., & McGraw, J. M. (1987). Reliable and fictitious accounts of sexual abuse to children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 27–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/088626087002001002. Kassin, S. M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk? American Psychologist, 60, 215–228. Koriat, A., Goldsmith, M., Schneider, W., & Nakash-Dura, M. (2001). The credibility of childen’s testimony: Can children control the accuracy of their memory reports? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79(4), 405–437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ jecp. 2000.2612. Kozel, F. A., Johnson, K. A., Mu, Q., Grenesko, E. L., Laken, S. J., & George, M. S. (2005). Detecting deception using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Biological Psychiatry, 58(8), 605–613. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.07.040. Kruesi, M. J. P., & Casanova, M. F. (2006). White matter in liars. British Journal of Psychiatry, 188(3), 293–294. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1192/bjp.188.3.293-a. Leach, A.-M., Lindsay, R. C. L., Koehler, R., Beaudry, J. L., Bala, N. C., Lee, K., et al (2009). The reliability of lie detection performance. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 96–109. Leach, A., Talwar, V., Lee, K., Bala, N., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2004). Intuitive lie detection of children’s deception by law enforcement officials and university students. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 661–685. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-004-0793-0. Lee, K. (2000). The development of lying: How children do deceptive things with words. In J. W. Astington (Ed.), Minds in the making (pp. 177–196). Oxford: Blackwell. Leekam, S. R. (1992). Believing and deceiving: Steps to becoming a good liar. In S. J. Ceci, M. D. Leichtman, & M. Putnik (Eds.), Cognitive and social factors in early deception (pp. 47–62). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Leo, R. A. (2009). False confessions: Causes, consequences and implications. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry & Law, 37(3), 332–343. Lewis, M. (1993). The development of deception. In M. Lewis & C. Saarni (Eds.), Lying and deception in everyday life (pp. 90–105). New York: Guilford Press. Lewis, M., Stanger, C., & Sullivan, M. W. (1989). Deception in 3-year-olds. Developmental Psychology, 25(3), 439–443. Li, A. S., Kelley, E. A., Evans, A. D., & Lee, K. (2010). Exploring the ability to deceive in children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41, 185–195. Liu, M., Granhag, P. A., Landstrom, S., Roos af Hjelmsater, E., Stromwall, L., & Vrij, A. (2010). ‘‘Can you remember what was in your pocket when you were stung by a bee?’’: Eliciting cues to deception by asking the unanticipated. The Open Criminology Journal, 3, 31–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874917801003010031. London, K., & Nunez, N. (2002). Examining the efficacy of truth/lie discussions in predicting and increasing the veracity of children’s reports. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 83, 131–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0965(02)00119-4. Lyon, T. D. (1995). False allegations and false denials in child sexual abuse. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1(2), 429–437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.1.2.429. Lyon, T. D. (2000). Child witnesses and the oath: Empirical evidence. Southern California Law Review, 73, 1017–1074. Lyon, T. D., Carrick, N., & Quas, J. A. (2010). Young children’s competency to take the oath: The effects of task, maltreatment and age. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 141–149. Lyon, T. D., Carrick, N., & Quas, J. A. (in press). Right and righteous: Children’s incipient understanding of true and false statements. Journal of Cognition and Development. Lyon, T. D. (2011). Assessing the competency of child witnesses: Best practice informed by psychology and law. In M. E. Lamb, D. La Rooy, L. C. Malloy, & C. Katz (Eds.), Children’s testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice (pp. 69–85). Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Lyon, T. D., Malloy, L. C., Quas, J. A., & Talwar, V. (2008). Coaching, truth induction, and young maltreated children’s false allegations and false denials. Child Development, 79, 914–929. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01167. Malloy, L., Lyon, T. D., & Quas, J. A. (2007). Filial dependency and recantation of child sexual abuse allegations. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 162–170. Mikkelsen, E. J., Gutheil, T. G., & Emens, M. (1992). False sexual-abuse allegations by children and adolescents: Contextual factors and clinical subtypes. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 46(4), 556–570. Morris, E. K., Laney, C., Bernstein, D. M., & Loftus, E. F. (2006). Susceptibility to memory distortion: How do we decide it has occurred? The American Journal of Psychology, 119(2), 255–274. Myers, J. E. B. (2005). Myers on evidence in child, domestic and elder abuse cases. New York: Aspen. Newton, P., Reddy, V., & Bull, R. (2000). Children’s everyday deception and performance on false-belief tasks. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18, 297–317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/026151000165706. Ning, S. R., & Crossman, A. M. (2007). We believe in being honest: Examining subcultural differences in the acceptability of deception. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 2130–2155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00254.x. 358 V. Talwar, A.M. Crossman / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 337–359

Orcutt, H. K., Goodman, G. S., Tobey, A. E., Batterman-Faunce, J. M., & Thomas, S. (2001). Detecting deception in children’s testimony: Factfinders’ abilities to reach the truth in open court and closed-circuit trails. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 339–372. Ornstein, P. A., Gordon, B. N., & Larus, D. M. (1992). Children’s memory for a personally experienced event: Implications for testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 49–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp. 2350060103. O’Sullivan, M. (2005). Emotional intelligence and deception detection: Why most people can’t ‘‘read’’ others, but a few can. In R. E. Riggio & R. S. Feldman (Eds.), Applications of nonverbal communication (pp. 215–253). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Owens v. United States 688 A.2d 399 (1996). Perner, J. (1997). Children’s competency in understanding the role of a witness: Truth, lies, and moral ties. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, S21–S35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199712)11:73.0.CO;2-Z. Perner, J., & Wimmer, H. (1985). ‘‘John thinks that Mary thinks that...’’: Attribution of second-order beliefs by 5-to 10-year old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 31, 437–471. Peskin, J. (1992). Ruse and representations: On children’s ability to conceal information. Developmental Psychology, 28, 84–89. Peterson, C. C., Peterson, J. L., & Seeto, D. (1983). Developmental changes in ideas about lying. Child Development, 54, 1529–1535. Piaget, J. (1932/1965). In M. Gabain (Trans.), The moral judgment of the child. New York: The Free Press. Pipe, M., & Goodman, G. S. (1991). Elements of secrecy: Implications for children’s testimony. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 9, 33–41. Pipe, M., & Wilson, J. C. (1994). Cues and secrets: Influences on children’s event reports. Developmental Psychology, 35, 561–568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.30.4.515. Polak, A., & Harris, P. L. (1999). Deception by young children following non-compliance. Developmental Psychology, 35, 561–568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.2.561. Popliger, M., Talwar, V., & Crossman, A. M. (2011). Predictors of children’s prosocial lie-telling: Motivation, socialization variables, and moral understanding. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110(3), 373–392. Redlich, A. D., Silverman, M., Chen, J., & Steiner, H. (2004). The police interrogation of children and adolescents. In G. D. Lassiter (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions and entrapment (pp. 107–125). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Robinson, J., & McGuire, J. (2006). Suggestibility and children with mild learning disabilities: The use of the cognitive interview. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12(5), 537–556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10683160500337550. Rogers, R. (1990). Development of a new classificatory model of malingering. Bulletin of American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 18, 323–333. Ruffman, T., Olson, D. R., Ash, T., & Keenan, T. (1993). The ABCs of deception: Do young children understand deception in the same way as adults? Developmental Psychology, 29, 74–87. Sears, R., Rau, L., & Alpert, R. (1965). Identification and childrearing. New York: Wiley. Seiter, J. S., Bruschke, J., & Bai, C. (2002). The acceptability of deception as a function of perceivers’ culture, deceiver’s intention, and deceiver-deceived relationship. Western Journal of Communication, 66(2), 158–180. Siegal, M., & Peterson, C. C. (1996). Breaking the mold: A fresh look at children’s understanding of questions about lies and mistakes. Developmental Psychology, 32, 322–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.32.2.322. Smith, B. E., & Elstein, S. G. (1993). The prosecution of child sexual and physical abuse cases. Final report (pp. 51–52) (September 30). Sodian, B. (1991). The development of deception in young children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 173–188. Sodian, B., & Frith, U. (1992). Deception and sabotage in autistic, retarded and normal children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 591–605. Sodian, B., Taylor, C., Harris, P. L., & Perner, J. (1991). Early deception and the child’s theory of mind: False trails and genuine markers. Child Development, 62, 468–483. State v. Henderson, 160 P.3d 776 (Kan. 2007). State v. Hooper, 176 P.3d 911 (Idaho 2007). Stern, C., & Stern, W. (1909/1999). Recollection, testimony and lying in early childhood. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Lying as a problem behavior in children: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 6, 267–289. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(86)90002-4. Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Loeber, R. (1986). Boys who lie. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 551–564. Strichartz, A. F., & Burton, R. V. (1990). Lies and the truth: A study of the development of the concept. Child Development, 61, 211–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131060. Sullivan, K., Winner, E., & Hopfield, N. (1995). How children tell a lie from a joke: The role of second-order mental state attributions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13, 191–204. Talwar, V., & Arruda, C. (2012). Honesty is the best policy: the effects expected punishment and appeals to tell the truth on children’s truth-telling behavior. Submitted for publication. Talwar, V., & Crossman, A. (2011). From little white lies to filthy liars: The evolution of honesty and deception in young children. In J. Benson (Ed.). Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 40, pp. 139–179). Burlington: Academic Press. Talwar, V., Crossman, A. M., Gulmi, J., Renaud, S.-J., & Williams, S. (2009). Pants on fire? Detecting children’s lies. Applied Developmental Science, 13, 119–129. Talwar, V., Crossman, A. M., Williams, S., & Muir, S. (2011). Adult detection of children’s selfish and polite lies: Experience matters. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 2837–2857. Talwar, V., Rasmussen, C., Zwaigenbaum, L., Manji, S., & Loomes, C. (2012). Lie-telling behavior in children with autism: Relation between theory of mind and executive functioning. Focus on Autism and other Developmental Disabilities, 27(2), 120–127. Talwar, V., Gordon, H., & Lee, K. (2007). Lying in the elementary school years: Verbal deception and its relation to second-order belief understanding. Developmental Psychology, 43, 804–810. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.804. Talwar, V., & Lee, K. (2002a). Development of lying to conceal a transgression: Children’s control of expressive behaviour during verbal deception. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 436–444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 01650250143000373. V. Talwar, A.M. Crossman / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 337–359 359

Talwar, V., & Lee, K. (2002b). Emergence of white lie-telling in children between 3 and 7 years of age. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 48(2), 160–181. Talwar, V., & Lee, K. (2008). Socio-cognitive correlates of children’s lying behavior: Conceptual understanding of lying, executive functioning, and false beliefs. Child Development, 79, 866–881. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01164.x. Talwar, V., & Lee, K. (2011). A punitive environment fosters children’s dishonesty: A natural experiment. Child Development, 82, 1751–1758. Talwar, V., Lee, K., Bala, N., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2002). Children’s conceptual knowledge of lying and its relation to their actual behaviors: Implications for court competence examinations. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 395–415. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1023/A:1016379104959. Talwar, V., Lee, K., Bala, N., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2004). Children’s lie-telling to conceal parents’ transgressions: Legal implications. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 411–435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000039333.51399.f6. Talwar, V., Lee, K., Bala, N., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2006). Adults’ judgments of children’s coached reports. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 561–570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9038-8. Talwar, V., Murphy, S., & Lee, K. (2007). White lie-telling in children for politeness purposes. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 1–11. Talwar, V., & Renaud, S. J. (2010). Trustworthiness of young children as witnesses. In K. Rotenberg (Ed.), Trustworthiness during childhood and adolescence (pp. 177–199). Cambridge University Press. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2011). Administration for children and families, administration on children, youth and families, Children’s Bureau (2011). Child maltreatment 2010.. Vrij, A., Fisher, R., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2006). Detecting deception by manipulating cognitive load. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 141–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.02.003. Vrij, A., Mann, S., Fisher, R., Leal, S., Milne, B., & Bull, R. (2008). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: the beneﬁt of recalling an event in reverse order. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 253–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9103-. Wagland, P., & Bussey, K. (2005). Factors that facilitate and undermine children’s beliefs about truth telling. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 639–655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-7371-y. Wandrey, L., Quas, J. A., & Lyon, T. D. (in press). Does valence matter? Effects of negativity on children’s early understanding of truths and lies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. Warr, M. (2007). The tangled web: Delinquency, deception, and parental attachment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 607–622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9148-0. Watson, A. J., & Valtin, R. (1997). Secrecy in middle childhood. International Journal of Behavior Development, 21(3), 431–452. Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72, 584–655. Welsh, M. C., & Pennington, B. F. (1988). Assessing frontal lobe functioning in children: Views from developmental psychology. Developmental Neuropsychology, 4, 131–149. Welsh, M. C., Pennington, B. F., & Groisser, D. B. (1991). A normative-developmental study of executive function: A window on prefrontal function in children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 7, 131–149. Westcott, H. L., Davies, G. M., & Clifford, B. R. (1991). Adults’ perceptions of children’s videotaped truthful and deceptive statements. Children & Society, 5(2), 123–135. Williams, S., Kirmayer, M., Simon, T., & Talwar, V. (submitted for publication). Children’s antisocial and prosocial lies to familiar and unfamiliar adults. Wilson, J. C., & Pipe, M. (1989). The effects of cues on young children’s recall of real events. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 18, 65–70. Wilson, A. E., Smith, M. D., & Ross, H. S. (2003). The nature and effects of young children’s lies. Social Development, 12, 21–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00220. Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs. Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition, 13, 103–128. Xu, F., & Lee, K. (2007). Promoting honesty. In Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development Biennial Meeting, Boston, MA. Yirmiya, N., Solomonica-Levi, D., & Shulman, C. (1996). The ability to manipulate behavior and to understand manipulation of beliefs: A comparison of individuals with autism, mental retardation, and normal development. Developmental Psychology, 32, 62–69. Zelazo, P. D., Carter, A., Reznick, J. S., & Frye, D. (1997). Early development of executive function: A problem-solving framework. Review of General Psychology, 1, 1–29. Zelazo, P. D., & Muller, U. (2002). Executive function in typical and atypical development. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell handbook of childhoold cognitive development (pp. 445–470). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. ______

______ ______

______ 

Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings

American Psychological Association

Introduction there may be no dispute for the court to decide. However, if parties are unable to reach such an agreement, the court Family law proceedings encompass a broad range of issues, including custody, maintenance, support, valuation, visita- must intervene in order to allocate decision making, care- tion, relocation, and termination of parental rights. The taking, and access, typically applying a “best interests of following guidelines address what are commonly termed the child” standard in determining this restructuring of rights and responsibilities (Artis, 2004; Elrod, 2006; Kelly,

broadly. child custody evaluations, involving disputes over decision making, caretaking, and access in the wake of marital or 1997). publishers. other relationship dissolution. The goal of these guidelines Psychologists render a valuable service when they is to promote proﬁciency in the conduct of these particular provide competent and impartial opinions with direct rel- allied evance to the “psychological best interests” of the child disseminated evaluations. This narrowed focus means that evaluations its

be (Miller, 2002). The speciﬁc nature of psychologists’ in- of occurring in other contexts (e.g., child protection matters) to are not covered by these guidelines. In addition, the guide- volvement and the potential for misuse of their inﬂuence one

not have been the subject of ongoing debate (Grisso, 1990, or lines acknowledge a clear distinction between the forensic is evaluations described in this document and the advice and 2005; Krauss & Sales, 1999, 2000; Melton et al., 2007). and support that psychologists provide to families, children, The acceptance and thus the overall utility of psycholo-

user and adults in the normal course of psychotherapy and gists’ child custody evaluations are augmented by demon- Association counseling. strably competent forensic practice and by consistent ad- Although some states have begun to favor such terms herence to codiﬁed ethical standards.

individual as parenting plan, parenting time, or parental rights and These guidelines are informed by the American Psy-

the responsibilities over the term custody (American Law In- chological Association’s (APA’s) “Ethical Principles of Psychological of stitute, 2000, pp. 131–132), the substantial majority of legal Psychologists and Code of Conduct” (hereinafter referred

use authorities and scientiﬁc treatises still refer to custody when to as the Ethics Code; APA, 2002). The term guidelines addressing the resolution of decision-making, caretaking, refers to statements that suggest or recommend speciﬁc

American and access disputes. In order to avoid confusion and to professional behavior, endeavors, or conduct for psychol- personal the ensure that these guidelines are utilized as widely as pos- the by sible, these guidelines apply the term custody to these for issues generically, unless otherwise speciﬁed. It is no This revision of the 1994 “Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Divorce Proceedings” (American Psychological Association, 1994) was longer the default assumption that child custody proceed- completed by the Committee on Professional Practice and Standards solely ings will produce the classic paradigm of sole custodian (COPPS) and approved as APA policy by the APA Council of Represen- copyrighted

is versus visiting parent. Many states recognize some form of tatives on February 21, 2009. Members of COPPS during the development joint or shared custody that afﬁrms the decision-making of this document were Lisa Drago Piechowski (chair, 2009), Eric Y. intended Drogin (chair, 2007–2008), Mary A. Connell (chair, 2006), Nabil El- is and caretaking status of more than one adult. The legal Ghoroury (Board of Professional Affairs [BPA] liaison, 2007–2008), document system also recognizes that the disputes in question are not Michele Galietta, Terry S. W. Gock, Larry C. James (BPA liaison,

article exclusively marital and therefore may not involve divorce 2004–2006), Robert Kinscherff, Stephen J. Lally, Gary D. Lovejoy, Mary This per se. Some parents may never have been married and Ann McCabe, Bonnie J. Spring, and Carolyn M. West. COPPS is grateful This perhaps may never even have lived together. In addition, for the support and guidance of the BPA and particularly to BPA Chairs Cynthia A. Sturm (2009), Jaquelyn Liss Resnick (2008), Jennifer F. Kelly child custody disputes may arise after years of successful (2007), and Kristin Hancock (2006). COPPS also acknowledges the co-parenting when one parent seeks to relocate for work- consultation of APA Practice Directorate staff Shirley A. Higuchi and related or other reasons. These guidelines apply the term Alan Nessman. COPPS extends its appreciation to the APA Practice parents generically when referring to persons who seek Directorate staff who facilitated both the work of COPPS and the revision efforts: Lynn F. Bufka, Mary G. Hardiman, Omar Rehman, Geoffrey M. legal recognition as sole or shared custodians. Reed, Laura Kay-Roth, Ernestine Penniman, and Ayobodun Bello. Parents may have numerous resources at their dis- Expiration: These guidelines are scheduled to expire 10 years from posal, including psychotherapy, counseling, consultation, February 21, 2009 (the date of their adoption by the APA Council of mediation, and other forms of conﬂict resolution. When Representatives). After this date, users are encouraged to contact the APA Practice Directorate to determine whether this document remains in effect. parents agree to a child custody arrangement on their Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to the own—as they do in the overwhelming majority (90%) of Practice Directorate, American Psychological Association, 750 First cases (Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 2007)— Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242.

December 2010 ● American Psychologist 863 © 2010 American Psychological Association 0003-066X/10/$12.00 Vol. 65, No. 9, 863–867 DOI: 10.1037/a0021250 ogists. Guidelines differ from standards in that standards resulting fit. The training of psychologists provides them are mandatory and may be accompanied by an enforcement with unique skills and qualifications to address these issues. mechanism. Guidelines are aspirational in intent. They are Application. Psychologists attempt to provide intended to facilitate the continued systematic development the court with information specifically germane to its role of the profession and to help facilitate a high level of in apportioning decision making, caretaking, and access. practice by psychologists. Guidelines are not intended to be The most useful and influential evaluations focus upon mandatory or exhaustive and may not be applicable to skills, deficits, values, and tendencies relevant to parenting every professional situation. They are not definitive, and attributes and a child’s psychological needs. Comparatively they are not intended to take precedence over the judgment little weight is afforded to evaluations that offer a general of psychologists. personality assessment without attempting to place results in the appropriate context. Useful contextual considerations I. Orienting Guidelines: Purpose of may include the availability and use of effective treatment, the Child Custody Evaluation the augmentation of parenting attributes through the efforts of supplemental caregivers, and other factors that could 1. The purpose of the evaluation is to assist affect the potential impact of a clinical condition upon in determining the psychological best parenting. interests of the child.

broadly. II. General Guidelines: Preparing for Rationale. The extensive clinical training of psy- the Custody Evaluation publishers. chologists equips them to investigate a substantial array of conditions, statuses, and capacities. When conducting child 4. Psychologists strive to gain and maintain allied custody evaluations, psychologists are expected to focus on

disseminated specialized competence. its factors that pertain specifically to the psychological best be of Rationale. Laws change, existing methods are to interests of the child, because the court will draw upon one refined, and new techniques are identified. In child custody

not these considerations in order to reach its own conclusions or is and render a decision. evaluations, general competence in the clinical assessment of children, adults, and families is necessary but is insuf- and Application. Psychologists strive to identify the psychological best interests of the child. To this end, they ﬁcient in and of itself. The court will expect psychologists user to demonstrate a level of expertise that reﬂects contextual

Association are encouraged to weigh and incorporate such overlapping factors as family dynamics and interactions; cultural and insight and forensic integration as well as testing and environmental variables; relevant challenges and aptitudes interview skills. individual for all examined parties; and the child’s educational, phys- Application. Psychologists continuously strive the ical, and psychological needs. to augment their existing skills and abilities, consistent Psychological of with a career-long dedication to professional development.

use 2. The child’s welfare is paramount. Although psychologists take care to acquire sufﬁcient knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education prior American Rationale. Psychologists seek to maintain an ap- to conducting a child custody evaluation, this acquisition is personal the propriate degree of respect for and understanding of par- never complete. An evolving and up-to-date understanding the by ents’ practical and personal concerns; however, psycholo- of child and family development, child and family psycho- for gists are mindful that such considerations are ultimately pathology, the impact of relationship dissolution on chil- secondary to the welfare of the child. dren, and the specialized child custody literature is critical solely Application. Parents and other parties are likely to sustaining competent practice in this area. Psychologists copyrighted to advance their concerns in a forceful and contentious is also strive to remain familiar with applicable legal and manner. A primary focus on the child’s needs is enhanced

intended regulatory standards, including laws governing child cus-

is by identifying and stating appropriate boundaries and pri- tody adjudication in the relevant state or other jurisdiction. orities at the outset of the evaluation. Psychologists may document Should complex issues arise that are outside psychologists’

article wish to reflect upon their own attitudes and functioning at scope of expertise, they seek to obtain the consultation and This various points during the course of the evaluation to ensure supervision necessary to address such concerns. This that they are continuing to maintain an optimal focus on the child’s welfare. 5. Psychologists strive to function as impartial evaluators. 3. The evaluation focuses upon parenting Rationale. Family law cases involve complex attributes, the child’s psychological needs, and emotionally charged disputes over highly personal and the resulting fit. matters, and the parties are often deeply invested in a Rationale. From the court’s perspective, the specific outcome. The volatility of this situation is often most valuable contributions of psychologists are those that exacerbated by a growing realization that there may be no reflect a clinically astute and scientifically sound approach resolution that will completely satisfy every person in- to legally relevant issues. Issues that are central to the volved. In this contentious atmosphere, it is crucial that court’s ultimate decision-making obligations include par- evaluators remain as free as possible of unwarranted bias or enting attributes, the child’s psychological needs, and the partiality.

864 December 2010 ● American Psychologist Application. Psychologists are encouraged to Code, Standard 3.05). Psychologists conducting a child monitor their own values, perceptions, and reactions ac- custody evaluation with their current or prior psychother- tively and to seek peer consultation in the face of a poten- apy clients and psychologists conducting psychotherapy tial loss of impartiality. Vigilant maintenance of profes- with their current or prior child custody examinees are both sional boundaries and adherence to standard assessment examples of multiple relationships. Psychologists’ ethical procedures, throughout the evaluation process, will place obligations regarding conﬂicts of interest and multiple re- psychologists in the best position to identify variations that lationships provide an explainable and understandable ba- may signal impaired neutrality. sis for declining court appointments and private referrals.

6. Psychologists strive to engage in culturally III. Procedural Guidelines: Conducting informed, nondiscriminatory evaluation the Child Custody Evaluation practices. 8. Psychologists strive to establish the scope Rationale. Professional standards and guidelines of the evaluation in a timely fashion, articulate the need for psychologists to remain aware of consistent with the nature of the referral their own biases, and those of others, regarding age, gen- question. der, gender identity, race, ethnicity, national origin, reli- Rationale. The scope of a child custody evalua- broadly. gion, sexual orientation, disability, language, culture, and tion will vary according to the needs of a particular case socioeconomic status. Biases and an attendant lack of cul- and the speciﬁc issues psychologists are asked to address. publishers. turally competent insight are likely to interfere with data Referral questions may vary in the degree to which they collection and interpretation and thus with the development allied specify the desired parameters of the evaluation. Failure to

disseminated of valid opinions and recommendations. its ensure in a timely fashion that an evaluation is appropri- be of Application. Psychologists strive to recognize ately designed impairs the utility and acceptance of the to their own biases and, if these cannot be overcome, will one resulting opinions and recommendations. not

or presumably conclude that they must withdraw from the

is Application. Before agreeing to conduct a child evaluation. When an examinee possesses a cultural, racial, custody evaluation, psychologists seek when necessary to and or other background with which psychologists are unfamil- clarify the referral question and to determine whether they user iar, psychologists prepare for and conduct the evaluation are potentially able to provide opinions or recommenda- Association with the appropriate degree of informed peer consultation tions. It may be helpful to have psychologists’ understand- and focal literature review. If psychologists ﬁnd their un- ing of the scope of the evaluation conﬁrmed in a court order familiarity to be insurmountable, the court will appreciate individual or by stipulation of all parties and their legal representa- being informed of this fact sooner rather than later. the tives. Psychological of 7. Psychologists strive to avoid conflicts of 9. Psychologists strive to obtain use interest and multiple relationships in appropriately informed consent.

American conducting evaluations. Rationale. Obtaining appropriately informed personal the Rationale. The inherent complexity, potential for consent honors the legal rights and personal dignity of the by harm, and adversarial context of child custody evaluations examinees and other individuals. This process allows perfor make the avoidance of conﬂicts of interest particularly sons to determine not only whether they will participate in important. The presence of such conﬂicts will undermine a child custody evaluation but also whether they will make solely

copyrighted the court’s conﬁdence in psychologists’ opinions and rec- various disclosures during the course of an examination or is ommendations and in some jurisdictions may result in other request for information.

intended professional board discipline and legal liability. Application. When performing child custody eval-

is Application. Psychologists refrain from taking uations, psychologists attempt to obtain informed consent document on a professional role, such as that of a child custody using language that is reasonably understandable to the ex-

article evaluator, when personal, scientific, professional, legal, aminee. If the examinee is legally incapable of providing This financial, or other interests or relationships could reason- informed consent, psychologists provide an appropriate ex- This ably be expected to result in (a) impaired impartiality, planation, seek the examinee’s assent, consider the prefer- competence, or effectiveness or (b) exposure of the person ences and best interests of the examinee, and obtain appro- or organization with whom the professional relationship priate permission from a legally authorized person (Ethics exists to harm or exploitation (Ethics Code, Standard 3.06). Code, Standards 3.10 and 9.03). Psychologists are encouraged Subject to the same analysis are multiple relationships, to disclose the potential uses of the data obtained and to which occur when psychologists in a professional role with inform parties that consent enables disclosure of the evalua- a person are simultaneously in another role with that per- tion’s findings in the context of the forthcoming litigation and son, when psychologists are in a relationship with another in any related proceedings deemed necessary by the court. individual closely associated with or related to that person, Psychologists may find it helpful to extend a similar approach or when psychologists promise to enter into another future to persons who provide collateral information (e.g., relatives, relationship with that person or with another individual teachers, friends, and employers) even when applicable laws closely associated with or related to that person (Ethics do not require informed consent per se.

December 2010 ● American Psychologist 865 10. Psychologists strive to employ multiple Application. Psychologists may draw upon the methods of data gathering. court’s resources to encourage relevant parties to participate in the child custody evaluation process. If a desired Rationale. Multiple methods of data gathering enhance the reliability and validity of psychologists’ even- examination cannot be arranged, psychologists docu- tual conclusions, opinions, and recommendations. Unique ment their reasonable efforts and the result of those as well as overlapping aspects of various measures contrib- efforts and then clarify the probable impact of this ute to a fuller picture of each examinee’s abilities, chal- limited information on the reliability and validity of lenges, and preferences. their overall opinions, limiting their forensic conclusions Application. Psychologists strive to employ op- and any recommendations appropriately (Ethics Code, timally diverse and accurate methods for addressing the Standard 9.01(c)). While the court eventually will have questions raised in a specific child custody evaluation. no choice but to make a decision regarding persons who Direct methods of data gathering typically include such are unable or unwilling to be examined, psychologists components as psychological testing, clinical interview, have no corresponding obligation. Psychologists do have and behavioral observation. Psychologists may also have an ethical requirement to base their opinions on infor- access to documentation from a variety of sources (e.g., mation and techniques sufficient to substantiate their schools, health care providers, child care providers, agen- findings (Ethics Code, Standard 9.01(a)) and may wish

broadly. cies, and other institutions) and frequently make contact to emphasize this point for the court’s beneﬁt if pressed with members of the extended family, friends and acquain- to provide opinions or recommendations without having publishers. tances, and other collateral sources when the resulting examined the individual in question. When psycholo- information is likely to be relevant. Psychologists may seek gists are not conducting child custody evaluations per se, allied

disseminated it may be acceptable to evaluate only one parent, or only its corroboration of information gathered from third parties be of and are encouraged to document the bases of their eventual the child, or only another professional’s assessment to methodology, as long as psychologists refrain from com- one conclusions. not or paring the parents or offering opinions or recommenda- is 11. Psychologists strive to interpret tions about the apportionment of decision making, care- and assessment data in a manner consistent with taking, or access. Nonexamining psychologists also may

user the context of the evaluation. share with the court their general expertise on issues Association relevant to child custody (e.g., child development, fam- Rationale. The context in which child custody ily dynamics) as long as they refrain from relating their evaluations occur may affect the perceptions and behavior individual of persons from whom data are collected, thus altering both conclusions to speciﬁc parties in the case at hand. the psychological test responses and interview results. Unreli- Psychological of 13. Psychologists strive to base their able data result in decreased validity, a circumstance that use recommendations, if any, upon the enhances the potential for erroneous conclusions, poorly founded opinions, and misleading recommendations. psychological best interests of the child. American

personal Application. Psychologists are encouraged to Rationale. Not every child custody evaluation the

the consider and also to document the ways in which involve- by will result in recommendations. Psychologists may con-

for ment in a child custody dispute may impact the behavior of clude that this is an inappropriate role for a forensic persons from whom data are collected. For example, psy- evaluator or that available data are insufﬁcient for this

solely chologists may choose to acknowledge, when reporting purpose. If a recommendation is provided, the court will copyrighted personality test results, how research on validity scale expect it to be supportable on the basis of the evaluations is interpretation demonstrates that child custody litigants of- conducted. intended ten display increased elevations on such scales.

is Application. If psychologists choose to make child custody recommendations, these are derived from document 12. Psychologists strive to complement the

article sound psychological data and address the psychological

This evaluation with the appropriate combination best interests of the child. When making recommendations, This of examinations. psychologists seek to avoid relying upon personal biases or Rationale. Psychologists provide an opinion of unsupported beliefs. Recommendations are based upon ar- an individual’s psychological characteristics only after they ticulated assumptions, interpretations, and inferences that have conducted an examination of the individual adequate are consistent with established professional and scientiﬁc to support their statements and conclusions (Ethics Code, standards. Although the profession has not reached consen- Standard 9.01(b)). The only exception to this rule occurs in sus about whether psychologists should make recommen- those particular instances of record review, consultation, or dations to the court about the ﬁnal child custody determi- supervision (as opposed, in each case, to evaluations) in nation (i.e., “ultimate opinion” testimony), psychologists which an individual examination is not warranted or nec- seek to remain aware of the arguments on both sides of this essary for the psychologist’s opinion (Ethics Code, Stan- issue (Bala, 2005; Erard, 2006; Grisso, 2003; Heilbrun, dard 9.01(c)). The court typically expects psychologists to 2001; Tippins & Wittman, 2005) and are able to articulate examine both parents as well as the child. the logic of their positions on this issue.

866 December 2010 ● American Psychologist 14. Psychologists create and maintain uators may not be “experts,” but they can express best interests opin- professional records in accordance with ions. Family Court Review, 43, 554–562. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617 .2005.00054.x ethical and legal obligations. Elrod, L. D. (2006). A move in the right direction? Best interests of the Rationale. Legal and ethical standards describe child emerging as the standard for relocation cases. Journal of Child requirements for the appropriate development, mainte- Custody, 3, 29–61. doi:10.1300/J190v03n03_03 Erard, R. E. (2006). Tell it to the judge: A reply to Wittman & Tippins. nance, and disposal of professional records. The court National Psychologist, 15, p. 1. expects psychologists providing child custody evaluations Grisso, T. (1990). Evolving guidelines for divorce/custody evaluations. to preserve the data that inform their conclusions. This Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 28, 35–41. doi:10.1111/j.174- enables other professionals to analyze, understand, and 1617.1990.tb01228.x provide appropriate support for (or challenges to) psychol- Grisso, T. (2003). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and ogists’ forensic opinions. instruments (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Application. Psychologists maintain records ob- Grisso, T. (2005). Commentary on “Empirical and ethical problems with custody recommendations”: What now? Family Court Review, 43, tained or developed in the course of child custody evalua- 223–228. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2005.00020.x tions with appropriate sensitivity to applicable legal man- Heilbrun, K. (2001). Principles of forensic mental health assessment. New dates, the “Record Keeping Guidelines” (APA, 2007), and York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. other relevant sources of professional guidance. Test and Kelly, J. B. (1997). The best interests of the child: A concept in search of meaning. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 35, 377–387. doi:

broadly. interview data are documented with an eye toward their eventual review by other qualiﬁed professionals. 10.1111/j.174-1617.1997.tb00480.x

publishers. Krauss, D. A., & Sales, B. (1999). The problem of “helpfulness” in applying Daubert to expert testimony: Child custody determinations in REFERENCES family law as an exemplar. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, allied

disseminated 78–99. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.5.1.78 its American Law Institute. (2000). Principles of the law of family dissolu-

be Krauss, D. A., & Sales, B. D. (2000). Legal standards, expertise, and of tion: Analysis and recommendations. Newark, NJ: Mathew Bender.

to experts in the resolution of contested child custody cases. Psychology, American Psychological Association. (1994). Guidelines for child custody one Public Policy, and Law, 6, 843–879. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.6.4.843 not evaluations in divorce proceedings. American Psychologist, 49, 677– or is 680. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.49.7.677 Melton, G., Petrila, J., Poythress, N., & Slobogin, C. (2007). Psycholog- ical evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health profes-

and American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060– sionals and lawyers (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

user 1073. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1060 Miller, G. H. (2002). The psychological best interest of the child is not the

Association American Psychological Association. (2007). Record keeping guidelines. legal best interest. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and American Psychologist, 62, 993–1004. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.9.993 Law, 30, 196–200. Artis, J. E. (2004). Judging the best interests of the child: Judges’ accounts Tippins, T. M., & Wittman, J. P. (2005). Empirical and ethical problems

individual of the tender years doctrine. Law and Society Review, 38, 769–806. with custody recommendations: A call for clinical humility and judicial

the doi:10.1111/j.0023-9216.2004.00066.x vigilance. Family Court Review, 43, 193–222. doi:10.1111/j.1744- Psychological of Bala, N. (2005). Tippins and Wittman asked the wrong questions: Eval- 1617.2005.00019.x use American personal the the by for solely copyrighted is intended is document article This This

December 2010 ● American Psychologist 867 This article was downloaded by: [Northcentral University] On: 17 August 2014, At: 13:26 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Child Custody Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjcc20 Keeping the Developmental Frame: Child-Centered Conjoint Therapy Lyn R. Greenberg a , Lynda Doi Fick b & Hon. Robert Schnider (Ret.) c a Independent Practice, Forensic and Clinical Psychology , Los Angeles , California b Court-Involved Therapy and Custody Evaluations , Diamond Bar , California c Los Angeles County Superior Court , Los Angeles , California Published online: 12 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Lyn R. Greenberg , Lynda Doi Fick & Hon. Robert Schnider (Ret.) (2012) Keeping the Developmental Frame: Child-Centered Conjoint Therapy, Journal of Child Custody, 9:1-2, 39-68, DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2012.652568 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2012.652568

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions Journal of Child Custody, 9:39–68, 2012 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1537-9418 print=1537-940X online DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2012.652568

Keeping the Developmental Frame: Child-Centered Conjoint Therapy

LYN R. GREENBERG Independent Practice, Forensic and Clinical Psychology, Los Angeles, California LYNDA DOI FICK Court-Involved Therapy and Custody Evaluations, Diamond Bar, California HON. ROBERT SCHNIDER (RET.) Los Angeles County Superior Court, Los Angeles, California

Children at the center of high-conflict parenting disputes face a variety of emotional risks, emanating from both difficult historical experiences and the ongoing family conflict. Chief among these risks is that children’s developmental progress will be compromised or distorted, such that children fail to master the essential developmental tasks and coping skills that they need to function in society and future relationships. In this article, the authors present a model of ‘‘child centered conjoint therapy’’ which can be used in both designated family therapy and as an approach to adapting children’s treatment. CCCT is based on the core concept that the child’s development, and his=her ability to master healthy coping abilities, must be the primary focus in all therapeutic intervention. This highly structured approach focuses on specific symptoms, behaviors, and skills, as well as the redirection of relationships and emotional healing necessary for children to adjust success-

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 fully. The authors also address common problems, obstacles, and the backdrop of support from a PC or the court, which may be necessary for therapy to succeed.

KEYWORDS conjoint therapy, child abuse, court-involved therapy, high-conflict divorce, domestic violence, reunification

Address correspondence to Lyn R. Greenberg, Ph.D., 12041 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 303, Los Angeles, CA 90025. E-mail: [email protected]

39 40 L. R. Greenberg et al.

Professionals in both family law and juvenile dependency courts frequently struggle to find the best treatment approach to help children adjust after parental separation and traumatic family experiences. Tension may exist, or appear to exist, around preserving child safety, promoting healthy coping skills, rebuilding relationships where possible, and equipping children with the abilities to overcome traumatic experiences as they grow and develop. In this article, the authors present a tentative model for child-centered conjoint therapy (CCCT). The model is based on relevant research and drawn from over thirty years of combined experience in treating children, advocating for children, and executing judicial management of high-conflict cases. The model can be applied by court-involved therapists appointed to treat a family, but can also be used when a therapist is appointed to treat the child and ultimately engage the parents. CCCT focuses on the developmental tasks that a child needs to achieve in order to function successfully in future relationships. Interventions are highly structured. They focus on validating the child’s independent feelings, promoting feelings of safety and security, establishing boundaries, identifying and making distinctions among family members’ perceptions and emotions, encouraging discussion about specific behaviors and problems, and altering both parents’ and children’s behavior to promote healthy adjustment in the child.

Understanding the Need Children at the center of adult conflict face a variety of developmental and emotional risks. In many of these cases, a child’s perceptions have been influenced by his=her conflicted loyalty between two primary identity figures, the parents. Children who are in the midst of high-conflict situations have often been exposed to radically different perceptions of reality, which occur in an emotionally loaded context because of the child’s love for, and dependency on, each parent. They may have been presented with parents’ extreme views of relationships and with accounts of events that are not consistent with the child’s experience. These dynamics make it more difficult for them to deal with emotional complexity and to form other healthy Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 relationships (Johnston, Lee, Olesen, & Walters, 2005; Johnston, Roseby, & Kuehnle, 2009). Children who have been exposed to domestic violence are often emotionally conflicted. They may have been exposed to abuse or violence and high-conflict dynamics. As a result, these children are less able to cope with situations, articulate their emotions, or make distinctions between their independent perceptions and external influences. In many instances, they cannot consistently rely on their parents as resources for trust, physical safety, or emotional well-being. They may feel responsible for soothing or providing empathy for a parent’s physical or emotional injuries (Johnston, Lee, et al., 2005). Child-Centered Conjoint Therapy 41

There is a growing research base regarding risks to children of high conflict divorce, children’s suggestibility, and the coping skills that children need for successful adjustment. This research underscores the importance of children receiving appropriate, unbiased treatment from therapists who possess the requisite expertise to work in the context of a court case (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts [AFCC] Task Force on Court-Involved Ther- apy, 2011; Greenberg & Gould, 2001; Greenberg, Gould, Gould-Saltman, & Stahl, 2003). The specific characteristics of these families, and risks faced by these children, also argue for treatment procedures adapted to this population and directed to those behaviors that promote autonomy, minimize risks, and promote resilience for these children (Fidnick, Koch, Greenberg, & Sullivan, 2011; Greenberg et al., 2003; Kent & Doi Fick, 2001).

RISKS OF DELAY AND UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONS Each of the aforementioned risk factors is best addressed promptly, before unhealthy behavior becomes entrenched. Nevertheless, it is common for children to experience extended delays in receiving treatment. This may occur because of stresses on court or family resources, disputes as to the nature of the child’s needs, or the belief that all issues must be resolved by the court before the child can receive any help. Kuehnle and Connell (2010) and Olesen and Drozd (2012) have argued that therapists must take precautions to maintain objectivity and avoid taint- ing children’s statements when allegations of abuse are ongoing and unresolved. Other authors (Hewitt, 1999) present approaches that appear to assume the truth of the allegations whether or not they have been substan- tiated by the court, and to engage with the child and family on that basis. Most professionals have encountered circumstances in which a therapist has formed premature conclusions and biased treatment as a result, with devastating consequences for children and families. Withholding treatment, however, raises the risk that unhealthy behavior will become entrenched and irresolvable (Sullivan & Kelly, 2001). Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014

IMPACT ON CHILDREN’S DIALOGUE A child’s dialogue may become the center of controversy when well-meaning adults want to understand a child’s needs, but the child’s perceptions or statements may have been affected by the family conflict. In some cases, adults may focus so heavily on a child’s statements that this eclipses all other consideration of the child’s development or ability to function. Adults may question or attend to children based on the adult’s perceptions, assumptions, or needs. This may apply to a professional seeking a clear answer to a complex family dilemma, as well as to a litigating parent. 42 L. R. Greenberg et al.

These authors support paying careful attention to children’s feelings and developmental needs while considering the family’s stressors and context, as will clearly be demonstrated in the following sections. In intact or lower conflict families, the wishes or feelings of a child may be considered in a family’s decisions, but the child is less likely to be burdened with the responsibility for adult decisions that may strongly impact the child’s future. These issues become more problematic as conflict in the family increases. When a child’s statements are viewed without consideration of his=her overall functioning, the child is unlikely to be empowered and is more likely to be caught in entrenched, unhealthy relationships and conflict behavior (Johnston, Walters, & Olesen, 2005; Kelly & Johnston, 2001). The child’s memories and perceptions may be so heavily influenced by others’ concerns that he=she will have difficulty differentiating between his=her own memories and others’ perceptions (Kuehnle, Greenberg, & Gottlieb, 2004; Pedzek, Finger, & Hodge, 1997; Pedzek & Roe, 1997; Thompson, Clarke-Stewart, & Lepore, 1997). Unfortunately, the child’s dialogue may reflect the parents’ communications but be trumpeted as the child’s own wishes and experiences. The child may be unable to rely on his=her own experiences or feelings, perceiving and distorting events as an extension of the parent’s beliefs (Fidler & Bala, 2010; Walters & Friedlander, 2010a). These behaviors may persist and impact the child’s adjustment far into the future (Johnston et al., 2009). These issues require intervention by therapists with sufficient expertise to understand the relevant research and to assist the child in differentiating, and expressing, his own complex and independent feelings. This is a critical goal for the child as an individual, separate and apart from whether ‘‘reunification,’’ per se, is successful. In addition, this focus enhances the child’s chance of maintaining or rebuilding important relationships. The generation of accurately complex, independent therapeutic data may also allow children to have healthy participation in decisions that affect their lives. It is our belief that skilled therapists can maintain objectivity and a balanced perspective and can provide treatment to children that enhances the child’s independent development rather than focusing on adults’ con- Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 cerns and allegations. In the authors’ experience, the highest conflict families present a wealth of psychological issues, many of which can be addressed without compromising the court’s process or the parties’ rights. Failing to do so may leave the child in limbo for years, relying on unhealthy coping skills and with treatment paralyzed by each successive adult allegation or event in the litigation. The child’s development and functioning may be permanently impaired as a result. Conversely, when a therapist addresses issues that reflect daily patterns or that are not at the center of litigation, the process creates the groundwork and healthier interactions necessary to address more contested issues (Greenberg, 2009). Specific procedures are described in greater detail in the following sections. Child-Centered Conjoint Therapy 43

TARGET POPULATIONS This model of psychotherapy can be useful in a variety of cases that present difficult intervention dilemmas to the court. The scope of intervention may change depending on the child’s condition, safety precautions or limitations required, and the progress of treatment. In cases with ongoing allegations of abuse, or allegations that have not yet been resolved by the court, intervention may start with less contested issues and proceed toward issues more central to the conflict, after they have been resolved by the court. The CCCT model can be useful in cases involving:

. unconstrained or inconclusive allegations of sexual or physical abuse; . allegations of situational violence, some types of maltreatment, or poor or abusive parenting; . high-conflict dynamics between parents or other significant adults; . conflict about the child’s needs or expressed preferences; . extended parental absence, estrangement, or a history of marginal or inconsistent involvement between parent and child; and . a child that is reportedly resistant or avoidant to contact with a parent.

In many cases, more than one of these dynamics exists simultaneously or sequentially. Furthermore, children or adults can present with the belief that a relationship is simply disposable and that the child has no need either to interact with the parent or to deal with his=her own feelings. Often, however, the child’s needs are far more complex. Past disruptions in the relationship, and child’s resistance to rebuilding the connection, may reflect a variety of situational or emotional issues. Failure to address these issues may make it difficult for the child to learn the skills necessary for successful social and emotional functioning (Fields & Prinz, 1997; Sullivan & Kelly, 2001). In some cases, the conjoint process will demonstrate that the less preferred parent is unable or unwilling to make a sustained commitment to the child, or that the child can only engage in a limited way with the parent. Even in such circumstances, however, the therapy process provides Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 a way for the child to address emotional issues and move forward with healthy coping skills for future relationships. Options may also be created for future parent–child contact as the child matures and=or the family situation changes (Friedlander & Walters, 2010). Conjoint therapy is contraindicated when active violence, child abuse, or substance abuse is occurring. In cases where the court has made a finding of severe abuse and parent behavior is intractable, therapy may be limited to helping the child resolve feelings rather than promoting a full reunification of the relationship (Kent & Doi Fick, 2001). Not all conjoint therapy will be successful, and children may not be fully able to reconcile their feelings about a parent or about the parent’s actions. 44 L. R. Greenberg et al.

Nevertheless, with an adequately supportive and safe structure, the CCCT model can help the child make the necessary distinctions between his=her own and others’ feelings, reduce the child’s feelings of guilt or self-blame, and help the child achieve an understanding of the parent–child relationship that will not impair the child’s future functioning (Greenberg, Doi Fick, & Levanas, 2008; Levanas, Greenberg, Drozd, & Rosen, 2004; Kent & Doi Fick, 2001). Most importantly, the CCCT model will allow the child to learn the skills that will promote success in future relationships and the ability to function successfully in the future.

ADJUSTING ASSUMPTIONS AND TREATMENT MODELS Effective treatment with vulnerable families, whether in family law or dependency cases, may require adjustments of traditional models and assumptions regarding therapy (Greenberg & Gould, 2001; Greenberg et al., 2003; Lebow & Black, 2012; Lebow & Rekhart, 2007; Olesen & Drozd, 2012). Such assumptions may operate at multiple levels, since court-involved therapists are typically dealing with other professionals who are highly educated and verbally oriented (i.e., attorneys and judicial officers). These individuals are more likely to have been exposed to models of therapy that are voluntary, self-motivated, strictly confidential, and oriented toward assisting the therapy client in attaining some level of insight. Highly symptomatic families often use very different coping and behavioral patterns than the professionals who interact with them. As others have written (Sullivan, 2008), parents in the highest conflict families, or those who have come to the attention of the dependency court, are more likely to exhibit long-term patterns of acting-out behavior and difficult relationships with others (Fidler & Bala, 2010; Sullivan, 2008; Sullivan, Ward, & Deutsch, 2010). Litigation processes and long delays between court hearings further com- pound the difficulty in connecting behavior to consequences, even when all parties clearly understand the court orders. Thus, parents may have refused cooperation or violated court orders for extended periods of time without really experiencing any consequences for their behavior. For these Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 reasons, professionals may believe that these families cannot benefit from therapeutic help (Johnston, Walters, & Olesen, 2005; Walters & Friedlander, 2010a). Conversely, as others have noted, even seriously dysfunctional families can be helped if treatment methods are adapted to fit this population (Gershater-Molko, Lutzker, & Wesch, 2002).

EARLY RESISTANCE IS COMMON Traditional models of psychotherapy are often inapplicable or impractical in these cases. Many models of psychotherapy are based on the assumption that the therapist and the client(s) agree on the goals of the intervention. In Child-Centered Conjoint Therapy 45

contrast, many court-involved therapy cases begin with a treatment goal from the court that is uncomfortable for one or both parents, or for the child. In some cases, this may reflect a parent’s sustained desire or need to continue dysfunctional patterns, undermine the child’s relationship with the other parent, or secure a perceived advantage in the custody conflict. Many cases, however, reflect more complicated dynamics. Children who are heavily exposed to parents’ needs may produce statements or behaviors that mirror the parent’s needs rather than the child’s experience. The child may also decide that his=her emotional survival depends on taking sides with the more powerful parent. Parents may not recognize the problems this creates for their child, or they may believe that all of the child’s problems are caused by the ‘‘unreasonable’’ expectations of the court or the other parent. The child may have adopted unhealthy coping patterns exhibited by their parents, or they may have entrenched habits of avoiding, rather than resolving, uncomfortable emotions and interpersonal problems. Given these dynamics, it may be unrealistic to expect that these families will voluntarily enter treatment, let alone share the goals of the other parent, the therapist, or the court. As a result, this type of court-involved treatment requires more focused methods and a higher level of structure and accountability than traditional psychotherapy or treatment sought by higher functioning parents (Doi Fick, Figoten, Williams, & Pichivai, 2010).

KEEPING THE DEVELOPMENTAL FRAME – WHAT SKILLS WILL THIS CHILD NEED TO HAVE A FUTURE?

The CCCT model is based on the concept that the child’s development, and the skills that he=she must master to become a functioning adult, must be the core focus in all therapeutic intervention. In most cases, children will function most successfully if: (a) they are able to engage with each parent in a manner that is realistic and consistent with the children’s independent experience; (b) they are able to separate their own experience from others’ perceptions; (c) they are able to articulate and assert their independent Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 thoughts and feelings; (d) they are able to engage in healthy relationships and resolve interpersonal problems through direct communication and engagement with others; and (e) they can learn to use active coping skills rather than avoidance, acting-out behavior, or internalized symptoms to cope with emotional issues (Contreras, Kerns, Weimer, Gentzler, & Tomich, 2000). The overwhelming research on the importance of these skills (Contreras et al., 2000; Cooper, Shaver, & Collins, 1998; Dunn, Davies, O’Connor, & Sturgess, 2001; Fields & Prinz, 1997; Johnston & Roseby, 1997; Kelly & Emery, 2003) and the real-life implications if children fail to learn them, may ultimately serve as a reason for parents to appreciate the value of treatment and to cooperate with the therapist (Johnston, Walters, & Friedlander, 46 L. R. Greenberg et al.

2001). Initially, however, the therapist may encounter enormous passive or active resistance from parents and children, particularly if this has been a successful tactic for parents in the past. The therapist may need to interrupt parents’ concentration on legal struggles to refocus on children’s current distress and on risks to the child’s future functioning. A parent may fear that progress in therapy poses a threat to his=her legal position such as resulting in more parenting time for the other parent, reduction of child support, or an unwel- come focus on both parents’ contribution to problems. Children may have become accustomed to avoiding problems rather than dealing with them, having at least one parent indulge regressive or acting-out behavior, or avoiding dealing with their own feelings by taking sides or producing statements that each parent wants to hear (Fidler & Bala, 2010). Although both parents and children may ultimately find that better coping skills make life easier, their initial reaction is likely to be an attempt to avoid the work, and uncertainty, of change.

Legal Underpinnings, Importance of Structure, and Judicial Support Effective therapeutic intervention often requires a backdrop of support by the court, which creates the context for treatment and may include a beginning definition of the goals of treatment. Legal controversies exist about the court’s authority to order treatment, and practices vary among jurisdictions. In some states, a specific finding from the court (e.g., that conflict is impacting the child) may provide the authority for the court to order counseling. In other situations, therapy may be a necessary element of a broader plan, such as an attempt to rebuild a parent–child relationship or an attempt to provide an opportunity for a parent to modify dysfunctional behavior before the court is forced to consider stronger measures to protect the child (Greenberg et al., 2008). In a dependency proceeding, individual treatment may be ordered for the children at the outset of the case and for the parents if the allegations are sustained. In a family court proceeding, treatment may be ordered at various stages of the process and investigations, or repeated allegations may occur over extended periods of time. In very high-conflict cases, the family Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 may move back and forth between court systems, with either the same or different therapeutic teams and very dissimilar expectations in the legal setting. Both settings, however, typically include the legal expectation that each parent have an opportunity for contact and for a relationship with the child, and that disrupted relationships be reunified=rebuilt to the extent that it is safe and possible. For example, family preservation is addressed in the Adoptions and Safe Family Act, 1997 and Santosky v. Kramer (1981). In California Family Code sec. 3020(b), the legislature states that it is

...The public policy of this state to assure that children have frequent and continuing contact with both parents ....Aftertheparentalrelationshipends. Child-Centered Conjoint Therapy 47

Whether the therapist is appointed=designated to treat the child, or to conduct child-focused intervention with the family, therapy is most effective when the parents have a clear directive from the court to cooperate with treatment and the therapist has the flexibility to structure treatment. Success is most likely when the therapist is involved with both parent–child relationships and when some mechanism for accountability is included in the treatment order.

RESPECTING THE LIMITS OF THE ROLE In an atmosphere of limited resources, it is often tempting to vest the therapist with the power to make recommendations on psycho-legal issues, such as the best schedule for progress in reunification or parenting plans. This can be fatal to the treatment process, and the therapist may be in jeopardy of licensing board actions or ethical complaints. Therapists may have considerable information, particularly about the extent of families’ cooperation and about the child’s developmental progress, that may help the court or other professionals—such as an evaluator or a parenting coordinator—to act or make recommendations for the benefit of the child. Nevertheless, therapeutic information is usually limited in scope and may be affected by the therapist’s need to maintain a working alliance with members of the family. While it may be appealing to the decision maker (and to some therapists) to have the therapist make psycho-legal recommendations, this practice creates considerable and unnecessary risk to both the therapist and the treatment process. Therapists must balance the requirement for accountability with the family’s need for discretion, privacy, and a reasonably safe place for the child to experiment with new coping skills. While sharing information is a clinically sensitive issue that can be used to keep parents accountable, it is inconsistent with the therapeutic role for the therapist to make psycho-legal recommendations, and it is generally considered improper for them to do so (AFCC Task Force on Court-Involved Therapy, 2011; American Psycho- logical Association, 2002). Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 CLEAR UNDERLYING ORDERS AID TREATMENT Ultimately, there is considerable power in the therapist being able to say, ‘‘The judge decided; I’m just here to make it work.’’ It is therefore useful to have clear orders underlying therapy, including an order that details the court’s expectations on issues such as parenting time, review hearings, and the extent of each parent’s participation in the child’s life as therapy progresses (Martinson, 2010). While children’s safety must always be the first priority, we have found that it is useful, when safe, to have underlying orders that allow both parents to have access to common childhood experiences such as attendance at athletic events, school performances, and other 48 L. R. Greenberg et al.

child-focused activities. For example, the court may consider ordering that a monitored parent may attend athletic and school events, allowing the parent to greet the child but avoid engaging with the other parent, and directing the parents to cooperate with the therapist to develop detailed protocols for such events. This creates a structure that is less demeaning for the restricted parent, allows the child to benefit from a parent’s attendance and praise of the child’s efforts, and provides less loaded material that the parent can discuss with the child in treatment. Such experiences also allow the child to view the parent in the context of activities that are outside of the allegations or parenting conflict. Of course, such a structure cannot be utilized where the court has determined that there is danger in such areas as stalking, violence, or child abduction. Nevertheless, progress in therapy is likely to be enhanced by maintaining parental roles as much as possible without endangering the child. Specific orders are also important on issues such as transportation, limits and specifics in restraining orders, telephone access, and the responsibility of the parents to cooperate with the therapist and exercise their parental authority to promote the child’s cooperation. Orders can be drafted that specifically address conflicts that have arisen in the past for each specific family (e.g., late exchanges, conflict at public events, missed telephone calls). Financial arrangements should reflect the reality that therapists in these situations may be providing a broader range of therapeutic services than is the case in traditional treatment. Therapists should not begin treatment without clarity as to who is responsible for payment for all services, including reviewing documents (and whether the review of documents by the therapist can be requested or required), making telephone calls, giving any required reports or testimony, reviewing email correspondence, and so forth. It is often helpful to involve the therapist in crafting a stipulation that will allow therapy to be most effective. Detailed suggestions regarding the content of orders and consents can be found elsewhere in this issue (Dwyer, 2012) as well as in the AFCC Guidelines for Court-Involved Therapists (AFCC Task Force on Court-Involved Therapy, 2011). The family or the court may initially find the detailed stipulation or consent cumbersome, but consideration of these issues at the beginning of treatment can create considerable Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 savings in time and money as treatment progresses (Greenberg & Sullivan, 2012; Johnston et al., 2001; Sullivan & Kelly, 2001). Such transparency also minimizes the opportunity for parents and attorneys to create procedural hurdles intended to stall treatment progress. In addition, detailed stipulations and consents meet the requirements of informed consent that govern the practice of psychotherapy.

HANDLING OF TREATMENT INFORMATION As described elsewhere in this issue, the expected limits of therapeutic privacy should be addressed in detail by the parents, counsel, and therapist before Child-Centered Conjoint Therapy 49

treatment begins (AFCC Task Force on Court-Involved Therapy, 2011; Dwyer, 2012; Greenberg & Sullivan, 2012; Perlman, 2012). Decisions regarding this issue are often viewed in extreme terms, with the suggestion that either no treatment information be released, or that all therapy details be available. It is the authors’ experience, however, that more nuanced solutions are often more helpful. Some jurisdictions may require status conferences or other kinds of periodic feedback about treatment progress. In other jurisdictions, the therapy may be structured such that the therapist does not share treatment information unless one of the parents re-initiates litigation. In those cases, the therapist may be authorized or ordered to share information with the court via a report or a discussion with a case manager or other court-appointed professional. Some cases require a more regular feedback mechanism, and in such cases it may be helpful to involve a parenting coordinator, special master, guardian at litem, case manager, or child’s attorney, as long as close cooperation is maintained. Many of these cases require closer judicial case management and regular review hearings to assess therapeutic progress and to make decisions about changes to the parenting plan. Continuity in judicial management of the case may be invaluable (Sullivan & Kelly, 2001). In some jurisdictions, the court may elect to identify the child, rather than the family, as the therapist’s client, with the parents involved as adjuncts to the child’s treatment. This may allow the therapist to alert the court when he=she encounters problems with parental cooperation, without being required to disclose communications from the child. The methods described in this article can be applicable whether the child or the family is the identified client, as the child’s needs are emphasized as central throughout. These distinctions are crucial to the therapist’s other clinical and ethical responsibilities. In many cases, it is helpful for the court to specify that the therapy is based on the child’s needs. It is also helpful for the court to include direction to the therapist to alert the court if the therapist encounters problems with parent cooperation (Weinstock, personal communication, August 5, 2011). This may be important in creating appropriate expectations for each participant. Since circumstances can change, however, it is generally unwise for a therapist to promise complete secrecy to a child (AFCC Task Force on Court-Involved Therapy, 2011). Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 In summary, therapy is most likely to be successful if court orders include:

. expectation of cooperation by both parents, including specific expectations of parent behavior; . court’s concerns and treatment goals, reasons for the referral; . contingencies in the event of re-litigation; . payment arrangements for all treatment-related services; . parameters for extended family involvement, contact with other professionals, etc.; 50 L. R. Greenberg et al.

. provisions for accountability; . privilege=confidentiality expectations, circumstances in which treatment information may be disclosed; . separate custody=visitation orders as backdrop for treatment, including orders about parental attendance at the child’s activities and about cooperation with the therapist in setting procedures; . parameters for information to be provided to the therapist; . discretion for the therapist to set arrangements and procedures for treatment; and . consequences for failure to comply with treatment orders.

Therapists have a responsibility to review proposed orders and to decline assignments that violate professional responsibilities or ethical standards. Often, therapists can provide suggestions that will make the order both ethically defensible and clinically effective. Vagueness in court orders or consents creates extraordinary danger for therapists, and a parent who is resistant to change may use the lack of specificity to paralyze treatment. It may be advisable for therapists to have standard stipulation forms or consents that they can provide to counsel or the court. Some judicial officers also have standard forms with sufficient detail (Lewis, Kibler-Sanchez, & Wasznicky, 2009). Sample orders and consents also can be found as an appendix to the AFCC Guidelines for Court-Involved Therapists (2011).

TREATMENT METHODS

Although the therapist adapts methods to specific issues and the individual family situation, CCCT is focused on a set of core consistent messages, all aimed at promoting the child’s developmental progress. While it is not possible to address every area or symptom to which these methods apply, the reader will likely notice some common elements in the description of treatment methods in the following sections. Therapy is cognitively based and tar- gets the parties’ behavior, patterns of communication, and problem-solving

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 abilities (Greenberg, 2009).

Initial Procedures The therapist should have some flexibility in the methods used to begin treatment, provided that information is obtained from both parents and there is a clear, consistent message that therapy will be focused on the child’s needs. The therapist may conduct initial meetings with parents (separately or con- jointly) before or after meeting the child individually. The therapist may review historical data such as an evaluation report, as consistent with the court’s direction. If historical data is reviewed, the therapist should explain Child-Centered Conjoint Therapy 51

to the parties that this review is only for the purpose of assisting the therapist in structuring a treatment plan. It is not the therapist’s role to conduct an forensic evaluation, make findings of fact, or make psycholegal recommendations (Weinstock, personal communication, August 5, 2011). While such information may be relevant to treatment planning, data will also be obtained over the course of treatment that may complement or expand upon the findings of an evaluator or the contents of other documents. The therapist may need to revisit these role distinctions periodically with the parents, as circumstances arise. Throughout the course of treatment, the therapist periodically meets individually with the child, and for a portion of each conjoint session, to assess the child’s level of comfort or to allow the therapist to address a child’s distress. This structure maintains a commitment to the child that the therapist is available to help, while not excessively delaying the requirement that the child learn active and direct communication skills. Interventions with the child are adjusted individually based on the child’s developmental abilities and the identified case stressors.

Gaining Parental Cooperation The process of promoting parent cooperation begins with the treatment order or consent and the intake sessions with the parents. Obtaining each parent’s perception and concerns is essential to facilitating change, creating parental involvement and trust in the therapeutic process, and understanding the different stressors in each household. During the intake session, the therapist explains the parents’ roles in helping the child develop age-appropriate behavior and skills. Parents must encourage children to use these skills, and they must enforce expectations of appropriate behavior. They also should encourage the child’s independent expression of emotions and work with the child to practice problem-solving techniques. In the parent interview, the therapist has an opportunity to suggest adjunctive services if indicated, such as parenting classes or individual therapy. Later, it may be beneficial to revisit these issues if a parent becomes resistant to change or experiences a sense of loss when the child’s behavior Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 shifts. Sessions can be tailored to consider child safety issues (e.g., monitored contact, parent driving issues) while still allowing parents to alternate bringing the child to appointments, if court orders permit.

Protective Structure, Accepting Different Perspectives The child’s perceptions serve as the starting point for addressing issues. Parents are not required to directly admit to events that they do not agree with or do not recall, but they are not permitted to attempt to alter, criticize, or discount the child’s memories or feelings. A parent may tell a child that he=she does not recall an incident and then ask the child to explain more to gain a more 52 L. R. Greenberg et al.

thorough understanding of the child’s perceptions. Sessions are structured to explore the child’s independent memories or to seek out the child’s reactions to sensitive discussions with a parent. Children need to know that their perceptions are accepted and taken seriously but may not be literal memories. A treatment goal is to help parents (and ultimately children) acknowledge that each person may have different perceptions about the same incident (Smart, 2002). These perceptions are frequently influenced by a person’s wants, hopes, fears, or other agenda. During chaos or family violence, a person’s sight may have been blocked, or the language an adult used may have implied specific behavior that may have occurred differently than perceived. While acknowledging a difference of perception may not lead to the ‘‘truth of the matter,’’ it may add insight about each individual’s perceptions and suggest some future solutions for the family (Doi Fick, Greenberg, Perlman, & Barrows, 2010). Parents need to learn to recognize the sources of children’s perceptions. For example, a parent who reports that his=her child eavesdrops is likely aware that listening through doors or from around corners alters what is heard. If the parent allows the child to continue this behavior or fails to keep adult material away from the child, the parent may be passively giving permission for such behavior and the misinterpretations that may result. Conversely, parents need to learn to recognize and address their own contributions to the child’s memories and distress. For example, parents may be in dispute about whether an alleged incident of domestic violence occurred and about the nature of that incident. Both parents may minimize or distort the extent of the child’s awareness of the event. The child may only remember being in bed in the next room, unable to block out the sounds of the parents yelling and other loud, frightening noises. The child’s memory of the event may include both accurate perceptions and beliefs resulting from each parent inculcating the child with the parent’s narrative about the event (Johnston et al., 2009). Children may draw distorted conclusions about events based on their stage of development or because of unhealthy behaviors they have adopted. The therapist can assist the parent in identifying and addressing these behaviors. The game ‘‘telephone’’ demonstrates how words are altered when passed from one person to the next, and children are often familiar with this Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 game from their school experiences. Children at the center of conflict often fail to apply knowledge from other social relationships to issues in their families. The therapist can create exercises to help the child apply independent knowledge to family situations.

ADDRESSING POOR PARENTING AND EXPECTATIONS OF DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR

Therapy is structured to require children to exhibit behavior that would normally be expected of a child the same age, in any setting where the child is Child-Centered Conjoint Therapy 53

expected to follow rules and treat others with respect. This may require giving directions to parents as to the best ways to promote the child’s cooperation. Therapists should instruct parents to exercise parenting skills designed to enhance the child’s independence, and to practice skill-building techniques used in the course of treatment. For example, a 3-year-old is expected to walk into the session rather than be carried by an adult, unless the child needs physical assistance from the parent. These parent–child interactions will provide data regarding the quality of the parenting and the child’s responses to each parent’s style. Therapists should also teach parents to make careful observations and consider a variety of possibilities before placing blame on the other parent. Patterns of poor parenting may arise from a variety of sources, some of which are addressed in the following section.

Promoting Healthy Parenting Routines When a parent is concerned about the child’s time with the other parent, he= she may express alarm and believe that a child’s behavior has changed following contact with the other parent. Parents often overreact to minor fluc- tuations that the parent would not notice if the visit had not occurred. In other cases, real environmental issues may contribute to the child’s behavior. Routines, structures, and schedules may be different between households. One parent may have greater developmental knowledge, or greater sensitivity, than the other. One may be better at setting limits. After a parenting transition, the receiving parent may be particularly attentive to changes in the child’s behavior. It is not uncommon for receiving parents to both interpret and respond differently when the child exhibits difficult behavior after spending time with the other parent. For example, a parent who would otherwise recognize the need to set a limit with a child’s tantrum may instead ‘‘diagnose’’ the child’s tantrum as reflecting a problem with the other parent. The parent may have a legitimate concern about the other household but may also be defensive about difficulties he=she is having and will avoid potential scrutiny. Some parents need to believe that all problems emanate from the other household. Others will initially adopt this focus but can be Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 assisted with better parenting skills and communication, or they may be reassured about normal variations in children’s behavior. A common complaint is that the child is having difficulty transitioning between the parents. Rather than reinforcing undesired behavior, the therapist can instruct a parent to follow specific steps for the exchange. This type of rapid intervention does not require the parent to agree with the court’s order or to change his=her opinion of the other parent, but it is intended to bring immediate relief to the child. For example, the receiving parent may be instructed to wait in the car while the other parent facilitates the transition. The transitioning parent may be instructed to pick the child up, place the child in the car seat, buckle the child in, and place a stuffed bear in the 54 L. R. Greenberg et al.

child’s arms. The departing parent may be instructed to say to the child: ‘‘Bye, Jane, have a good time with Mom, and I will see you when you get back.’’ The parent is instructed to smile, wave, and close the vehicle door. The receiving parent is encouraged to politely thank the other parent, welcome the child, and leave the curb without hesitation. Other specific protocols may be appropriate based on the issues of each individual case. The therapist should clarify the similarities and differences between each home regarding household routine, structure, rewards, and consequences. For example, differences in bedtimes or routines may impact a variety of emotional issues, educational success, and the child’s behavior. The therapist should work with each parent to realistically review his=her observations while making parenting suggestions to alter the child’s behavior. For example, if a child functions poorly at school after an overnight in the other parent’s home, or if a young child becomes more irritable or fussy the next day, it may be prudent to rule out environmental factors. Par- ents may need some education or assistance in responding to these issues. An evenhanded approach on these issues is helpful, particularly if one parent has felt overly criticized by the other. It is essential that the therapist explore these common issues with parents, prior to suggesting that anxiety or trauma may be a cause of the child’s behavior. In the process, parents may learn to consider a greater variety of possible explanations for their children’s behavior. It is also important for parents and children to learn that parents may have different rules or practices on some issues (Smart, 2002). Therapists can also help parents use technology to promote healthy routines. For some families, replacing telephone calls with web visits is more suitable to the child’s developmental stage. The therapist will likely need to establish rules for the web visits (Walters & Friedlander, 2010b), which would include eliminating distractions to the child. Therapists may also need to assist parents with other ways to facilitate rebuilding the parent–child relationship. For example, a parent who cannot attend a school or athletic event may be able to view a videotape of the event so that he=she can intel- ligently discuss it with the child. A parent who cannot attend a parent– teacher conference in person might be able to attend telephonically or have Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 a brief phone conference privately with the teacher at a later time. A therapist can assist parents with skills for asking the child relevant questions and responding to a child’s cues. Interventions that reduce the parent’s isolation from the child will also facilitate the normal conversations that underlie most important relationships. Therapists should assist families to establish specific behaviors or dialogue to comply with court orders, addressing nonverbal and indirect as well as direct behaviors. As Fidler and Bala (2010) and others have noted, high-conflict parents are often characterized by what they do not do, as well as by what they do. The therapist may need to establish therapeutic contracts outlining specific, active procedures to reduce stress to the child. It is helpful Child-Centered Conjoint Therapy 55

for the therapist to conduct feedback sessions with parents to help reinforce patterns of change, or to assess whether modifications to a plan are needed. This also provides an opportunity to assess obstacles in the treatment plan, which may necessitate referring a parent to adjunct services (i.e., individual therapy, parenting classes).

Building a Language of Feelings The English language includes hundreds of words that express and describe emotions, but many children in these families are unable to identify or articulate their independent feelings (Johnston et al., 2001). Therapists have tools at their disposal including age-appropriate books, charts, flash cards, and photographs that demonstrate the use of language to convey emotions with appropriate application. Throughout the sessions, the therapist assists the child in building an expanded vocabulary for emotions and provides a list for the parent and child to use. The child may initially use art or play materials to express emotions, but the goal of the intervention is to teach the child to use words that other people can recognize and respond to. A bright 3-year-old once stated that her brain felt like ‘‘crackers in the soup,’’ which generated specific adjectives: confused, trapped, tricked, and pulled. These words were added to the ‘‘feeling word’’ list and shared with a parent at the following session. The parent’s task was to empathize with the child’s perceptions, acknowledge an understanding of these emotions, and praise the child for self-expression. A bonus occurs when a parent apologizes to the child for contributing to the child’s stress. Parents can also acknowledge responsibility by committing to plans to encourage the child’s expression of feelings and alter dynamics in the future. If families can use these words during contact outside of therapy, it may warn a parent of a child’s building stress and provide an opportunity for a parent to choose a different course of action or conversation. Children can be taught to recognize complex and conflicting emotions through materials that have no connection whatsoever to the allegations in the case. They need parental and therapeutic support to identify and express Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 these issues in the context of family interactions. The defining vocabulary can equal the child’s developmental level with explanations like, ‘‘I’m having two feelings at the same time. I’m happy to go to Disneyland with Daddy but sad that Mommy will be alone.’’ This illustrates the child’s conflicted emotions caused by high-conflict parental relationships. Families can also develop ‘‘signal words’’ that are unusual in everyday conversation but provide a way for a child to tell a parent that he=she is becoming distressed or overwhelmed. (Some children choose words with literal connotations of chaos or disruption, such as ‘‘volcano’’ or ‘‘earthquake’’.) A therapeutic contract between parent and child would allow the child to notify the therapist if declarations of emotional stress did not alter the 56 L. R. Greenberg et al.

parent’s behavior or conversation. The child will require explicit permission from parents to allow this intervention to be successful. Therapeutic objectivity is essential during this process, with the therapist systematically exploring materials and eliciting the child’s perceptions about how various feeling words apply to the child’s actual experience or memories (Greenberg & Gould, 2001; Greenberg et al., 2003; Kent & Doi Fick, 2001). Adults can be powerfully persuasive to children. Therapeutic knowledge about the effects of traumatic events can be a source of bias for the therapist, who may unwittingly make assumptions about what has happened to the child and how the child has responded to it. A therapist may find it helpful to explore messages with the child that he=she has received from either parent about the meanings of important words and the acceptability of the child’s feelings. Is there a special definition of ‘‘truth’’ in one household or the other? How do parents respond to the child’s various feelings, in everyday interactions as well as in issues related to the litigation? Does the household differentiate between feelings of anger and inappropriate behavior? Careful and systematic exploration often reveals the enormous cognitive and emotional binds that children experience when they are at the center of parental conflict or when they are attempting to describe a traumatic event involving a loved one.

Redirecting Unhealthy Child Behavior When children have had extended exposure to unhealthy family dynamics, they may adopt behaviors that are extremely unhealthy or that pose risks to the child’s future. Children can exhibit stunning variability in their behavior, based both on emotional issues and on the reactions of adults around them. Children can be severely impacted by trauma, but they can also demonstrate and develop sources of strength and resilience. When a child has had an overwhelming experience, sensitivity to the child’s reactions must be coupled with a gentle but consistent message that the child can cope and move on with life. When a parent (or therapist) focuses only on the child’s Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 vulnerabilities or emotional wounds, the child may be encouraged to view himself=herself this way. Parents who are responding to their own anxieties may assume that the child has identical feelings or may believe that the best way to protect the child is to support the child in avoiding difficult tasks or emotional issues. The alleged victim status of the child becomes the justifi- cation for various adult agendas about the ultimate parenting plan or the child’s relationship with the other parent. The child may accept the family narrative or demonstrate expected behaviors as a way of exhibiting loyalty to that part of the family. These behaviors become self-reinforcing, as the child who buries his=her own feelings also avoids the confusion and ambivalence that may arise when comparing the family narrative to his=her own Child-Centered Conjoint Therapy 57

experience. Avoidance of emotional issues becomes the child’s habitual response. These coping habits can impair the child’s functioning far into the future, as the child lacks the skills to build intimate relationships based on his=her own perceptions and experiences. Children in disturbed families often adopt behaviors that have been demonstrated to them by their parents, or they adopt markedly inappropriate behaviors to avoid situations that are difficult for them. They may demonstrate regressive behaviors such as tantrums, crying, or a refusal to use basic skills such as walking or carrying their belongings. Older children may exhibit acting-out behavior such as tantrums, disrespectful treatment of adults, or destruction of a parent’s property. Often these children are aware that they would not be permitted such behavior at school or in other settings, but they continue such behaviors in family relationships. Family patterns support dysfunctional behavior when an invested parent applies ‘‘special rules’’ to a child’s conduct that is related to the family conflict. One of the authors was confronted with a situation in which an adolescent had destroyed property at the other parent’s home and freely admit- ted his actions. The adolescent was able to articulate the consequences he would have experienced if he had destroyed property at school or in any other setting. The parent who experienced the property destruction did not have enough time with the child to enact an effective consequence, and the other parent made excuses for the child rather than set limits. This essentially sent the message that destruction of property was appropriate or permitted as long as the child was in the other parent’s home, which was strikingly inconsistent with general conduct expected in society. In this case, the therapist’s task was to engage the residential parent to support the message that destruction of property is never acceptable, because it is a socially and legally unacceptable behavior. The therapist then assessed whether the parent’s reluctance to set limits emanated from the parent’s agenda in the custody conflict or from the parent’s overall difficulty in controlling the adolescent’s behavior. After limits were effectively set with the acting-out behavior, the therapist could then assist both parents and child in addressing their underlying issues. Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 Most children have learned rules about acceptable behavior at school, where they are not permitted to engage in name-calling, tantrum behavior, property defamation or destruction, physical aggression, or disrespectful treatment of adults. The therapeutic message to the child is that if a behavior would not be accepted at school, it is not acceptable in therapy or with either parent. A child or adolescent’s anger at a parent may be entirely reasonable but must be expressed and resolved appropriately. Similarly, both parents must learn to recognize behaviors that pose risks to the child’s future. Rules and limits are established that engage both parents in requiring appropriate behavior from the child. As the child masters healthier skills, he=she will likely gain independence and confidence in dealing with family issues. 58 L. R. Greenberg et al.

Addressing Trauma, Paths of Accepting Responsibility When applied across the full texture of parent–child relationships, the methods described previously also establish the groundwork required for children to discuss difficult or traumatic events. The therapist has an opportunity to assess each participant’s coping abilities. Therapeutic agreements on daily issues provide an opportunity for the child to test the parent’s sincerity or trustworthiness and emotional reactivity. One party’s inability to effectively cope and discuss a trauma can undermine the process. It may be necessary to consult with the child’s and=or the parent’s individual therapist prior to addressing trauma con- jointly. The therapeutic expectation is for the parent to give permission and encourage the child to share his=her recollections and feelings about difficult events, even if the child’s memories differ from those of the parent. The therapist assists the parties in identifying situations that trigger flash- backs or painful memories. For a child, a trigger to a traumatic memory may be a word, tone, intensity, or body language that creates discomfort or stress. The child and parents are encouraged to use the skills they have developed to discuss and overcome the effects of trauma, and to use caution in assuming that any difficult behavior reflects the impact of trauma. Parents are encouraged to use sincere praise to reinforce continued discussions. The parent may share memories that are similar to the child’s. Moreover, the parent is expected to acknowledge the child’s statements and to express empathy in response to the child’s distress. The therapist continues to regularly meet with the child to assess the child’s responses and to learn if therapeutic contracts are being followed effectively. A parent can recognize his=her role in a child’s pain or distress and can commit to handling things differently in the future, without having to admit illegal conduct or make other statements that could be used against him=her in court. A parent’s apology does not need to include literal admissions of disputed events. The goal is for the parent to apologize for behaving or making decisions that led to the child’s distress. The apology may focus on the emotional impact to the child with a statement such as: ‘‘I’m sorry for what I did and how I made you feel. I did not intend to hurt or scare you.’’ Then,

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 if a child asserts that he=she will never forgive the parent, the parent can demonstrate compassion by responding with words such as, ‘‘I understand.’’ Privately, the therapist may also need to explore the sources of a child’s statement that he=she cannot forgive a parent or move past the historical event. If a parent explains the steps he=she has taken to rectify behavior (e.g., through counseling or parenting classes), this acknowledges to the child that such behavior required change or intervention. For reassurance, the parent may remind the child of any specific measures (e.g., court orders, monitored contact) that are in place to ensure that similar events will not occur. The therapist can support a parent’s request to continue to be a part of a child’s life by establishing therapeutic rules for future contact around addressing Child-Centered Conjoint Therapy 59

safety, managing anger, avoiding trigger events, and empowering the child to express his=her concerns. There are some cases in which treatment occurs in the context of multiple or longstanding allegations of abuse or domestic violence. In these cases, delays in treatment may cement limitations in parent–child contact and make it difficult to rebuild relationships, even if the court does not sustain the allegations. If a safe treatment structure can be created, it may be healthier for the child to begin to rebuild some aspects of the relationship with the parent, even if legal proceedings are continuing. For some, parent–child contact is exclusive to the conjoint session. This level of restriction makes treatment more difficult, however, as there is no outside experience or common activity with the parent. Parents who are awaiting trial may be concerned about incriminating themselves by what they say in therapy. The therapist must create a structure that respects a parent’s constitutional rights without allowing the parent to behave in a manner that undermines the child’s independent thoughts or feelings. The therapist provides the parent with guidelines for responding to the child’s statements. This may limit spontaneity at the beginning but assists a parent in gaining comfort with the process and decreases his=her defensiveness. The child is kept safe from a parent’s contradictory statements and is allowed to build confidence in self-expression. When a therapist deals with a parent about these issues, the therapist must be cognizant of the mechanisms by which a parent’s communication or behavior may alter or manipulate the child’s thoughts and feelings (Pedzek et al., 1997; Pedzek & Roe, 1997; Thompson et al., 1997).

Dealing With Loyalty Conflicts Children from conflicted families often feel caught between parents’ opposing needs and expectations. Parental conflict may have long predated the separation, and the child may align with one parent for a variety of reasons. Some children have a natural affinity for one parent’s style, while others have aligned with one parent due to exposure to adult information or the belief Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 that one parent is more needy or vulnerable. One parent may have better parenting skills or sensitivity to the child. In some situations, this reflects limitations in the less preferred parent. Alternatively, the less preferred parent may not have had as much time or opportunity to parent as the other parent has enjoyed. This becomes an escalating cycle if the preferred parent, or the child, resists opportunities to improve the relationship with the non- preferred parent. The therapist attempts to separate the parent’s issues from those of the child. By making distinctions in each party’s perceptions, the therapist can encourage the child to be emotionally independent from each parent and work with the parents to respect emotional boundaries. 60 L. R. Greenberg et al.

A child with conflicted loyalties will frequently distort the information he=she shares with each parent. Treatment includes working with the preferred parent to give the child permission to share rewarding or happy experiences that occurred with the other parent. The therapist encourages the child to identify and describe new awareness, positive changes, or recent memories of positive events, which may be difficult for the preferred parent to hear or accept. This intervention requires close follow-up by the therapist to ensure that the preferred parent is not undermining the child’s shared experiences. A therapist may also assist a child in expressing his=her concerns about the preferred parent’s emotional needs or reactions. For example, the therapist can assist the child to inform the preferred parent that he=she is aware of how the parent feels when the child is gone and to describe the conflicted emotions he=she experiences while with the other parent. The preferred parent is encouraged to offer sincere reassurance to the child by explaining that he=she has other activities to accomplish while the child is gone. Each parent may need to learn to explicitly encourage the child to enjoy time with the other parent. By practicing this exercise, parent and child establish a pattern of communication that can be repeated prior to the other parent’s visits or custodial time or during telephone calls when away. This model requires contracting with parents, providing written notes, or confirming by email to encourage parents to be accountable for their behavior. The therapist must clearly state expectations without ambiguity. If a parent’s cooperation decreases, the therapist must review contracts with the parent and explore the parent’s reactions. The therapist should emphasize to the parent that the child’s stress will decrease when conflicted parents change their behavior and that cooperation might even make life easier for the preferred parent. The therapist must emphasize that the parent is not just being asked to alter behavior to benefit the other parent—cooperation is important to all of the child’s current and future relationships.

OBSTACLES AND COMPLICATIONS Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 Parental Noncompliance The environments of children are usually controlled by the adults who care for them. Since a goal of CCCT is to enhance the child’s emotional independence, a parent who refuses to cooperate may create serious emotional consequences for the child. A child who is learning new coping skills in therapy should attempt to apply them at home and should learn to tell the therapist if the new skill did not work. A parent who cannot tolerate the child’s growth may also undermine the child’s confidence in other areas, such as the child learning to complete parenting transitions without crying or other misbehavior. In the preceding sections, the authors have described some Child-Centered Conjoint Therapy 61

of the methods used to promote parental cooperation, even with reluctant parents. When a parent fails to adhere to a treatment contract or refuses cooperation in other areas, the prudent initial procedure is to meet privately with the parent to explore the issue. A parent’s non-cooperation may reflect unwillingness to change, difficulty applying or learning skills taught by the therapist, a failure to recognize signals from the child, or other issues. The child’s therapist may need to intervene with the parent, coordinate with the parent’s individual therapist, or refer the parent for additional services. There is a subset of cases in which parents refuse to comply with the court’s orders, in therapy or in other areas. For example, the court may have ordered the parents to follow the therapist’s protocols for parenting exchanges or school athletic events, and one or both parents may have refused to comply. Where the parent is persisting in behavior that causes stress to the child, such as arguing with the other parent during the child’s school events, rapid relief may be appropriate. It may be useful for the court to underscore that its decision is an order and to explain the potential consequences of refusing to comply. Alterna- tively, the court could issue a specific order restricting the parent’s participation in the extracurricular activity until the parent cooperates with the therapist. Such interventions have been effective but may also create strain on an already overburdened court system. In these cases, it may be essential to add another professional to the team, such as a parenting coordinator, who is empowered to make daily decisions. (See Greenberg & Sullivan, 2012.) Where that is not possible, a minor’s counsel may be able to bring the child’s needs to the attention of the court. In rare circumstances, the therapist may find that the presenting problems cannot be effectively addressed within the therapeutic role and may suggest that either the team be broadened (see Greenberg & Sullivan, 2012) or that the family be referred back for forensic evaluation. The therapist must keep an open mind as to the reasons for the noncompliance and must make detailed, specific requests of the parents. Specific contracts also provide records as to the therapist’s attempts to secure cooperation from the parent. Since treatment contracts are designed to address behavior outside of therapy, this may be helpful in indentifying the subset of parents who will ‘‘fake’’ cooperation in the presence of the therapist but will Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 make no effort to change their behavior in their daily relationships with children (Goldman & Johnston, 2009). For these families, accountability is essential. The child must know that the therapist will follow up on the therapeutic contract and address the disappointment and mistrust that the child feels when an important adult fails to keep a promise. Adjustments to the treatment plan may be necessary to avoid ‘‘setting the child up’’ for repeated disappointments.

Responses to ‘‘The Child’s Voice’’ Recent developments in research and the law have underscored the importance of allowing children appropriate levels of participation in the decisions 62 L. R. Greenberg et al.

that affect their lives. The interventions described in this article are largely focused on creating a situation that empowers children with the ability to cope more effectively, make reasoned decisions, and communicate their feelings effectively. Difficulties are created when parents or professionals respond too literally to statements from a child, as these may reflect the child’s mood, temporary reactions, or deference to the more powerful parent. Children may appear emphatic, decisive, and well-prepared when they are discussing the issue about which they were expecting questions. They may have had long hours of exposure to adult information and language, which adds to an impression of maturity. Children of high-conflict families, however, may be pseudo-mature, presenting an adult-like and reasonable appearance when discussing ‘‘what they want,’’ but dissolving into tears, regression, and acting- out behavior when the interview is broadened or when an adult asks about contradictory information or ambivalent feelings (Garber, 2011). This can create a dilemma for the therapist and the court. The privacy and safety of the therapeutic setting may be important for the child, and may be the only place where the child can speak freely. Conversely, and sometimes simultaneously, the child may be relying on the therapist to convey information that the child is unable to express himself=herself. A full discussion of this issue is beyond the scope of this article, but the dilemma is worth noting and considering in treatment plans. In such a situation the court may or may not order limited sharing of information, or may give such control to a minor’s attorney. Children and therapists can work toward safe and managed information sharing, when it is necessary to do so.

Inappropriate or Undermining Therapists Children often benefit most when an expert therapist is appointed early in the case. In many cases, however, the expert therapist is appointed only after a prior therapy has failed or become controversial. For example, it is not uncommon for a conjoint therapist to be appointed after the child has been in individual therapy for an extended period of time and has made little or no Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 progress toward rebuilding his=her relationship with the less preferred parent. Certain errors are common when inexperienced therapists treat children of distressed families. The child’s therapist may have engaged only with one parent, thus biasing treatment. The therapist may believe that his=her role is to support the child’s literally expressed desires, rather then focusing on broader developmental goals or complying with the orders of the court. The therapist may ideologically believe that a child should not have to engage with a parent if the child does not wish to do so, that parents should be required to make specific admissions in order to see their children, or that it is appropriate to support the child’s avoidance. In other cases, the therapist may be uncertain Child-Centered Conjoint Therapy 63

as to how to intervene if confronted with intense opposition or dysfunctional behavior from the child. The concept of ‘‘supporting the child’’ is confused with acceding to the child’s demands, even if the therapist would not support the child in avoiding school or any other required activities. In such cases, the therapist may align with the parent who disagrees with the court’s order, and may undermine the conjoint therapy by supporting dysfunctional behavior in the child. When the child is involved in both individual and conjoint therapy, it is essential that both therapists consult to coordinate treatment plans. The expert therapist may be able to educate the individual therapist about more appropriate ways to support the child, and about the therapists’ obligation to stay consistent with the court’s orders. Such a conflict in treatment may require the involvement of another professional, such as a parenting coordinator. In severe cases, it may be necessary for the conjoint therapist to document the refusal of the individual therapist to cooperate and to bring those behaviors to the attention of the parents, coordinating professionals, or the court. In such cases, it may ultimately be healthier for the child to terminate an unhealthy treatment process if it is reinforcing dysfunctional behavior. These issues are discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this issue (Greenberg & Sullivan, 2012).

ATTEMPTS TO INTIMIDATE OR REMOVE AN APPROPRIATE THERAPIST The converse problem occurs when a therapist conducts appropriate treatment but one or both parents disagree with the therapist. For some highly conflicted parents, neutrality in a child’s therapist is intolerable. Such parents have an intense need to have all professionals align with them, both emotionally and in terms of the parent’s agenda in the custody conflict. They may apply similarly rigid rules to a child’s other relationships, rejecting friends, teachers, coaches, and extended family members who are perceived to be too friendly with the other parent (Sullivan & Kelly, 2001). A parent may become angry at a therapist for requesting a change in the parent’s behavior, setting limits with the child, or expressing anything other than unquestioning support for the parent’s agenda. The parent may expose Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 the child to his=her anger at the therapist, undermine the child’s trust or cooperation with therapy, and make attempts in the legal arena to have the therapist removed. It is often tempting for decision makers to remove a child’s therapist if one parent does not support the therapy. In most cases, however, it is unwise to remove a child’s therapist, or child-centered conjoint therapist, based only on the anger of a parent. Such decisions send a message to the child that the parent’s anger is more important than the child’s needs and that no relationship is permanent if a parent becomes angry. Moreover, it is the authors’ view that therapy can only be effective if the therapist is free to request changes in behavior from a parent and to encourage changes in the child. Therapists 64 L. R. Greenberg et al.

cannot implement these interventions if they fear being removed, or disrupt- ing the child’s treatment, because they made statements or requests that a parent disagrees with. Judicial support of treatment is essential in these cases. The addition of a parenting coordinator or minor’s counsel may produce a much better result for the child than the removal of an appropriate therapist. (See Greenberg and Sullivan, 2012, for a more detailed discussion of these issues.)

CONCLUSION

Child-centered conjoint therapy is a nontraditional model targeting court- involved families. The model is most effective when supported by specific orders, expectations of parental cooperation, mechanisms for accountability, and parenting structures that allow therapeutic intervention to impact children’s everyday experiences with parents. The interventions are designed to assist parents to create rapid behavioral and cognitive changes for their children, and for themselves, and to maximize healthy parent–child relationships. Specific behavioral interventions target immediate solutions with the hope that internalized change will follow. Parents and children are taught skills to strengthen the child’s independent growth and assist each parent’s adjustment and ability to cope with stress and trauma. Even if parents never achieve what a therapist would describe as ‘‘insight,’’ the changes in behavior can provide the opportunity for children to have a healthier future. The economic fluctuation in court-related resources calls for interventions that promote immediate relief to children and their families, while reducing the need for ongoing litigation. Some families present with complex issues and require treatment over an extended period of time, while others can more quickly adopt changes presented in concrete and behavioral terms. The model is designed to intervene in the family dynamics quickly, to support progress in parenting time and relationships, as consistent with the court’s orders. Ultimately, families are encouraged to apply their new skills and may eventually need to consult the therapist less frequently. Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 The CCCT model cannot be effective with every family. As previously described, the stepwise progression of treatment goals and therapy content allows the therapist to make adjustments based on the demonstrated abilities of the parent and child. For some, only limited resumption of contact may be feasible. For others, it may be possible to achieve a more complete resolution of emotional issues and greater involvement of the parent in the child’s life. An additional strength of the model is the focus on concrete and behavioral issues that can be clearly explained to those outside the mental health professions. Thus, if the family does return to litigation or a custody evaluation is ordered, the therapist may be able to provide specific data that will assist decision makers in making necessary modifications to parenting plans. Child-Centered Conjoint Therapy 65

The CCCT method should be considered a model in development. While there has been clinical success with its methods, and it is based in the social science literature, controlled studies of its effectiveness have not been possible. As more about the factors that promote children’s resilience and families’ abilities to resolve problems are discovered, greater refinements will be possible.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writers would like to thank David Weinstock, J.D., Ph.D.; Ernesto Rey, J.D.; Diane Hull, J.D.; Judge Thomas Trent Lewis; and Christina Caburnay for their invaluable assistance in the preparation of this article.

REFERENCES

Adoptions and Safe Family Act of 1997, 111 Stat. 2115; Pub. L. No. 105-89. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073. Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC). (2011). AFCC: Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Website. Retrieved from http://www.afccnet.org Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) AFCC Task Force on Court- Involved Therapy. (2011). Guidelines for Court-Involved Therapy. Family Court Review, 49, 564–581. California Family Code sec. 3020(b). Contreras, J. M., Kerns, K. A., Weimer, B. L., Gentzler, A. L., & Tomich, P. L. (2000). Emotion regulation as a mediator of associations between mother–child attachment and peer relationships in middle childhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 111–124. Cooper, M. L., Shaver, P. R., & Collins, N. L. (1998). Attachment styles, emotion regulation, and adjustment in adolescence. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74, 1380–1397. Doi Fick, L., Figoten, K., Williams, N., & Pichivai, A. (2010). Emotional abuse: Legal, developmental, and psychological issues. UC Riverside, CA, 12th Juvenile Law

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 Institute: Dependency Law Program. Doi Fick, L., Greenberg, L. R., Perlman, G., & Barrows, C. (2010, June). Keeping the developmental frame: Child-centered conjoint therapy in high conflict cases. Presentation conducted at the Association of Family Conciliation Courts (AFCC) 47th Annual Conferance, Denver, CO. Dunn, J., Davies, L. C., O’Connor, T. G., & Sturgess, W. (2001). Family lives and friendships: The perspectives of children in step-, single-parent, and nonstep families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 272–287. Dwyer, S. (2012). Informed consent in court-involved therapy. Journal of Child Custody, 9(1–2), 108–125. Fidler, B. J., & Bala, N. (2010). Children resisting post separation contact with a parent: Concepts, controversies, and conundrums. Family Court Review, 48, 10–47. 66 L. R. Greenberg et al.

Fidnick, L., Koch, K., Greenberg, L. R., & Sullivan, M. J. (2011). Guidelines for court- involved therapy: A best practice approach for mental health professionals. Family Court Review, 49, 564–581. Fields, L., & Prinz, R. J. (1997). Coping and adjustment during childhood and adolescence. Clinical Psychology Review, 17, 937–976. Friedlander, S., & Walters, M. G. (2010). When a child rejects a parent: Tailoring the intervention to fit the problem. Family Court Review, 48, 98–111. Garber, B. (2011). Parental alienation and the dynamics of the enmeshed parent– child dyad: Adultification, parentification, and infantilization. Family Court Review, 49, 328. Gershater-Molko, R. M., Lutzker, J. R., & Wesch, D. (2002). Using recidivism data to evaluate project safe care: Teaching bonding, safety, and health care skills to parents. Child Maltreatment: Journal of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, 7(3), 277–285. Goldman, J., & Johnston, J. R. (2009). The legacy of high conflict and violent divorce for young adults. In Children, courts, and custody: Back to the future or full steam ahead? AFCC 46th Annual Convention, New Orleans, LA. Greenberg, L. R. (2009, November). Not your grandmother’s (or analyst’s) therapy: Treatment of children and families in high conflict child custody cases. Presen- tation conducted at the meeting of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Reno, NV. Greenberg, L. R., Doi Fick, L., & Levanas, M. I. (2008, February). Therapeutic interventions. Rebuilding relationships: Child-centered conjoint therapy in high conflict cases. Presentation conducted at the Association of Family Conciliation Courts, California Chapter, California Annual Conference, Santa Monica, CA. Greenberg, L. R., & Gould, J. W. (2001). The treating expert: A hybrid role with firm boundaries. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 32, 469–478. Greenberg, L. R., Gould, J. W., Gould-Saltman, D. J., & Stahl, P. (2003). Is the child’s therapist part of the problem? What judges, attorneys and mental health professionals need to know about court-related treatment for children. Family Law Quarterly, 37, 241–271. Greenberg, L. R., & Sullivan, M. J. (2012). Parenting coordinator and therapist collaboration in high-conflict shared custody cases. Journal of Child Custody, 9(1–2), 85–107. Hewitt, S. (1999). Assessing allegations of sexual abuse in preschool children: Under- standing small voices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 Johnston, J. R., Lee, S., Olesen, N. W., & Walters, M. G. (2005). Allegations and substantiation of abuse in custody disputing families. Family Court Review 43(2), 283–294. Johnston, J. R., & Roseby, V. (1997). In the name of the child: A developmental approach to understanding and helping children of conflicted and violent divorce. In New York, NY, US: The Free Press (1997) xiv, 337. Johnston, J. R., Roseby, V., & Kuehnle, K. (2009). In the name of the child: A developmental approach to understanding and helping children of conflicted and violent divorce (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co. Johnston, J. R., Walters, M. G., & Friedlander, S. (2001). Therapeutic work with alienated children and their families. Family Court Review, 39, 316–333. Child-Centered Conjoint Therapy 67

Johnston, J. R., Walters, M. G., & Olesen, N. W. (2005). The psychological functioning of alienated children in custody disputing families: An exploratory study. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 23(3), 39–64. Kelly, J. B., & Emery, R. E. (2003). Children’s adjustment following divorce: Risk and resilience perspectives. Family Relations, 52, 352–362. Kelly, J. B., & Johnston, J. R. (2001). The alienated child: A reformulation of parental alienation syndrome. Family Court Review, 39, 249–266. Kent, J., & Doi Fick, L. (2001). Court-dependent children. In M. Winterstein & S. Scribner (Eds.), Mental health care for child crime victims: Standards of care task force guidelines (pp. 7-1–7-10). Sacramento, CA: California Victim Compen- sation and Government Claims Board. Kuehnle, K., & Connell, M. (2010). Child sexual abuse suspicions: Treatment considerations during investigation. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19, 554–571. Kuehnle, K., Greenberg, L. R., & Gottlieb, M. C. (2004). Incorporating the principles of scientifically based child interviews into family law cases. Journal of Child Custody, 1(1), 97–114. Lebow, J., & Black, D. A. (2012). Considerations in court-involved therapy with parents. Journal of Child Custody, 9(1–2), 11–38. Lebow, J., & Rekhart, K. N. (2007). Integrative family therapy for high-conflict divorce with disputes over child custody and visitation. Family Process, 46, 79–91. Levanas, M. I., Greenberg, L. R., Drozd, L. M., & Rosen, P. (2004). When allegations of abuse arise: Special considerations for minor’s counsel. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles County Bar Association. Lewis, T. T., Kibler-Sanchez, S., & Wasznicky, D. (2009). Redefining the need for Family Court as a public health issue. In Children, courts, and custody: Back to the future or full steam ahead? AFCC 46th Annual Convention, New Orleans, LA. Martinson, D. J. (2010). One case – one specialized judge: Why courts have an obligation to manage alienation and other high-conflict cases. Family Court Review, 48, 180–189. Olesen, N. W., & Drozd, L. M. (2012). Prudent therapy in high conflict cases: With and without allegations of intimate partner violence or child abuse. Journal of Child Custody, 9(1–2), 69–84. Pedzek, K., Finger, K., & Hodge, D. (1997). Planning false childhood memories: The role of event plausibility. Psychological Science, 8, 437. Pedzek, K., & Roe, C. (1997). The suggestibility of children’s memory for being Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 touched: Planting, erasing, and changing memories. Law & Human Behavior, 21, 95. Perlman, G. L. (2012). A judicial perspective on psychotherapist–client privilege: Ten practical tips for clinicians. Journal of Child Custody, 9(1–2), 126–152. Santosky, v. Kramer. (1981) 455 U.S. 745, 752–752. Smart, C. (2002). From children’s shoes to children’s voices. Family Court Review, 40, 307–319. Sullivan, M. J. (2008). Coparenting and the parenting coordination process. Journal of Child Custody, 5, 4–24. Sullivan, M. J., & Kelly, J. B. (2001). Legal and psychological management of cases with an alienated child. Family Court Review, 39, 299–315. 68 L. R. Greenberg et al.

Sullivan, M. J., Ward, P. A., & Deutsch, R. M. (2010). Overcoming barriers family camp: A program for high-conflict divorced families where a child is resisting contact with a parent. Family Court Review, 48, 116–135. Thompson, W. C., Clarke-Stewart, K. A., & Lepore, S. J. (1997). What did the janitor do? Suggestive interviewing and the accuracy of children’s accounts. Law & Human Behavior, 21, 405–426. Walters, M. G., & Friedlander, S. (2010a). Finding a tenable middle space: Under- standing the role of clinical interventions when a child refuses contact with a parent. Journal of Child Custody, 7, 287–328. Walters, M. G., & Friedlander, S. (2010b). Role of clinical interventions. Journal of Child Custody, 7, 301. Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:26 17 August 2014 Developmental Review 32 (2012) 205–223

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Developmental Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dr

Natural conversations as a source of false memories in children: Implications for the testimony of young witnesses

Gabrielle F. Principe ⇑, Erica Schindewolf

Department of Psychology, Ursinus College, United States article info abstract

Article history: Research on factors that can affect the accuracy of children’s auto- Available online 25 July 2012 biographical remembering has important implications for understanding the abilities of young witnesses to provide legal Keywords: testimony. In this article, we review our own recent research on Memory one factor that has much potential to induce errors in children’s Suggestibility event recall, namely natural memory sharing conversations with Children Social interaction peers and parents. Our studies provide compelling evidence that Rumor not only can the content of conversations about the past intrude Eyewitness testimony into later memory but that such exchanges can prompt the generation of entirely false narratives that are more detailed than true accounts of experienced events. Further, our work show that deeper and more creative participation in memory sharing dialogues can boost the damaging effects of conversationally conveyed misinformation. Implications of this collection of ﬁndings for children’s testimony are discussed. Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Perhaps only one simple and straightforward claim can be made about the accuracy of children’s testimony: not all statements made by children are true. Admittedly, exact accuracy is not the usual goal of memory in everyday life. Most autobiographical remembering is carried out for social purposes, such as to build bonds and foster connectedness with friends and family (see e.g., Nelson, 1993), and can serve these functions even when recollections do not precisely represent the past. In

Corresponding author. Address: Department of Psychology, Ursinus College, PO Box 1000, Collegeville, PA 19426-1000, ⇑ United States. Fax: +1 610 409 3633. E-mail address: [email protected] (G.F. Principe).

0273-2297/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2012.06.003 206 G.F. Principe, E. Schindewolf / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 205–223 fact, many everyday situations encourage some degree of unfaithfulness. Exaggerated, improvised, or even fabricated stories can be more engaging or more amusing to conversational partners than verid- ical reports. These tendencies to embellish personal experiences may be especially pronounced at young ages given children’s proclivity for pretense and adults’ willingness to play along. To illustrate, only young children can get away with fantastic stories of a fairy who gives prizes for baby teeth or a monster that lives under the bed (see e.g., Principe & Smith, 2007). Against this backdrop of memory in everyday life, the courtroom is a rather unusual setting for children’s remembering. In the real world, accounts of personal experiences are successful to the extent that they are relayed in a compelling or affecting manner. In the legal system, precise accuracy is the goal. Remembering is successful to the degree that witnesses ‘‘tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.’’ Forensic settings, therefore, put unique demands on memory that are at odds with the way that recollections of the past typically are used. This contrast notwithstanding, because many criminal offenses that bring children to court, such as sexual abuse and other forms of molestation, lack other witnesses or corroborating evidence, children’s testimony often serves as the sole piece of evidence against criminal defendants. Likewise, children’s memories impact many civil and family court cases. For example, children’s accounts of parental transgressions, such as domestic violence and substance abuse, as well as more mundane events, such as daily home routines, commonly play a role in custody, support, and visitation decisions. Considering the centrality of children’s testimony in many legal situations, research on factors that can compromise children’s abilities to provide accurate accounts of the past has considerable relevance to forensic professionals and fact finders. Given that children’s testimony is elicited in interviews, many investigators have focused on the mnemonic effects of various suggestive features of interviews. This voluminous literature has revealed that a range of factors, such as types of questions asked, the sorts of ancillary aids used, and the characteristics of interviewers, can seriously derail children’s accuracy and even lead to entirely false accounts (see Bruck, Ceci, & Hembrooke, 2002, for a review). Despite the significance of this work for developing effective interviewing protocols, researchers have become increasingly concerned with examining suggestive factors outside of the formal interview context that also can contaminate memory. This move to exploring extra-interview factors has been prompted by findings that even when children are interviewed under optimally nonsuggestive conditions, some nonetheless relay fabricated stories in line with suggestions encountered from other sources, such as parents (Poole & Lindsay, 2002) and television (Principe, Ornstein, Baker-ward, & Gordon, 2000). In everyday life, one common way to encounter suggestions is during memory sharing conversations with others. A compelling reason for focusing on conversational forms of suggestion concerns the social nature of autobiographical memory. Sharing memories through conversations with friends and family members is a typical and frequent part of children’s everyday social interactions. During such exchanges, however, children constantly are encountering others’ versions of the past. Different versions can arise unwittingly when conversational partners misremember what happened, but also can occur when they purposefully exaggerate or even fabricate details to tell, say, a more glamorous story than give a precisely accurate account. Given that memory is constructive (Bartlett, 1932), it is within this realm that bits and pieces of the suggestions and stories told by others may find their way into children’s recollections of their experiences. Emphasizing the social nature of remembering are theories of collective memory (e.g., Hirst & Man- ier, 2008; Reese & Fivush, 2008) that characterize memories of shared experiences as dynamic representations that are shaped by group conversational processes. In this framework, as memories of the past are reconstructed within a group, its members negotiate a collective version of experience. Con- sequently, individual representations are revised to become progressively alike among group members (see Harris, Paterson, & Kemp, 2008). However, when misinformation is introduced into group remembering, either deliberately by a confederate (Meade & Roediger, 2002) or unknowingly by a group member who experienced a slightly different version of the event (Gabbert, Memon, & Allan, 2003), individuals are prone to later recall occurrences that were nonexperienced but merely suggested by their conversational partners. The practical importance of studies of conversational sharing for discussions of children’s testimony comes from real world examples demonstrating that witnesses often talk with one another. G.F. Principe, E. Schindewolf / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 205–223 207

Consider, for instance, Paterson and Kemp’s (2006a) finding that over 80% of witnesses to a crime or serious accident reported discussing the event with another witness, or other work showing that it is not uncommon for multiple witnesses to be questioned at the same time (e.g., Garven, Wood, Malpass, & Shaw, 1998). Issues of conversational contamination are particularly relevant to situations involving multiple abuse victims, as children caught up in these cases may attend group therapy sessions or community meetings where allegations are shared (Rabinowitz, 2004). There are also reasons to suspect that young children may be especially vulnerable to the contributions of others in their constructions of experience. First, young children’s difficulty keeping track of the source of their memories (e.g., Poole & Lindsay, 2002) may put them at increased risk for mistakenly attributing events relayed by others as their own actual experiences. Second, young children are somewhat dependant on others to help them figure out how to represent and recount their experiences. Such collaboration benefits children’s construals of novel events and narrations of existing memories (Nelson, 1993), but it might also lead to problematic distortions in memory when others incorrectly frame legally relevant events. Consider, for instance, a father who frames sexual abuse as a special game or a mother in a custody dispute who says, ‘‘Daddy hurts you when he gives you a bath, doesn’t he?’’ Third, younger preschoolers do not yet realize that others can have memories that are false; rather they believe that the mind literally copies experience and that everyone therefore has only true memories (e.g., Perner, 1991). This tendency usually is not problematic in the real world but it can be in legal situations. To illustrate, when a child hears from a friend that she saw Santa put presents under the Christmas tree or that their teacher Mr. Bob does bad things, both claims are unques- tionably believed. Finally, young children rarely receive feedback on what a false memory feels like. Adults do, for example, when they remember parking their car on the second level of the garage but find it on the first. Children, in contrast, get away with all sorts of memory errors, such as claiming to have spent the afternoon with an invisible friend. As this brief analysis indicates, examination of the sorts of conversational activities that might be linked to later errors in remembering is central to an understanding of children’s ability to provide testimony in legal settings. However, because the extant literature on memory errors focuses almost exclusively on the effects of suggestive questioning or other forms of scripted misinformation, we know very little about the ways that memory may be transformed in the normal course of discussing the past with others. With these theoretical and applied issues in mind, in the remainder of this article, we offer an overview of a programmatic series of studies carried out by our research group concerning how knowledge gained from and within conversations with agemates and adults can shape children’s constructions of the present and reconstructions of the past.

Co-witness inﬂuence

Our exploration of mnemonic effects of memory sharing began in the context of a study on the influence of naturally occurring interactions with peer witnesses on children’s memory for a personal experience (Principe & Ceci, 2002). Given extant demonstrations of the potency of collective remembering in shaping individual memories in the direction of the group, co-witness discussions might, at least at times, cause children within a peer group to construct a collaborative story that does not veridically reflect the independent experiences of each group member. This issue may be especially important for legal cases involving multiple purported victims because fact finders may rely on the number and similarity of allegations to determine the credibility of any single child’s testimony. It is likely very compelling to hear child after child tell the same story, especially if one believes that each witness has arrived at the same storyline independently. In some situations, however, the exact opposite might be the case. The story may have been arrived at in a collaborative manner among peers who initially had very different representations of the event. There are numerous real world examples that discussions among co-witnesses can influence children’s testimony. Consider, for instance, the following exchange between a young witness and a forensic investigator in the Wee Care Nursery School case in Maplewood, New Jersey. In this case, Kelly Michaels, a teacher at the school, was accused of sexually molesting her students. Here a child reveals that the source of her allegation was another child rather than her own observation: 208 G.F. Principe, E. Schindewolf / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 205–223

Interviewer: Do you know what [Kelly] did? Child: She wasn’t supposed to touch somebody’s body. If you want to touch somebody, touch your own. Interviewer: How do you know about her touching private parts? Is that something you saw or heard? Child: Max told me. (Ceci & Bruck, 1995, p. 150)

To explore co-witness contamination, three groups of 3- to 5-year-olds participated in a staged event at their preschools, namely an archaeology dig with a confederate archeologist named Dr. Diggs. Children used plastic hammers to dig pretend artifacts, such as dinosaur bones, gold coins, and jewels, out of specially constructed blocks of mortar mix and play sand. Each dig included two ‘‘target’’ artifacts: a bottle with a map to a buried treasure and a rock with a message written in a secret language. One third of the children, those in the Witness condition, saw Dr. Diggs ruin the target artifacts (heretofore referred to as target activities). He ‘‘accidentally’’ spilled coffee on the map, smearing the ink and rendering the map illegible. He appeared upset and said, ‘‘I messed up the map! Now I’ll never find the buried treasure!’’ Dr. Diggs also dropped the rock, shattering it into pieces, and said, ‘‘I’ve broken the rock! Now I’ll never know what the secret message says!’’ A second third of the children, those in the Classmate condition, did not witness the target activities during the dig but were the classmates of those in the Witness group. We expected that some of these children would hear about the ruined map and broken rock through natural conversations with their classmates who saw these activities. The remaining children in the Control condition were drawn from different preschools than the Wit- ness and Classmate children. These children did not have any opportunities to interact with those who saw the target activities nor did they see these activities themselves. This group provided the likelihood that target activities would be reported by a random nonwitness without exposure to any peer witnesses. Teachers were discouraged from initiating or participating in conversations with children about the dig. Given evidence of the use of suggestive techniques in forensic settings, we also examined whether suggestive interviews might augment the influence of co-witnesses. Following the dig, all children were questioned on three occasions spread out over a 3-week interval. Half of the children received neutral interviews, whereas the remaining half were questioned in a suggestive manner. Embedded in the suggestive interviews were strongly worded leading questions that implied that the target activities had occurred. Thus these questions were in line with what the Witnesses children had seen, but inconsistent with the experience of the Classmate and Control children. Four weeks after the dig, a new interviewer questioned all of the children in a neutral manner and asked them to recall ‘‘only things that you remember happening to you—things that you really did or remember seeing with your own eyes.’’ The hierarchically ordered interview began with an open- ended prompt: ‘‘Tell me what happened when Dr. Diggs visited your school.’’ After exhausting open-ended recall, specific questions were asked if one or both of the target activities had not yet been reported (e.g., ‘‘Did anything happen to a treasure map?’’). For each target activity relayed, children were asked to elaborate (‘‘Tell me more about that.’’) Children who made reports of target activities also were asked for the source of their memories, that is, whether they actually saw the target activity

Table 1 Mean percentages target activities reported as actually occurring at the ﬁnal interview as a function of experimental group and degree of prompting.

Open-ended Specific Total Witness/neutral interview 34 47 81 Classmate/neutral interview 16 15 31 Control/neutral interview 0 0 0 Witness/suggestive interview 68 23 91 Classmate/suggestive interview 50 36 86 Control/suggestive interview 23 33 57 G.F. Principe, E. Schindewolf / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 205–223 209 occur with their own eyes or merely heard about it from someone (e.g., ‘‘Did you see Dr. Diggs spill his drink on the treasure map with your own eyes, or hear that he did it?’’). Table 1 shows the proportion of target activities reported and the degree of prompting needed to elicit the information at the 4-week interview. As shown, children in the Witness conditions evidenced quite good recall of these actually experienced activities, with both groups reporting over 80%. However, the Classmate children, who did not witness the ruined map or the broken rock, also reported many of these activities. Under both interviewing conditions, the Classmate children wrongly reported more target activities than the Control children, demonstrating that natural contact with peer witnesses can induce false accounts in non-witnesses. In fact, many errant accounts were at the open-ended level of questioning, indicating that the effects of peer witnesses are not limited to cued reports can but can result in abundant spontaneous errors. Perhaps the most interesting finding to emerge from this study is that when the Classmate children were exposed to the suggestive interviews, they reported as many target activities as those in the Witness conditions who actually experienced these activities. Thus the combined effects of exposure to peer witnesses and suggestive interviewing among the non-witnesses resulted in levels of recall that were indistinguishable in terms of magnitude from those of the Witness children. Several other findings also are of interest. First, among those non-witnesses who reported target activities, the Classmate children were more likely than the Control children to report actually seeing these activities occur with their own eyes (as opposed to merely having heard about them). Such claims of seeing suggest that natural conversations with co-witnesses not only can induce false reports but they also can lead to source confusions. Second, given that fact finders often consider detail as an index of testimonial accuracy (Ceci, Kulkofsky, Klemfuss, Sweeney, & Bruck, 2007), we explored the narratives accompanying the reports of target activities. As expected, the Witness children generated relatively detailed accounts of these experienced events. Many non-witnesses, however, also relayed elaborate reports of these occurrences they never saw but merely heard about, with many embellishing with details that went beyond the Witness children’s experiences but nonetheless were consistent with them. Consider, for example, a Classmate child who said that after spilling coffee on the map ‘‘Dr. Diggs walked away and then we just got in big trouble... all my friends and he had to be punished for a whole weekend...The ladies in the cafeteria cleaned it because he didn’t have a mop...They took him away and put him in jail.’’ In fact, the Classmate children’s false accounts of the target activities were more voluminous than the true narratives of the Witness children. This pattern demonstrates that narrative detail is not diagnostic of accuracy when children have been exposed to peer witnesses, and is consistent with other work showing that false accounts induced by other forms of suggestion can be more elaborate than true reports (e.g., Bruck et al., 2002; Poole & Lindsay, 2002). Interestingly, examination of the content of children’s narratives indicated that this group difference occurred neither because the Classmate children more completely relayed their peers’ experiences or the interview suggestions nor because they more readily invented fantastic or idiosyncratic embellishments, but because they generated more original constructions consistent with the notions of a ruined treasure map and a broken rock.

Rumor mongering and remembering

In our next study, we sought to extend our (Principe & Ceci, 2002) demonstration of the impact of conversational interactions by determining whether peer interactions can inﬂuence children’s reports of an experience even when none of them actually witnessed the event in question. To do this, we planted a false rumor about an experienced event among some members of preschool classrooms and examined the degree to which the rumored information leaked into their own and their classmates’ recollections when later interviewed. We also explored the degree to which the interfering effects of the rumor might be exacerbated when paired with suggestive interviews that are consistent with the rumor. We chose to study rumor transmission because a large literature in social psychology demonstrates that rumors often are generated about events that are meaningful and upsetting where the truth is unclear (see Rosnow, 1991). These conditions sound a lot like those created by the sorts of offenses that usually bring children to court, such as sexual abuse and other forms of maltreatment, because 210 G.F. Principe, E. Schindewolf / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 205–223 they are unsettling and typically lack corroborating witnesses or physical evidence. In such cases, rumors may emerge to ﬁll in the gaps of missing information or to impose an explanation on an unsettling allegation. Considering that individuals generally assume that information exchanged during everyday conversations is true (Gilbert, 1995), shared rumors likely have much potential to prompt revisions in memory in line with overheard information. There also are real world examples of rumor contamination. One comes from a case in which children who were absent from school on the day of a sniper attack recalled seeing things that only their peers, who were present, could have experienced. A rumor allegedly began to circulate that a second sniper had eluded police and was on the loose. When the children were asked to describe the attack several months later, many described in detail how the second sniper had escaped and still was loose in the neighborhood (Pynoos & Nader, 1989). To examine whether rumor can leak into memory, four groups of 3- to 5-year-olds saw a scripted magic show in their preschools (Principe, Kanaya, Ceci, & Singh, 2006) in which a magician named Ma- gic Mumfry tried to pull a live rabbit out of his top hat. After several failed and frenzied efforts, Mumfy apologized and left the school. Immediately after the show, children in the Overheard group overheard a scripted conversation between two adults in which one alleged that the trick failed because Mum- fry’s rabbit had gotten loose in the school rather than residing in his hat. We maximized children’s attention to the rumor by having them stand quietly in a line awaiting a sticker during the planned conversation. Children in the Classmate group did not overhear the adult conversation about the escaped rabbit but were the classmates of the Overheard children. Of interest was whether these children would learn about the alleged lost rabbit through natural interactions with their classmates who heard the rumor and whether details in line with the rumor might leak into their later recollections. Control children had no exposure to the rumor; they were not the classmates of those who overheard the rumor, nor did they overhear it themselves. The remaining children in the Witness group had no exposure to the other three groups but experienced the event suggested by the rumor, namely seeing Mumfry’s rabbit loose in their school after the failed trick. One week later, all children were questioned in either a neutral or suggestive manner. Embedded in the suggestive interviews were coercive questions that implied that the interviewee had witnessed Mumfry’s escaped rabbit, when in fact only those in the Witness group did. Two weeks after the show, all children were questioned by a new, neutral interviewer in the same hierarchical manner as in Principe and Ceci’s (2002) study. As shown in Table 2, all of the Witness children correctly recalled that Mumfry’s rabbit had gotten loose in their school. Table 2 also illustrates the powerful effects of the rumor on children’s accounts. All but one of the Overheard and Classmate children wrongly reported a loose rabbit. Thus these children were as likely as those who actually saw a live rabbit to report that Mumfry’s rabbit was loose, thereby eliminating differences in levels of recall between true and false accounts. This pattern not only shows that information overheard from adults can lead to near ceiling levels of false reports of nonexperienced events, it also indicates that rumors transmitted by peers can be as detrimental as those spread by adults. Moreover, the majority of the Overheard and Classmate children’s reports of the escaped rabbit were in response to open-ended probes, demonstrating that errant rumors can lead to high levels of spontaneous fabrications. Further, many Overheard and Classmate children claimed to have seen, as opposed to heard about, the loose

Table 2 Percentages of children who reported the target activity as actually occurring at the ﬁnal interview as a function of experimental group and degree of prompting.

Group Open-ended Specific Total Witness/neutral interview 90 10 100 Overheard/neutral interview 86 10 95 Classmate/neutral interview 86 14 100 Control/neutral interview 0 10 10 Witness/suggestive interview 87 13 100 Overheard/suggestive interview 87 13 100 Classmate/suggestive interview 91 9 100 Control/suggestive interview 9 50 59 G.F. Principe, E. Schindewolf / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 205–223 211 rabbit. These reports of seeing a nonoccuring event represent a considerably more extreme demonstration of peer-generated suggestibility than our prior study (Principe & Ceci, 2002) considering that none of these children witnessed the event in question. Further demonstrating the potency of rumor, the non-witness children described the rumored loose rabbit with much elaborative detail that went above and beyond the literal rumor. To illustrate, a Classmate child said that, ‘‘The rabbit was in the playground, and then it was over the gate and, the rabbit was over, the rabbit jumped, hopped over the gate...I tried catching him with a bucket but he bited me on the finger...They found him in the potty.’’ In fact, the Overheard and Classmate children’s descriptions of the rumored-but-nonoccurring loose rabbit were twice as voluminous as the accounts of the Witness children, demonstrating that false narratives engendered by rumor can be much more elaborate than true narratives generated on the basis of experience. Considering the ease with which suggestive questions can induce false reports (see Ceci, Kulkofsky et al., 2007), it is worth noting that the loose rabbit misinformation engendered higher levels of error when planted via a rumor than when suggested during an interview. Those children who heard the rumor from an adult or peers gave more errant reports of the nonevent, were more likely to wrongly recall seeing (as opposed to hearing about) it, and embellished their accounts with more elaborative detail compared to those for whom the very same false information was suggested during an interview. This finding is particularly noteworthy given that the Overheard children were not instructed to share the rumor with their peers but ended up naturally propagating this information to them in a manner that was more mnemonically damaging than an aggressively suggestive interview.

Conﬂicting rumors

The major finding of our initial study on rumors was that overheard false information that provides a reasonable explanation for an earlier ambiguous event can lead children to mistakenly recall details consistent with the rumor (Principe et al., 2006). This finding prompted us to consider whether the effects of rumor might be less powerful in situations where the rumored information conflicts with the past rather merely fills a gap. This contrast was of interest because when rumors only fill a gap, overheard details can be imported into memory without displacing or overwriting any experienced details. But when rumors conflict with the past, there is a contradiction between what was experienced and what was overheard and children must resolve it. One important factor that may moderate children’s resistance to rumors that contradict with their experiences is their ability to reason about conflicting mental representations. This notion comes from researchers in the theory of mind tradition who propose that there is a major transition in children’s understanding of representational processes between 3 and 6 years of age (e.g., Perner, 1991). Younger preschoolers possess a copy theory of mind and believe that the mind exactly represents the world and that consequently everyone has the same true beliefs about it. In contrast, older preschoolers develop an interpretive theory of mind and recognize that representation is a subjective process shaped by experience as well as beliefs, expectations, goals, and so on. Thus they realize that different people can have different, even contradictory, representations of the same experience. With these issues in mind, 3- to 6-year-olds participated in our usual magic show (Principe, Tingu- ely, & Dobkowski, 2007). At the end of the show, one third of the children, those in the Conflicting Rep- resentation condition, experienced an extra activity that provided a plausible explanation for the failed trick but that conflicted with the rumor that they would later overhear. Mumfry uncovered a previously unseen cage that held a live rabbit. He explained that he had found his missing rabbit and that it was sick because when it is sick it will not leave its cage, not even to do its favorite hat trick. To encourage belief in this explanation, Mumfry got out his vet kit, checked the rabbit with a stethoscope, and gave it some ‘‘medicine.’’ Then he and the rabbit left the school. Replicating our original procedure, these children then overheard an adult allege that Mumfry’s trick failed because the rabbit had gotten loose in the school. Importantly, the rumor created a conflicting representation for the failed trick for these children given their prior exposure to the sick rabbit. A second third of the children, those in the Nonconflicting Representation group, overheard the same rumor conversation but did not experience the extra sick rabbit activity. Thus for these children the rumor provided a 212 G.F. Principe, E. Schindewolf / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 205–223 plausible explanation for the failed trick. The remaining Control children did not overhear the rumor or interact with the children in the other two groups. One week later, all children were questioned using our standard interview protocol. Replicating our earlier findings, nearly all of the children for whom the rumor did not conflict with their experiences reported that Mumfry’s rabbit had gotten loose in the school. Interestingly, there were no effects of age in this group, suggesting that increased resistance to gap-filling rumors may not develop during the preschool years. However, the 5- and 6-year-olds were better able than the 3- and 4-year-olds to resist the rumor when it conflicted with their experiences than when it merely filled a gap, whereas the 3- and 4-year-olds were equally likely to be misled by both types of rumors. All but one of the Conflicting Representation young children reported a loose rabbit, whereas less than half of the older children did. These findings qualify our earlier work by revealing that younger preschoolers may be more vulnerable than older preschoolers to conflicting rumors. Examination of children’s false narratives describing the rumored loose rabbit suggests that their developing ability to deal with conflicting representations played some role in this age trend. The younger Conflicting Representation children based the majority of their false accounts on only one representation of the failed trick—the nonoccurring rumor. The older children in this condition, in contrast, imported many details consistent with the sick rabbit activity they actually saw, suggesting that they had more ready access to both representations and consequently drew from both in constructing their accounts. We also found that poorer performance on a separate series of tasks that index conflicting representation understanding was associated with increased proneness to report the rumored target activity and heightened levels of descriptive detail consistent with the rumor. This relation remained significant after controlling for age, supporting the notion that the development of a conceptual understanding of the mind, particularly the ability to reason about conflicting mental representations, may be important for resisting suggestions that contradict with children’s experiences. It is worth noting that the distinction between conflicting and nonconflicting misinformation generally is not made in the suggestibility literature, but these findings suggest that this may be an important contrast useful for explaining age trends.

Child-generated suggestibility

These findings demonstrating the potency of rumors planted by adults prompted us to consider the mnemonic effects of rumors generated by children themselves. This issue was of interest because of a growing attention in the memory literature to autosuggestibility (Brainerd & Reyna, 1995), or errors in memory that emanate from internal, constructive processes in which an individual’s own beliefs, expectations, goals, and so on, distort their recollections. For instance, autosuggestion errors can occur when people make causal inferences during an event and later mistake their inferences for memories of the actual experience. To illustrate, when shown a slide sequence of a familiar event (e.g., grocery shopping) that shows an effect (e.g., oranges on the supermarket floor) but not its cause, many people wrongly report seeing the most probable cause of the observed effect (e.g., a woman pulling an orange from the bottom of the stack). Hannigan and Reinitz (2001) attribute this tendency to a reality monitoring error that occurs when people misattribute their memory of an internally generated inference as arising from an externally experienced event. Given that children as young 3 make inferences about the causes of observed events (e.g., Sophian & Huber, 1984), we wondered whether they may be vulnerable to causal inference errors about experienced events. In this study, 3- to 6-year-olds watched a modified version of our usual magic show in which Mum- fry failed at two tricks: pulling a rabbit out of his hat and producing a baked cake from a cake pan (Principe, Guiliano, & Root, 2008). For the cake trick, Mumfry put several real ingredients into cake pan, covered it, and promised a fully baked cake. However, when he opened the lid, the pan was empty. To prompt the generation of rumors, one third of the children, those in the Clue condition, were exposed to two sets of clues: carrot ends with ‘‘teeth marks’’ and a plate with cake crumbs and a dirty fork. The carrot and cake ‘‘clues’’ were expected to induce two inferences (heretofore referred to as target activities): one about the cause of the failed hat trick (i.e., the rabbit got loose in the school) and one about the cause of the vanished cake (i.e., someone ate the cake). To investigate G.F. Principe, E. Schindewolf / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 205–223 213 whether these children would naturally propagate their inferences about the escaped rabbit and the eaten cake to peers, the children in the Classmate condition were the classmates of those in the Clue group, but were not exposed to the clues. The remaining children in the Control condition were not the classmates of those who saw the clues, nor did they see the clues themselves. The results indicated that the clue manipulations prompted the generation of rumors (or explanations) about what happened to the missing rabbit and cake that made their way into children’s later memory reports. When interviewed one week after the show, nearly 80% of the Clue children reported that Mumfry’s rabbit had gotten loose or that someone had eaten the cake. Forty percent of these errors were at the open-ended level of questioning. Interestingly, the clues were more mnemonically damaging to the 5- and 6-year-olds than the 3- and 4-year-olds. Not only were the older children more likely than the younger children to mistakenly report their inferences during free recall, their reports of nonexperienced-but-inferred occurrences were embellished with double the amount of detail. This pattern might seem counterintuitive because younger children typically are more suggestible than older children. But given that causal inferencing ability develops rapidly during the preschool years (e.g., Sophian & Huber, 1984), a reverse developmental trend in interference errors makes sense on empirical grounds. Assuming the older children more readily generated relevant inferences following the clues, they likely had created for themselves more opportunities than the younger children to make causal inference errors. Supporting this explanation is that compared to the younger children, the older children’s false accounts contained more logical inferences based on the clues and they more often elaborated on their inferences in a rational manner. The younger children, in contrast, were more likely to recount illogical or even impossible details about the target activities. Considering that fact finders tend to view detail as diagnostic of accuracy, these findings have some applied relevance as they suggest that when condition are ripe for causal inferences, older children may be more prone to construct false reports that are more compelling or believable than those produced by younger children. Examination of the Classmate children’s performance indicated that the Clue children readily prop- agated their inferences to peers. Nearly 40% of the Classmate children reported one or both of the target activities, and the majority of these claims occurred during free recall. Interesting, the spread of inferred information was particularly potent among the 3- and 4-year-olds, as they were more likely than the older children to report actually seeing events that their peers merely inferred. These data provide original evidence that rumors generated by children themselves, rather than those planted by adults, can intrude into the recollections of peers. This is an important extension of our earlier work because although much is known about how adults can induce errors in children’s memory, little is understood about how children themselves can affect other children’s recall. It is noteworthy, however, that the Clue children made more false reports than the Classmate children, demonstrating that the children generally were more influenced by their own conclusions for the failed tricks than their peers’. This rationale is in line with findings in the source monitoring literature that internally generated events are more easily confused with one’s own experiences than are externally suggested events (e.g., Lindsay, Johnson, & Kwon, 1991). The more frequent errors among the Clue relative to the Classmate group notwithstanding, higher levels of details accompanied the Classmate children’s reports of the target activities. This finding suggests that children may be especially likely to embellish information picked up from peers—a trend that we found in our original Mumfry study (Principe et al., 2006) and in follow-up work reported below. Examination of the content of children’s narratives made it clear that the rise in elaboration among the Classmate children was driven by an increase in statements consistent with the notions of a loose rabbit and eaten cake but beyond inferences that could be derived directly from the clues. Perhaps because the Classmate children did not see the clues themselves but based their ideas on their peers’ stories about the causes of the failed tricks, they were less limited than the Clue children to describing the simple inferences implied by the clues.

Social processes

In our three rumor studies described so far, levels of errant reports are higher and the accompanying false narratives more voluminous than are typical of suggestibility research in which children are 214 G.F. Principe, E. Schindewolf / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 205–223 exposed to misinformation during interviews (e.g., Bruck et al., 2002) or in other private contexts (e.g., Leichtman & Ceci, 1995; Poole & Lindsay, 2002). Of interest therefore is what gives rumor its potency? One clue comes from studies in the adult social influence literature that demonstrate the very same misinformation more easily intrudes into memory if it is encountered in a social context via a confederate than if it is picked up in a nonsocial manner, such as through written suggestions or leading questions (Paterson & Kemp, 2006b), with the magnitude of social conformity building as exposure to others’ erroneous responses increases (Virj, Pannell, & Ost, 2005). Given that children in our rumor studies interact freely with their entire class after the rumor is planted, it is possible that this social experience, rather than the rumor itself, drives the exceptionally high levels of false reports and fictitious elaboration. The purpose of our next study, therefore, was to examine whether opportunities for natural discussions with others following exposure to a false rumor can exacerbate its effects on later recall. To investigate this question, 3- to 5-year-olds watched our Mumfry show and then overheard the loose rabbit rumor (Principe, Daley, & Kauth, 2010). Immediately after overhearing the rumor, some of the children were given 30 min of free play time to interact naturally with one another. Other children were engaged in a structured ‘‘circle time’’ activity for 30 min that prohibited them from talking about the rumor. After these 30 min, all children went home for the day and we took several measures to ensure that none of the children had any further interactions with their schoolmates that day. When interviewed 1 week later, those children who heard the rumor and then interacted freely with peers made more false reports of the rumored occurrence, were more likely to admit to seeing this nonevent, and described this nonoccurrence in more detail than those who did not have the opportunity to naturally converse with their peers immediately after the rumor. These findings demonstrate that the infusion of misinformation into a group has more powerful effects on memory than if the very same information is encountered individually without the opportunity for immediate collaborative reflection. Further, analysis of the content of children’s narratives revealed that more than one- third of the details reported by those who interacted naturally following the rumor overlapped with something that someone else in their classroom had uttered, whereas those who were denied an opportunity to interact evidenced only a 9% overlap in their reports (most of which were mere verbatim repetitions of the rumor). This group difference in shared utterances clearly indicates that the natural conversations that occurred in the classrooms immediately following the provision the rumor had a powerful effect in shaping children’s reports one week later. The ease of contamination brought about by socially provided misinformation notwithstanding, a second social factor that might impact the transmission and mnemonic effects of rumored information within a group is the group’s prior history. Supporting this notion are findings in the classical social influence literature demonstrating that the magnitude of conformity escalates with group cohesive- ness (Wren, 1999). Further, experimental work in the rumor literature demonstrates that the transmission of unfounded information within a group increases with the level of familiarity between participants, or a desire to establish such a level (Rosnow, 1991). To examine whether familiarity might exacerbate the interfering effects of errant rumor on memory, 3- to 5-year-olds were assigned to one of two conditions that differed in terms of their social history (Principe et al., 2010). Half of the children had been classmates for at least 6 months, whereas the remaining half were complete strangers. We carried out the magic shows in an unfamiliar location to ensure that the group’s social history rather than the familiarity of the setting drove any group differences in memory. Once the rumor was planted, all of the children engaged in free play for 30 min. As expected, the rumor induced greater memory contamination if it was planted among familiar peers than if it was encountered among strangers. Those children who interacted freely with their preschool classmates made more false reports of the rumored occurrence, were more likely to claim to have seen this nonevent, and provided more elaborate narratives compared to those children who interacted with unfamiliar peers following the rumor. The familiar children also displayed greater overlap in the content of their errant accounts compared to unfamiliar children, demonstrating that a group’s social history can augment the degree to which narrative details invented during natural interactions later become infused into children’s individual reports. G.F. Principe, E. Schindewolf / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 205–223 215

Representational changes

Given our findings that overhearing an errant rumor—either from an adult or classmates—can lead children to make detailed false reports, we next sought to explore the extent to which such accounts are driven by changes in children’s memory representations that lead to a genuine belief that the rumored information was actually seen. The alternative is that children’s errant reports following rumor are driven merely by social demands to relay information they knew they had not experienced but was only suggested. This theoretically significant distinction is also important for discussions of testimony. If rumor can bring about errant beliefs about witnessing events that only were overheard, then there may be little that forensic interviewers can do to mitigate rumors’ effects. But if reports of rumored occurrences are merely driven by compliance to social pressures, such effects may be reduced by protocols that boost the retrieval and reporting of information in memory, such as the Re- vised Cognitive Interview or the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Investigative Interview (see e.g., Lamb, Hershkowitz, Orbach, & Esplin, 2008). To examine this issue, we used a warning manipulation that minimized social pressures to report an overheard rumor about an experienced event and we examined the qualitative characteristics of children’s false narratives prompted by the rumor (Principe, Haines, Adkins, & Guiliano, 2010). Three- to 6-year-olds watched a magic show in their schools and we replicated the Overheard, Classmate, and Control procedures from our rumor original study. When interviewed one week later, half of the Over- heard and Classmate children received a series of emphatic warnings that eliminated social demands to report the rumor by telling them that any information overheard after the show was wrong and therefore should not be reported. Thus if children were able to discern the correct source of the rumor, there were no social pressures to relay it. Demonstrating that compliance to social pressures can lead to false claims, the warning reduced false reports in line with the rumor when it was planted by an adult. However, when the rumor was picked up from peers, the warning decreased false reports among 5- and 6-year-olds, but not 3- and 4-year-olds. The warning, however, had no effect on children’s claims of actually seeing the loose rabbit. That is, when children who reported the loose rabbit were probed for the source of their memory, warned and nonwarned children were equally liked to claim to have seen the loose rabbit with their own eyes (as opposed to merely having heard about it). This pattern suggests that social demands produced at least some false reports of the rumored occurrence, but that demand characteristics had little or nothing to do with children’s claims of seeing the rumor. Considering this evidence that claims of seeing generally were not due to social demands, to what extent did they reflect a genuine belief in having seen the rumored event? Analyses of children’s false narratives provide some insight. Replicating findings of all of our prior rumor studies, those children who recalled seeing a loose rabbit provided more voluminous false narratives consistent with the theme of the rumor than those who did not admit to seeing it. This pattern suggests that when memories for rumored events contain much elaborative detail, children may be prone for mistaking them for real experiences. However, analysis of the content of children’s false narratives indicated that there was more to the story. Those children who did and did not recall seeing the rumored occurrence generated different narrative profiles. Specifically, those children who reported seeing a loose rabbit described this rumored event with relatively more perceptual (e.g., color and sound) and contextual (e.g., spatial location and temporal order) detail than either those who were unable to determine a source of their false reports or who claimed another source. This distinction is important because according to Johnson and colleagues’ source-monitoring framework (Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993), individuals distinguish the source of information in memory by evaluating certain characteristics of the representation at retrieval. In this view, experienced events are represented with more perceptual, contextual, semantic, and affective information than imagined, suggested, or otherwise nonexperienced events, and the differing profiles of these two classes of memories serve as cues to discriminate their origins. Thus given that perceptual and contextual details are characteristic of experienced sources, it may be that the generation of these qualities in representations of the rumor interfered with the usual source-judgment process and consequently led some children to misattribute it as a witnessed event. This interpretation presumes that rumored events can come to be represented similarly to experienced events and that such representational 216 G.F. Principe, E. Schindewolf / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 205–223 changes put children at risk for wrongly judging heard about events as seen. The point is that children who made false claims of seeing might not have been engaging in faulty reasoning about source, but rather were dealing with a memory that was uncharacteristic of its class. This interpretation is in line with other work showing the usually successful source judgment process can go awry when representations of nonexperienced events develop qualities typical of real experiences (e.g., Blandon-Gitlin, Pezdek, Lindsay, & Hagen, 2009). The current results also suggest developmental improvements in children’s vulnerability to make false claims of seeing rumored events. As expected, 3- and 4-year-olds were more likely than 5- and 6- year-olds to recall seeing the rumor. Common explanations of these sorts of heightened source errors among younger children are their immaturities in theory-of-mind understanding, representational ability, and the strategy of using memory characteristics to identify source (see e.g., Sluzenski, New- combe, & Ottinger, 2004). We found, however, more abundant perceptual detail in the false accounts of the younger versus older children. This raises another possibility, namely that young children may be particularly prone to generate perceptual images in response to postevent suggestions and subsequently infuse them into their representations of experience. Indeed, such a tendency would constrain the efficiency with which source-monitoring processes can operate. We also found that the Classmate children were more suggestible than the Overheard children. In particular, the Classmate children made more frequent reports of seeing and gave more lengthy descriptions of the rumored occurrence relative to the Overheard children. Examination of false narratives indicated that the Classmate children reported proportionately more perceptual and contextual detail than the Overheard children. This pattern suggests that what makes rumors picked up from peers particularly potent is that this mode of transmission can lead to an abundance of perceptual and contextual detail in memory that children are prone to judge as indicative of an authentic witnessed experience. Consistent with current conceptualizations of memory (Ceci, Papierno, & Kulkofsky, 2007), the results of this study highlight the notion that individual and developmental differences in underlying representations play an important role in children’s suggestibility. These data also have implications for children as witnesses. First, the effectiveness of the warning in reducing false claims suggests that legal professionals would be prudent to consider instructions to young witnesses to ignore any heard about information if it is known that a false rumor has been circulating. Second, we found that even though the warning reduced reports of rumored information, it did not affect children’s ability to correctly report the actually experienced portions of the magic show. This finding indicates that legal professionals may not need to be concerned that warnings will reduce false detail at the expense of true information. We found, however, that the warning was associated with an increase in the provision of constructive details and a corresponding decrease in reports of fantastic details about the rumored occurrence, suggesting that false accounts of rumored-but-nonexperienced events that persist following a warning might appear particularly believable and compelling.

Linking rumor mongering to later false reports

In our next study, we sought to investigate directly the content of children’s post-rumor conversations to begin to make claims about which specific qualities of these discussions are linked to later errors in remembering (Principe, Cherson, DiPuppo, & Schindewolf, in press). To do so, we replicated our original magic show procedures and formed three groups: Overheard, Classmate, and Control. To document the transmission of rumored information among peers, we recorded children’s natural conversations for 20 min following their exposure to the rumor. Children wore a small belt pack with a digital audio recorder and a microphone that attached to their shirts. Children were interviewed at both 1 and 4 weeks following the show. We added this 4-week delay to explore the decay rate of overheard rumors. Children’s performance at the 1-week interview replicated our earlier results. Nearly all of the Overheard and Classmate children, but none of the Control children, reported that Mumfry’s rabbit was loose. Likewise, many Overheard and Classmate children recalled seeing the alleged loose rabbit and many provided high levels of constructive embellishments in line with the rumor, with the Class- G.F. Principe, E. Schindewolf / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 205–223 217 mate children being more likely to make claims of seeing and generating more voluminous false accounts. Reports of the loose rabbit and recollections of seeing remained high across the 4-week delay. Only the older Overheard children evidenced any decline in the volume of their false narratives over the delay. These patterns indicate that the memory alterations engendered by false rumor do not dis- sipate rapidly but rather reflect more lasting changes in remembering. Examination of children’ natural exchanges with peers in their classrooms following their exposure to the rumor revealed a remarkable amount of dialogue going on among those who heard the rumor directly from the adult as well as those who had picked it up secondhand from their peers. In fact, every child in both groups uttered at least one statement about the alleged loose rabbit, demonstrating that every Overheard and Classmate child encoded the rumor and was actively engaged, albeit in varying degrees, in circulating the rumored information. Analysis of the content of children’s natural talk in their classrooms showed that they did not merely stick to propagating the rumor verbatim to peers. Nor was there much fantastic talk in the post-rumor dialogues, suggesting that the children generally did not interpret the rumor as an invitation to engage in pretense. Most of the information transmitted was made up of constructive utterances in line with the theme of rumor but above and beyond its literal content. Thus the children were inventing and sharing new details that generally were believable. Considering findings in the adult literature that believability is necessary for rumors to be spread readily and widely (see Rosnow, 1991), the constructive nature of the information generated and circulated in the classrooms likely boosted the influence of the rumor on children’s subsequent remembering. Next we explored the degree to which things said in the interview originated in the classroom on the day that the rumor was spread. At the 1-week interview, 20% of the details relayed about the rumored loose rabbit overlapped with what they themselves had uttered in the classroom. Thirty-two percent of their narrative reports during the interview originated in their classmates’ transmissions. At the 4-week interview, 13% of children’s false reports overlapped with their own transmissions in the classroom, and 23% overlapped with their classmates contributions. These findings provide direct evidence that the very narrative details invented and circulated among children following their exposure to the rumor intruded into their own and their peers’ subsequent individual accounts of the event out to a 4-week delay. Thus the children were not merely fabricating constructions about the rumored occurrence on the fly during the interview but also were remembering a good deal of the transmissions that had originated one or four weeks earlier in the natural dialogues on the day the rumor was planted. Further, these findings of the ready infusion of the content of peer dialogues into later memory provides some insight into why the effects of postevent misinformation are exacerbated when it is encountered in a group rather than individually without the opportunity for co-witness exchange. Consistent with our earlier findings, the rumor was more damaging to memory when it was gleaned from agemates than when it was overheard from an adult. At both interviews, the Classmate children made more frequent reports of seeing the rumored occurrence and they offered more lengthy false narratives than the Overheard children. Further, among those children who erroneously reported the rumored event at both interviews, the Classmate children evidenced no decline in narrative detail across the 4-week delay. The older Overheard children, however, displayed a drop in elaborative detail from the 1-week to the 4-week interview. In line with findings that the Overheard and Classmate children remembered differently, comparison of their post-rumor talk revealed that the Classmate children also talked differently than the Overheard children about the alleged occurrence on the day the rumor was planted. Compared to the Overheard children, the Classmate children uttered more original transmissions. Both groups of children improvised quite freely—overall 58% of children’s utterances in the classroom were novel (i.e., no other child in the classroom had yet uttered), but the Classmate children relayed more than twice as many original transmissions as their Overheard peers, demonstrating that they engaged in much more inventive rumor mongering than their agemates. Further, the Classmate children also were more affected than the Overheard children by what went on in the classrooms on the day the rumor was planted. At both the 1- and 4-week interviews, the Classmate children evidenced a greater overlap than the Overheard children between things they themselves had said as well as things their classmates had uttered on the day the rumor was planted and their subsequent interview reports. 218 G.F. Principe, E. Schindewolf / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 205–223

Likewise, at both interviews, the Overhead children relayed higher levels of nonoverlapping information, suggesting that they were more likely than the Classmate children to fabricate their interview reports on the fly. These findings of heightened peer-suggestibility are at odds with the typical finding in the suggestibility literature that children are more easily misled by adults than peers (e.g., Ceci, Toglia, & Ross, 1990). An important contrast between the usual suggestibility study and the current work concerns the differing manners by which suggestions were delivered by peers. In typical suggestibility research, children make scripted suggestions during formal interviews, whereas in our paradigm, familiar children transmitted freely varying suggestions—without being instructed to do so—during the course of naturally occurring interactions. This contrast suggests that the naturalness of the reception context might boost the impact of misinformation. Consistent with this interpretation are findings in the rumor literature that rumors are more readily spread when picked up from a peer than an authority figure (Jaeger, Anthony, & Rosnow, 1980), with higher degrees of propagation within an individual’s own social group (Almirol, 1981). Also supporting this explanation is the finding that the Overheard children generally did not constrain themselves to stay true to the information transmitted by a presumed authority figure; rather their propagations in the classrooms were highly inventive. Thus, it may be the improvised nature of the Overheard children’s original transmissions and the Classmate children’s subsequent tendencies to do more constructive spinning of the rumor that made peer suggestions particularly powerful. In line with prior findings, the older children provided more errant narrative detail at both interviews than the younger children. We also found that the 5- and 6-year-olds were the master rumor propagators in the classroom. Compared to the 3- and 4-year-olds, they generated more constructive utterances and improvised more original transmissions about the rumored occurrence. This deeper and more inventive participation in rumor exchanges with their peers suggests that the older children simply had created for themselves more opportunities than the younger children to be influenced by what went on in the classrooms. Supporting this notion is that the older children provided more interview details that overlapped with their own utterances (1-week interview) and their classmates’ utterances (1- and 4-week interviews) in the classroom than the younger children. Given that fact finders tend to judge detail as an index of accuracy, these findings suggest that when conditions are ripe for rumor mongering, older children may be more prone to construct false narratives that are more compelling or believable than those produced by younger children.

Maternal suggestibility and memory sharing style

These findings demonstrating the mnemonic effects of peer discussions following misinformation notwithstanding, little is known about how conversations with parents who have been exposed to misleading information might affect memory. It is well known that young children rely heavily on their parents to help them frame and guide their formulations of experience. But what happens when parents have preexisting beliefs about what has happened to their children? Both case study (see Ceci & Bruck, 1995) and empirical investigations (White, Leichtman, & Ceci, 1997) show that when interviewers believe unfounded allegations to be true, they are prone to shape their interviews with children to elicit untrue statements consistent with their extant beliefs and consequently put children at increase risk of making false claims in line the unfounded beliefs. Little is known, however, about whether parents’ false beliefs might similarly drive children’s accounts. Understanding the influence of parents’ beliefs also has implications for discussions of the testimony of young witnesses. Consider, for instance, the case of Lillie and Reed v Newcastle City Council & Ors (see Bruck, Ceci, & Principe, 2006) in which, on the basis of a 2-year-olds’ uncorroborated allegations, parents of children in a daycare center were told that a child in the center may have been sexually abused and then were asked to talk with their children about the possible abuse. Similarly, in the McMartin Preschool case in Manhattan Beach, California, prompted by a mother’s allegation that her son had been sexually molested by a school aid, Police Chief Harry Kuhlmeyer sent a letter to nearly 200 mothers whose children attended the school (see Ceci & Bruck, 1995). The letter urged mothers to question their children and suggested events that might have taken place: ‘‘Please question your child G.F. Principe, E. Schindewolf / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 205–223 219 to see if he or she has been a witness to any crime or if he or she has been a victim. Our investigation indicates that possible criminal acts include: oral sex, fondling of genitals, buttock or chest area, and sodomy.’’ Given that parents in both of these cases were told that abuse was possible, some may have believed in the defendants’ guilt and inadvertently molded their memory discussions with their children to elicit accounts in line with their beliefs. To explore whether discussions with misinformed parents might affect children’s later memory, we had children watch our usual magic show and then gave their mothers a letter that asked them to naturally discuss the show with their children (Principe, DiPuppo, & Gammel, 2011). In the letters of half of these mothers, those in the Suggestive Letter condition, was a suggestion that Mumfry’s rabbit may or may not have gotten loose in the school on the day of the magic show. The letters of mothers in the Neutral Letter condition was identical except for the suggestion. Both sets of mothers were asked to hold their discussion on the morning of our interview which took place 1-week after the show. We gave mothers a digital recorder to record their conversations. A third group, the Control condition, neither received the suggestion nor were they asked to talk about the event with their children. Results indicated that the letter was a potent form of suggestion. During the interview, the Sugges- tive Letter children were more likely to wrongly report a loose rabbit and to claim to have seen this rumored-but-nonconcurring event than the Neutral or Control children, providing original evidence that parents can be a natural source of report contamination when they have been misinformed. Ear- lier work has shown that parents can be a source of memory error when they suggest experimenter- provided scripted nonoccurrences (e.g., Poole & Lindsay, 2002), but this is the first study to demonstrate that misinformation encountered by parents can leak into children’s later accounts when they are not asked to suggest the nonevent to their children but merely to talk with their children in a natural manner. Admittedly, the current suggestibility manipulation was rather weak compared to the more direct and coercive forms used in most of the literature (e.g., Bruck et al., 2002). Nonetheless, children’s error rates during the interview in the current study are comparable to those in research on suggestibility that use more direct forms (60% of the Suggestive Letter children claimed that the rabbit was loose, compared to less than 10% in the other two groups). Not only was a substantial proportion of children’s false reports at the open-ended level of questioning (20%), their errors also were accompanied by a fair degree of elaborative detail in line with the theme of the suggestion to their mothers. Given the well-known distinction in style that mothers take on when remembering with their children, namely high versus low elaborative (see Nelson and Fivush (2004) for a review), we next sought to explore whether the influence of our misinformation manipulation varied as a function of maternal style. This issue was of interest because maternal style influences how children represent and remember the past. High-elaborative mothers scaffold children’s accounts by asking many –wh questions and encourage extended narratives by providing more and more memory information with each succeed- ing question. Low-elaborative mothers in contrast, provide less structure and ask their children few and redundant questions about the past. Despite much evidence that children of high-elaborative mothers tend to relay the past in a more elaborated and coherent manner than children whose mothers use a low elaborative style, unknown is whether maternal style might affect children’s remembering when mothers have been exposed to misinformation. Given the tendencies of high elaborative mothers to provide new memory information to aid their children’s recollections, when these mothers hold false beliefs about their children’s experiences they may be more likely than low elaborative mothers to weave their own beliefs into the ongoing co-constructed narrative and consequently more greatly affect their children’s later accounts. In line with the prediction that children of high-elaborative mothers tend to display more sophisticated autobiographical memory skills, we found that these children, compared to those of low-elaborative mothers, provided more detailed narratives of the actually experienced portions of the magic show and were less likely to make errors when describing these actual experiences. Despite these positive associations between maternal elaborativeness and children’s recall of experienced events, we found that children with high elaborative mothers were twice as likely as those with low elaborative mothers to wrongly report a loose rabbit. Likewise, of those who made a false report, children whose mothers displayed a high elaborative style described the suggested nonevent in more narrative detail than those whose mothers talked in a low elaborative fashion. Thus, these results demonstrate that 220 G.F. Principe, E. Schindewolf / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 205–223 the high elaborative style usually associated with more skilled autobiographical remembering is also linked with increases in children’s memory error when mothers are exposed to misinformation about their children’s experiences. Interestingly, there were no differences in the qualities of mothers’ conversations as a function of experimental group, suggesting that misinformation exposure did not affect maternal style. However, examination of mothers’ contributions during the mother–child conversation suggests that maternal style affected how mothers used the misinformation in their discussions with their children. In particular, high elaborative mothers provided more than three times the elaborations consistent with the theme of the suggestion than those who were low elaborative, indicating that after exposure to the misinformation the high elaborative mothers created a more coercive memory sharing environment than the low elaborative mothers. Importantly, these mothers were not instructed to provide elaborations consistent with the suggestion or offer new information if their children were not remembering a loose rabbit. Rather, they were merely instructed to ask their children if the magician’s rabbit had gotten loose. These findings suggest that mothers with a high elaborative predisposition often went above and beyond a simple ‘‘Was the rabbit loose?’’ question and offered new and necessarily false details describing the suggestion. Interestingly, there were no differences in the extent to which low- versus high-elaborative mothers believed the loose rabbit suggestion to be true, suggesting that maternal style may override any influence of belief on how mothers question their children about the past.

Conclusion and implications

This collection of studies demonstrates the importance of considering the mnemonic consequences of natural conversational interactions for discussions of children’s memory and suggestibility. Our findings show that not only can conversations with co-witnesses be a potent source of errors in autobiographical remembering, but that interactions with others can lead to false reports even when they have not witnessed the event in question but merely have been exposed to misinformation about it. These investigations also demonstrate several conditions under which the potential of natural conversations to taint memory are exacerbated. Memory sharing conversations with familiar peers as opposed to strangers more readily shape subsequent memory, and discussions about the past with high-elaborative mothers exhibit greater influence than those with low-elaborative mothers. Also, the nature of the shared false information can impact its mnemonic effects. With age, children develop some resistance to being misled by conversationally conveyed misinformation when it conflicts with their actual experiences, but they also become more likely to generate their own causal inferences about events that can put themselves as well as their peers at increased risk of wrongly recollecting occurrences that were merely inferred. Researchers interested in children’s memory generally have overlooked peers as a source of error. Our findings of high levels of peer-generated suggestibility, however, underscore the importance of a continuing examination of peers. Importantly, none of the children in our studies were asked to invent or share information with their classmates. Rather they naturally generated and spread misinformation in such a manner that it that intruded into their own and their peers’ subsequent autobiographical accounts. In fact, on many measures of memory, misinformation picked up from peers was more mnemonically damaging than suggestions planted by adults. Indeed, inspection of the content of children’s false accounts suggests that what might make peer transmitted misinformation particularly potent is that it leads to the generation of perceptual and contextual images in memory that children wrongly judge as indicative of an authentic experience. Future work is needed to more fully explore this interpretation and the sorts of conversational exchanges that can prompt the generation of high levels of nonexperienced perceptual and contextual detail and consequent reports of seeing. Nonethe- less, our examination of children’s classroom conversations suggests that these representational differences as a function of informant might be linked to differences in the ways that children talk with others following the reception of misinformation from peers versus an adult. Specifically, our findings suggest that children who glean false information from peers engage in deeper and more inventive rumor mongering than those who overhear the very same information from an adult. Final- G.F. Principe, E. Schindewolf / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 205–223 221 ly, our findings of elevated errors with familiar peers as opposed to strangers show that social history is also an important variable in understanding conversational suggestibility. Consequently, an important question for future work is how fast and over what course does familiarity augment the potential for memory contamination. Admittedly, an exploration of conversational processes in remembering has not been completely off the radar screen for investigators exploring children’s autobiographical memory. Developmental researchers have long explored the effects of mothers’ memory sharing style on children’s event narratives. Accuracy for a specific event, however, has rarely been a dependent variable in this line of work. Our findings not only show that mothers can be a potent source of errors in remembering, but that high maternal elaborativeness—a quality associated with increases in children’s memory and narrative skills—is linked with decreases in accuracy when mothers have been exposed to misinformation about their children’s experiences. Given that this link is correlational, an important next step is to carry out experimental studies of maternal style to bolster the causal argument. Also of interest in future work is exploring in a more fine-grained manner how the content of mother’s elaborative statements and questions influence children’s independent remembering. This sort of analysis would deepen our understanding of how a high elaborative style can both help and hinder children’s memory when mothers and their children disagree on the facts of a past event. Indeed, mother–child negotiation is a critical context for children’s developing abilities to represent and recollect their experiences, but a closer look at such conversations may provide some insight into how memory exchanges teach young children that others can represent the past differently and that memory is a subjective, dynamic process rather than a static product. Our work also holds some applied relevance to legal settings involving young witnesses as it reveals powerful sources of memory error not readily eliminated by common techniques used to minimize reporting errors in forensic interviews (e.g., exclusive nonsuggestive questioning, videotaping interviews). Caution, of course, is required in generalizing our findings to situations involving child witnesses (e.g., our to-be-remembered events are enjoyable, children are not pressured to make false reports, interviewers are not rewarded for eliciting certain claims). Nonetheless, our data provides clear evidence that even when children are interviewed in a supportive and neutral manner, misinformation from peers and parents can contaminate their reports. In fact, because the level of peer influence in our experimental paradigms is likely pale compared to that which occurs in group therapy sessions or joint police interviews, our findings underscore the importance of considering the potential contaminating influence of peers in legal cases involving multiple child witnesses. Likewise, our findings suggest that exposing mothers to unfounded claims, such as Police Chief Harry Kuhlmeyer did in the McMartin case described above, might engender false allegations, especially if mothers talk with their children in a high elaborative manner. As such, experimental studies that suggest nonoccurring experiences to mothers may be relevant for forensic situations where unfounded allegations emerge and families are asked to play a role in diagnosing the truthfulness of such allegations in their own children. Further, the current body of work demonstrates that the tendencies of judges and juries to use certain qualities of children’s testimony, such as corroboration, spontaneity, elaborativeness, and consistency, as markers of accuracy are unwarranted. For instance, the near ceiling levels of reports of rumored-but-nonoccurring events in our studies show that corroboration can occur even when none of the witnesses are accurate. Second, children’s spontaneous and elaboratively detailed accounts of nonevents following rumor provide compelling evidence that these qualities of children’s accounts are not reliable indexes for gauging accuracy. Third, the high levels of consistency in reports of the rumored event across a 4-week delay make it clear that consistency across interviews is not diagnostic of truthfulness. In summary, this collection of findings provides unique insight into why memory sharing conversations can be such a potent source of children’s report contamination. Not only do children and parents naturally share misinformation in conversations about the past, but they also improvise embellishments that go above and beyond the literal suggestions—a tendency that seems to put themselves and their conversational partners at risk for representational changes and consequent memory errors. Further, certain qualities of the informer, such as age, familiarity, and conversational style, can affect the nature of misinformation delivery in such a manner that it incites the receiver in to engage 222 G.F. Principe, E. Schindewolf / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 205–223 in a more or less co-constructive spinning of the past that has implications for later accuracy. Taken together, these patterns show that it is not misinformation per se that affects children’s autobiographical remembering, but rather how it is encountered and shared with others.

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by Grants MH12619 and MH076811 from the National Institutes of Health.

References

Almirol, E. B. (1981). Chasing the elusive butterfly: Gossip and the pursuit of reputation. Ethnicity, 8, 293–304. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. London: Cambridge University Press. Blandon-Gitlin, I., Pezdek, K., Lindsay, D. S., & Hagen, L. (2009). Criteria-based content analysis of true and suggested accounts of events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 901–917. Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (1995). Autosuggestibility in memory development. Cognitive Psychology, 28, 65–101. Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Hembrooke, H. (2002). The nature of children’s true and false narratives. Developmental Review, 22, 520–554. Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Principe, G. F. (2006). The child and the law. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Ed.), & K. A. Renniger & I. E. Sigel (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4). Child psychology in practice (6th ed., pp. 776–816). New York: Wiley. Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of children’s testimony. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ceci, S. J., Kulkofsky, S., Klemfuss, J. Z., Sweeney, C. D., & Bruck, M. (2007). Unwarranted assumptions about children’s testimonial accuracy. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 311–328. Ceci, S. J., Papierno, P. B., & Kulkofsky, S. (2007). Representational constraints on children’s suggestibility. Psychological Science, 18, 503–509. Ceci, S. J., Toglia, M., & Ross, D. (1990). The suggestibility of preschoolers’ recollections: Historical perspectives on current problems. In R. Fivush & J. A. Hudson (Eds.), Knowing and remembering in young children (pp. 285–300). New York: Cambridge. Gabbert, F., Memon, A., & Allan, K. (2003). Memory conformity: Can eyewitnesses influence each other’s memory for an event? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 533–543. Garven, S., Wood, J. M., Malpass, R., & Shaw, J. S. (1998). More than suggestion: consequences of the interviewing techniques from the McMartin preschool case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 347–359. Gilbert, D. T. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 121–138. Hannigan, S. L., & Reinitz, M. T. (2001). A demonstration and comparison of two types of inference-based memory errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 931–940. Harris, C. B., Paterson, H. M., & Kemp, R. I. (2008). Collaborative recall and collective memory: What happens when we remember together? Memory, 16, 213–230. Hirst, W., & Manier, D. (2008). Towards a psychology of collective memory. Memory, 16, 183–200. Jaeger, M. E., Anthony, S., & Rosnow, R. L. (1980). Who hears what from whom and with what effect: A study of rumor. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 473–478. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3–28. Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., & Esplin, P. W. (2008). Tell me what happened: Structured investigative interviews of child victims and witnesses. West Sussex, England: Wiley. Leichtman, M. D., & Ceci, S. J. (1995). The effects of stereotypes and suggestions on preschoolers’ reports. Developmental Psychology, 31, 568–578. Lindsay, D. S., Johnson, M. K., & Kwon, P. (1991). Developmental changes in source monitoring. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 52, 297–318. Meade, M. L., & Roediger, H. L. III, (2002). Explorations in the social contagion of memory. Memory & Cognition, 30, 995–1009. Nelson, K. (1993). The psychological and social origins of autobiographical memory. Psychological Science, 4, 7–14. Nelson, K., & Fivush, R. (2004). The emergence of autobiographical memory: A social cultural developmental theory. Psychological Review, 111(2), 486–511. Paterson, H. M., & Kemp, R. I. (2006a). Co-witnesses talk: A survey of eyewitness discussion. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 181–191. Paterson, H. M., & Kemp, R. I. (2006b). Comparing methods of encountering post-event information: The power of co-witness suggestion. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1083–1099. Perner, J. (1991). Understanding the representational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Poole, D., & Lindsay, D. S. (2002). Reducing child witnesses’ false reports of misinformation from parents. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 81, 117–140. Principe, G. F., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). ‘‘I saw it with my own ears’’: The influence of peer conversations and suggestive questions on preschoolers’ event memories. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 83, 1–25. Principe, G. F., Daley, L., & Kauth, K. (2010). Social processes affecting the mnemonic consequences of rumors on children’s memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107, 479–493. Principe, G. F., Cherson, M., DiPuppo, J., & Schindewolf, E. (in press). Children’s natural conversations following exposure to a rumor: Linkages to later false reports. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. G.F. Principe, E. Schindewolf / Developmental Review 32 (2012) 205–223 223

Principe, G. F., DiPuppo, J., & Gammel, J. (2011). Leaking misinformation to mothers: Effects of maternal conversational style on young children’s suggestibility for a past event. Poster presented at the meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Principe, G. F., Guiliano, S., & Root, C. (2008). Rumormongering and remembering: How rumors originating in children’s inferences can affect memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 99, 135–155. Principe, G. F., Haines, B., Adkins, A., & Guiliano, S. (2010). False rumors and true belief: Memory processes underlying children’s errant reports of rumored events. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107, 407–422. Principe, G. F., Kanaya, T., Ceci, S. J., & Singh, M. (2006). Believing is seeing: How rumors can engender false memories in preschoolers. Psychological Science, 17, 243–248. Principe, G. F., Ornstein, P. A., Baker-ward, L., & Gordon, B. N. (2000). The effects of intervening experiences on children’s memory for a physical examination. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 59–80. Principe, G. F., & Smith, E. (2007). The tooth, the whole tooth, and nothing but the tooth: How belief in the Tooth Fairy can engender false memories. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 1–18. Principe, G. F., Tinguely, A., & Dobkowski, N. (2007). Mixing memories: The effects of rumors that conflict with children’s experiences. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 98, 1–19. Pynoos, R. S., & Nader, K. (1989). Children’s memory and proximity to violence. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 236–241. Rabinowitz, D. (2004). No crueler tyrannies: Accusation, false witness, and other terrors of our times. New York: Free Press. Reese, E., & Fivush, R. (2008). The development of collective remembering. Memory, 16, 201–212. Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Inside rumor: A personal journey. American Psychologist, 46, 484–496. Sluzenski, J., Newcombe, N. S., & Ottinger, W. (2004). Changes in reality monitoring and episodic memory in early childhood. Developmental Science, 7, 225–245. Sophian, C., & Huber, A. (1984). Early developments in children’s causal judgments. Child Development, 55, 512–526. Virj, A., Pannell, H., & Ost, J. (2005). The influence of social pressure and black clothing on crime judgments. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 11, 265–274. White, T. L., Leichtman, M. D., & Ceci, S. J. (1997). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Accuracy, inaccuracy, and elaboration in preschoolers’ reports about a past event. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, S37–S54. Wren, K. (1999). Social influences. New York: Routledge. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 52:8 (2011), pp 819–833 doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02399.x

Practitioner Review: Clinical applications of attachment theory and research for infants and young children

Charles H. Zeanah,1 Lisa J. Berlin,2 and Neil W. Boris1 1Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA; 2Duke University, Durham, NC, USA Study of attachment in the 1970s and 1980s focused with a specific figure and to do so in certain situa- on operationalizing and validating many of the tenets tions, notably when frightened, tired or ill’ (Bowlby of attachment theory articulated in Bowlby’s land- 1969/1982, p. 371). In contemporary use, attach- mark trilogy, Attachment and Loss (Bowlby, 1982, ment refers to the infant’s or young child’s emotional 1973, 1980), robustly underscoring the central role connection to an adult caregiver – an attachment of child to parent attachment in the child’s develop- figure – as inferred from the child’s tendency to turn ment and mental health. Attachment theory and its selectively to that adult to increase proximity when implications have long interested clinicians, though needing comfort, support, nurturance or protection. determining how best to translate complex theoreti- Importantly, attachment behaviors are distinguished cal constructs and research methods into the clinical from affiliative behavior or social engagement with arena has been challenging. Nevertheless, well- others because they involve seeking proximity when defined landmarks in early childhood attachment experiencing distress. According to Bowlby, the are clinically useful, and the emergence of interven- attachment behavioral system operates in tandem tions drawn from systematic research is promising. with the exploratory behavioral system, such that, The purpose of this paper is to summarize salient when one is highly activated, the other is deactivated. issues from attachment theory and research and In other words, if a child feels secure in the presence discuss how these issues inform clinical work with of an attachment figure, the child’s motivation to infants and young children. venture out and explore intensifies (see Figure 1). If We recognize that there is a range of clinical set- the child becomes frightened or stressed, however, tings in which child–parent attachment will be the child’s motivation to explore diminishes, and the important. Likewise, among practitioners serving motivation to seek proximity intensifies. young children and their families, there is a broad range of familiarity with and expertise in attachment Development of attachment principles and attachment-based treatment. We Human infants are born without being attached to assert that all clinical services for young children any particular caregivers. Attachments develop and and their families will be enhanced by providers’ emerge during the first few years of life in conjunc- understanding of attachment theory and research. tion with predictable major biobehavioral shifts that We further assert that in some clinical contexts occur at 2–3 months of age, 7–9 months of age, understanding child–parent attachment is essential. 18–20 months of age and, less dramatically, at We begin by reviewing developmental research on 12 months of age (Table 1). These shifts occur when attachment to describe how attachments develop, qualitatively new behaviors and capacities appear how individual differences in selective attachments for the first time. Between the shifts, it is possible to manifest, and the characteristics of clinical disorders describe the emergence of infant attachment behav- of attachment. Next, we turn to assessment of iors. These attachment benchmarks provide a refer- attachment in clinical settings. Then, we describe ence for clinicians’ expectations for children of selected specialized clinical contexts in which different ages. assessing attachments are uniquely important. The developmental milestones in Table 1 are tied Finally, we describe four interventions for young to cognitive rather than chronological ages, and they children and their families, all of which are closely also may be affected to varying degrees by other derived from attachment theory, supported by rig- conditions or circumstances affecting the child. orous evaluations, and designed to support directly Interestingly, aberrant environmental conditions the developing child–parent relationship. seem to impair the development of attachment more than physical or neurological child abnormalities do. Basics of attachment theory and research For example, in children being raised in institutions, Defining attachment the main effect appears to be that attachments are Bowlby defined attachment in young children as ‘a incompletely formed or even absent (Dobrova-Krol strong disposition to seek proximity to and contact et al., in press; Zeanah et al., 2005). In contrast, a meta-analysis drawing on assessments of attach- Conflict of interest statement: No conflicts declared. ment in over 1,600 infants and their mothers found

Ó 2011 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Ó 2011 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA 820 Charles H. Zeanah, Lisa J. Berlin, and Neil W. Boris

CIRCLE OF SECURITY PARENT ATTENDING TO THE TODDLER‛S NEEDS

I need you to

• Watch over me Support My • Help me Exploration • Enjoy with me • Delight in me

I need you to

• Protect me Welcome My • Comfort me Coming To You • Delight in me • Organize my feelings

Figure 1 Circle of Securityâ: parent attending to the toddler’s needs

Table 1 Development of attachment in infancy and early childhood

Biobehavioral shifts and attachment benchmarks during periods between shifts Behavioral characteristics

First 2 months Infant has limited ability to discriminate among different caregivers; recognize mothers’ smell and sound but no preference expressed. 2–3 month shift Emergence of social interaction, with increased eye to eye contact, social smiling and responsive cooing. 2–7 months Able to discriminate among different caregivers but no strong preferences expressed; comfortable with many familiar and unfamiliar adults and intensely motivated to engage them. 7–9 month shift Emergence of selective attachment as evidenced by onset of stranger wariness (initial reticence) and separation protest (distress in anticipation of separation from attachment figures). 9–18 months Hierarchy of attachment figures evident. Infant balances the need to explore and the need to seek proximity; these become even more evident with independent ambulation emerging at approximately 12 months. Secure base behaviors (moving away from the caregiver to explore) and safe haven behaviors (returning to the caregiver for comfort and support) both evident. 18–20 month shift Emergence of symbolic representation, including pretend play and language. 20–36 months Goal-corrected partnership in which the child becomes increasingly aware of conflicting goals with others and for the need to negotiate, compromise and delay gratification. 36+ months Secure base and safe haven behaviors continue but behavioral manifestations become less evident because of the child’s increased verbal skills. Internal representations of attachment more accessible to observers through narrative doll play. that intrinsic infants’ challenges, including deafness Once selective attachments have begun to emerge and Down syndrome, played less of a role in the in the latter part of the first year of life, clinicians can developing quality of the child’s attachment to the focus on the young child’s use of the attachment mother than did mothers’ problems, including figure as a secure base from which to explore (illus- affective disorders (van IJzendoorn, Goldberg, Kroo- trated by the top of the circle in Figure 1), and as a nenberg, & Frenkel, 1992). Further, although chil- safe haven to whom to return in times of distress dren with autism display aberrant behaviors and are (illustrated by the bottom of the circle in Figure 1). at increased risk for disorganized attachments, it is Individual differences in the young child’s balance clear that they form selective attachments (Rutgers between attachment behaviors and exploratory et al., 2004). Though it is clear that infants’ devel- behaviors may vary with different caregivers, as opmental abnormalities may lead to some aberrant these behaviors are believed to be emergent proper- attachment behaviors, they do not appear to signif- ties of an infant’s interaction with particular adults. icantly impede the actual formation of attachment, A laboratory paradigm, known as the Strange Situ- as occurs in rearing environments characterized by ation Procedure (SSP), was developed to examine extreme social privation. individual differences in the young child’s balance of

Ó 2011 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Ó 2011 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Practitioner Review: Clinical applications of attachment theory and research for infants and young children 821 attachment and exploration while interacting with described more fully below. Using a slightly modified an attachment figure and an unknown adult (Ains- SSP, researchers also have identified analogous worth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). classifications preschool children (Cassidy & Marvin, 1992 [see Table 2]). Classifications of attachment in infants and young Disorganized and other atypical patterns of attach- children ment. Among the attachment classifications in Strange Situation Procedure and classifications of infancy, disorganized attachment (Main & Solomon, attachment. Designed to assess the child’s bal- 1990) is particularly relevant to psychopathology ancing of proximity-seeking and exploration, the SSP and clinical intervention. Disorganized, disoriented, is the ‘gold standard’ for systematically identifying and frightened behaviors in infants during the SSP patterns of infant–parent attachment. The SSP may appear as a temporary breakdown in an orga- involves a series of interactions between a 12- to nized attachment strategy or as a complete lack of 20-month-old infant, a caregiver, and a female strategy for obtaining proximity to increase feelings ‘stranger.’ Two brief infant–caregiver separations are of security. As some children reach preschool age, included as moderate stressors designed to activate disorganization is transformed into controlling/ the child’s need for caregiver support. Differences in punitive or solicitous/caregiving behaviors directed how infants organize their attachment and explor- towards the parent, though in some high-risk pre- atory behaviors, especially during reunion episodes, school samples, disorganized behaviors remain evi- can be reliably classified as secure, avoidant, or dent (Smyke, Zeanah, Fox, Nelson, & Guthrie, 2010). ambivalent/resistant (Ainsworth et al., 1978 [see In low-risk samples, disorganized attachments have Table 2]). A fourth classification, disorganized, is a prevalence of about 15%, whereas in populations

Table 2 Classiﬁcations of attachment in infants, toddlers, and preschoolers according to the Strange Situation Procedure

Estimated prevalence Infant and toddler in low risk classiﬁcations Reunion behavior samples

Secure Direct expression of distress elicited by separation, active comfort-seeking, 65% resolution of distress, resumption of exploration. Avoidant Minimal response to separation from the caregiver, though quality of exploration 20% may diminish, ignoring or actively avoiding the caregiver on reunion. Resistant Intense distress induced by separation, attempts to obtain comfort are limited, 10% awkward or interrupted, little or incomplete resolution of distress on reunion, and resistance of caregiver attempts to soothe. Disorganized Anomalous reactions to caregiver that may include mixtures of rapid, incoherent 15% sequences of proximity-seeking, avoidance or resistance, or fearful of the parent, or other behaviors indicating failure to use caregiver as an attachment figure (e.g., trying to get out of the door, preferring the stranger to the caregiver or showing intensely fearful responses in presence of caregiver). Unclassifiable Minimal social engagement with caregiver or stranger, little to no evidence of Rare proximity-seeking, avoidance or resistance directed to caregiver, minimal emotional response to separation or reunion. Preschool classifications Secure Reconnection with parent through gaze, verbal interaction, greeting; often Unknown invitation to joint activity. Avoidant Avoidance conveyed through child’s orientation away from parent, distance, Unknown neutral affect, proximity for ‘business’ purposes (e.g., fixing toys). Dependent Ambivalence about contact. Helplessness, whiney, petulant or forced Unknown over-brightness; also coyness or hesitant, seemingly shy behavior. Disorganized Similar to infant D pattern if not covered by Insecure/Other behaviors (see below). Unknown Controlling Developmentally inappropriate attempts by the child to control the behavior of the Unknown parent, through punitive or solicitous, caregiving behavior. Insecure/other Varies with subtypes (below): Rare – A/C combination of avoidant and dependent patterns – disengaged child mirrors parent’s lack of responsiveness – inhibited/fearful child fears the parent: compulsively compliant behavior – affectively dysregulated anxiety manifested as escalating ‘silly,’ ‘goofy,’ ‘hyper’ behavior.

Ó 2011 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Ó 2011 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health. 822 Charles H. Zeanah, Lisa J. Berlin, and Neil W. Boris of risk, the rates are much higher. For example, in a and SSP classifications of attachment define quali- clinically referred sample of preschoolers the rate tatively different patterns. In more extreme rearing was 32% (Greenberg, Speltz, DeKlyen, & Endriga, conditions, as noted above, such as social neglect or 1991), but in maltreated preschoolers the rate was institutional care, attachment may be seriously 55% (Cicchetti & Barnett, 1991). compromised or even absent. Attachment disorders Increasing numbers and severity of risk factors describe a constellation of aberrant attachment within parent or child appear to increase probability behaviors and other behavioral anomalies that are of disorganized attachment (Cyr, Euser, Bakermans- defined as resulting from social neglect and depri- Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2010; van IJzendo- vation. Obviously, no disorder of attachment can orn et al., 1999). Infants classified as disorganized exist before a child forms selective attachments, so a have been shown to be at increased risk for later developmental age of 9–10 months ought to be externalizing behavior problems, post-traumatic required to make the diagnosis. stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, and dissociation Two clinical patterns of attachment disorders have (Fearon, Bakermans-Kranenburg, Van IJzendoorn, been most commonly described: an emotionally Lapsley, & Roisman, 2010). withdrawn/inhibited type and an indiscriminately social/disinhibited type (Zeanah & Smyke, 2009). In Clinical significance of SSP patterns of attach- the emotionally withdrawn/inhibited type, the child ment. Classifications of attachment in infants, tod- exhibits limited or absent initiation or response dlers, and preschoolers have proven enormously to social interactions with caregivers and aberrant valuable for understanding early child–parent rela- social behaviors. In particular, when distressed, the tionships. There is consistent evidence from high-risk child fails to seek or respond consistently to comfort samples of a connection between insecure attach- from caregivers and exhibits emotion dysregulation. ment during infancy and later internalizing and In the indiscriminately social/disinhibited type, the externalizing problems (DeKlyen & Greenberg, 2008). child exhibits lack of social reticence with unfamiliar Although links between insecure attachment and adults, failure to check back with caregivers in child psychopathology have been observed less con- unfamiliar settings and a willingness to ‘go off’ with sistently in low-risk families, in the NICHD Study of strangers. As the child becomes older, he/she Early Child Care, a longitudinal multi-site study of exhibits intrusive and overly familiar behavior with over 1,000 US low-risk children, avoidant and disor- strangers, including asking overly personal ques- ganized attachment at 15 months predicted lower tions, violating personal space, or initiating physical maternal ratings of social competence and higher contact without hesitation. teacher ratings of internalizing and externalizing In DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association, behavior problems from preschool through first 2000), the two patterns are considered subtypes of grade, and infant attachment security appeared to reactive attachment disorder, that is, variations on a serve a strong protective function, even when mater- unitary construct of disordered attachment. In con- nal parenting quality declined over time (NICHD Early trast, in ICD-10 (World Health Organization, 1992), Child Care Research Network, 2006). For longer-term the emotionally withdrawn/inhibited type is desig- outcomes, associations with early attachment appear nated reactive attachment disorder, whereas the increasingly less likely to be direct and more likely to indiscriminately social/disinhibited type is defined operate through other relationships and social cog- as disinhibited attachment disorder. Recent reviews nitions (Carlson, Sroufe, & Egeland, 2004; Gross- are consistent in concluding that the evidence favors man, Grossman, & Waters, 2005). two distinct disorders because of differences in Attachment patterns, however, should not be phenomenology, correlates, and response to inter- confused with clinical diagnoses. Thus, there is no vention (Rutter, Kreppner, & Sonuga-Barke, 2009; role for the SSP in clinical settings as a diagnostic Zeanah & Gleason, 2010; Zeanah & Smyke, 2009). measure. From recent studies, it seems clear that signs of To the extent that clinicians can understand what attachment disorders are rare to non-existent in low- the SSP elicits, however, and how attachment secu- risk samples, still rare in higher-risk samples, but rity and insecurity are identified, practice with readily identifiable in maltreated and institutional- infants and young children will be enhanced. Thus, ized samples (Zeanah & Smyke, 2009). Recent as will be described below, the major underlying research has demonstrated that these disorders principles and observational practices of the SSP can often remit when caregiving conditions improve, be applied to clinical work with infants and young though with variability for each type: the emotionally children in ways that should significantly enhance withdrawn/inhibited type is more responsive to the therapeutic work. intervention whereas the indiscriminately social/ disinhibited type is more resistant and may persist in some children for years. Disorders of attachment The relationship between attachment disorders In species-typical rearing conditions, virtually all and classifications of attachment is not straightfor- children develop attachments to their caregivers, ward (Rutter, Kreppner, & Sonuga-Barke, 2009).

There is some tendency for more atypical classifica- (Miron, Lewis, & Zeanah, 2009), but procedures that tions of attachment to be present when children have involve active elicitation of the child’s attachment attachment disorders (Boris et al., 2004; Gleason behaviors are most useful. Reunion following a brief et al., 2011; O’Connor et al., 2003; Zeanah et al., separation, whether as part of the SSP or some other 2005), but some children with high levels of indis- method, is often considered the most reliable elicitor criminate behavior also demonstrate secure attach- of attachment behaviors. Separation activates the ment (Gleason et al., 2011; O’Connor et al., 2003; child’s need for comfort, and during the reunion, the Zeanah et al., 2005). caregiver must read and respond to the child at a moment of intense emotional arousal. The clinician’s task is carefully to analyze how the dyad resolves Assessing attachment in clinical settings distress following separation or positively reconnects Assessment of attachment involves a paradigmatic even in the absence of distress. Note that this does shift in the clinical frame. Following the long tradi- not mean determining the SSP classification but tion of medicine, psychiatric disorders are concep- instead noting how attachment behaviors are tualized as existing within an individual, even if the organized within a particular relationship. disorder has significant interpersonal manifesta- Especially in the context of a reunion, but also tions (e.g., conduct disorder). The quality of the during naturalistic observations, there are several caregiver–child attachment, on the other hand, aspects of child–parent interaction that merit close requires shifting from considering clinical problems consideration. First, careful attention to presence or as existing within an individual child to conceiving of absence of child behaviors that reflect proximity- clinical problems (and strengths) existing between seeking, avoidance, resistance or disorganization in caregiver and child. One major implication of this response to distress may be useful in highlighting shift is recognizing that the same child may be dif- strengths and weaknesses in the parent–child rela- ferentially attached to different caregivers. This shift tionship. Especially important is observing the in the clinical frame from the individual to the dyad balance between the child’s exploring and proximity- has implications for both assessment and treatment. seeking and the child’s use of the caregiver to Two clinical approaches, derived from research, are regulate distress and other negative emotions (see fundamental to adequate assessment of attachment Figure 1). Behaviors that are clinically salient in young children: (a) a structured interaction be- include the child’s showing affection to the caregiver, tween caregiver and child designed to examine the seeking closeness – especially when needing comfort, way that the young child uses the caregiver to balance relying on the caregiver for help, and cooperating between the need to explore and the need to seek with the caregiver (Boris, Aoki, & Zeanah, 1999). physical closeness (see Figure 1), and (b) a narrative Familiarity with disorganized and other atypical interview with the caregiver. As discussed below, attachment behaviors is of particular clinical value. these approaches may be implemented through for- Disorganized attachment behaviors have been mal and validated measures or less systematically described in some detail (Main & Solomon, 1990), with attention to naturalistically observed behavior but training from videotapes is a useful adjunct to and narrative qualities in describing the child. Such written descriptions. In preschoolers, controlling approaches are likely to be significantly more useful behaviors – whether evident as solicitous caregiving when they are videotaped so that clinicians and cli- or as being bossy and punitive – should be noted. nicians and parents can review them later. Though The ‘insecure/other’ behaviors described in Table 3 not available in all clinical settings, videotaping is are also important indicators of disturbed attach- increasingly central to work with young children and ment relationships. their families (Miron, Lewis, & Zeanah, 2009). Co-occurrence of clinical problems of a variety of Video review with parents is valuable because it types with disorganized attachment behaviors may augments and facilitates reflective functioning, that increase urgency about intervening to change the is, parents’ ability to notice and reflect upon their child–parent relationship. Here, efforts to increase own and their infants’ behavior. Increasingly, parental behaviors associated with child security, reflective functioning is recognized as a component such as sensitive caregiving (De Wolff & van IJzen- of the parent’s ability to function as a secure base doorn, 1997) and reflective functioning (Slade, and safe haven for the child (Slade, Grienenberger, Grienenberger, Bernbach, Levy, & Locker, 2005), Bernbach, Levy, & Locker, 2005). As a result, may be important clinical efforts. Problematic reviewing videotaped interactions with parents also parental behaviors such as frightening or frightened is a central component of most manualized attach- behaviors, which have been linked both to trauma ment-based interventions, reviewed in detail later. and to disorganized attachment (Schuengel et al., 1999), are important to identify. These behaviors could in turn be targeted through specific attach- Assessing caregiver–child interaction ment-based interventions (described in more detail There are various interactional assessments that below) and/or through related modalities already may be used to elicit attachment-relevant behaviors practiced successfully by the clinician.

Ó 2011 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Ó 2011 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health. 824 Charles H. Zeanah, Lisa J. Berlin, and Neil W. Boris

Table 3 Atypical parenting behaviors associated with disorganized attachment (adapted from Benoit, 2000, and based on the Atypical Maternal Behavior Instrument for Assessment and Classiﬁcation Scale) (Lyons-Ruth & Jacovitz, 2008)

Atypical parenting behaviors Examples

Withdrawal Creating physical distance – directing the child away with toys; not greeting on reunion Fearful behaviors Frightened/hesitant/uncertain – haunted or high-pitched voice, sudden mood change, dissociation/’going through the motions’ Role confusion Pleading with the child, threatening to cry, hushed tones, speaking as if the child were an adult partner Affective communication errors Contradictory signals – inviting approach, then directing child away; using a positive voice, but teasing or putting the child down; laughing at child’s distress and/or expressing distress in response to the child’s positive affect Intrusiveness/Negativity Mocking, teasing, derogating; withholding a toy; pushing the child away; hushing the child

Given considerable evidence that attachment (e.g., the parent laughs at the child’s upset, or acts classifications can differ with different caregivers upset when the child expresses joy). (Fearon et al., 2010), relationship-specific informa- Of course, careful observation of the interaction tion about how attachment behaviors are organized between caregiver and child in isolation reveals little may impact how interventions are designed. to the clinician about what underlies the caregiver’s Throughout observation, clinicians should expect difficulty in meeting his or her child’s needs. Bowlby the child’s attachment behaviors to be organized (1969/1982) posited, and subsequent research has towards the attachment figure (i.e., parent or care- confirmed (van IJzendoorn, 1995), that each caregiver) and to contrast sharply with the child’s giver’s interactive behavior with the child is influ- behavior with an unfamiliar adult (usually the cli- enced largely by their own ‘internal working models’ nician). Any direction of the child’s attachment of attachment, forged in part by their own early behaviors directly towards the unfamiliar adult family experiences. indicates a significant disturbance. Similarly, parent–child attachment relationships are asymmetri- Assessing the caregiver’s narrative cal, meaning that it is the parent’s job to provide comfort, support, nurturance and protection to the The Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) developed by child but not the other way around. Indications of Main and colleagues heralded ‘a move to the level of abdication of the parental role are clinically signifi- representation’ in attachment research (Main, Kap- cant, as are indications that the child is the one lan, & Cassidy, 1985). Main and colleagues argued structuring the interaction with the parent and/or that the AAI assessed internal representations of treating the parent in a caregiving manner. attachment, indicating different ‘states of mind’ with Observations should be supplemented by detailed respect to attachment. This includes patterns of interview questions about typical behaviors that are emotion regulation, attachment information pro- clinically salient to attachment. In the latter part of cessing and the degree to which attachment is val- the first year, these would involve stranger wariness ued (Steele & Steele, 2008). and separation protest, and then in the second year The major advance provided by the AAI was to would include behaviors describing the child’s bal- analyze patterns of narrative discourse about early ance between, and comfort with, exploratory behav- childhood relationship experiences. Instead of ior and proximity-seeking. Use of the caregiver to merely accepting reports of childhood relationship regulate distress and other negative emotions, experiences at face value, this approach evaluates seeking comfort and closeness, particularly when the reports in terms of well-anchored qualitative distressed, showing affection to the caregiver, relying features of the narrative. Some adults, classified as on the caregiver for help, and cooperating with the ‘autonomous,’ relate organized, emotionally inte- caregiver are all important (Boris et al., 1999). grated narratives about their experiences and in On the caregiver side, there are also behaviors which they clearly value attachment relationships. especially important to note. Because of the link with Those classified as ‘dismissing’ minimize the impor- disorganized attachment, frightening or frightened tance of attachment experiences often while idealiz- behavior by the caregiver are especially notable ing their childhood experiences, yet at the same time (Hesse, 2008). In addition, other behaviors reflecting failing to provide credible memories to support their emotionally disrupted communications have been descriptions. Narratives in which the adult provides described by Lyons-Ruth and colleagues (Lyons- incoherent, affect-laden stories without an overall, Ruth, Bureau, Riley, & Atlas-Corbett, 2009) and are integrated perspective are classified as ‘preoccupied.’ linked to disorganized attachment ([Table 3] see also Finally, narratives in which the adult has lapses in Benoit, 2000). These behaviors include overt and coherence when discussing traumatic experiences or covert hostility, withdrawal, and mismatched affect losses are classified as ‘unresolved.’ A rarer group,

Ó 2011 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Ó 2011 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Practitioner Review: Clinical applications of attachment theory and research for infants and young children 825 lacking sufficient indicators of the preceding, is cations (Zeanah et al., 1994), even when adminis- ‘cannot classify’ (see Hesse, 2008, for a comprehen- tered before the child is born (Benoit et al., 1997). sive review). A meta-analysis of more than 800 dyads These and other narrative interviews have been found significant concordance (70%), as predicted, used in both evaluation and treatment planning. between classification of infant–parent attachment Narrative interviews take approximately one hour to patterns from the SSP and classification of parental conduct and, like the interactive piece of the assess- state of mind regarding attachment from the AAI (van ment, are best video recorded for later review. In some IJzendoorn, 1995). clinical settings, interviews about caregivers’ child- As with the SSP, actual attachment classifications hood experiences may be desirable and illuminating. from the AAI are less important in clinical settings In others, such as settings in which the child is the than the behaviors – in this case, narrative qualities clinical focus, parents may find questioning about – underlying them, which are often quite usefully their own childhood objectionable, and interviews noted. Steele and Steele (2008) detailed a number of about the child may be better tolerated. The Circle of ways in which the AAI may be useful in clinical set- Security Interview (Powell, Cooper, Hoffman, & Mar- tings. Among others, they noted the AAI may be vin, 2009) is a hybrid that includes probes about both useful in helping to set the agenda for psychother- the parent’s childhood relationships and relation- apy, uncovering traumas or losses, delineating ships with the child. Narrative features of interviews defensive processes, assessing reflective functioning, about the caregiver’s relationship with the child that and identifying positive relationship models from are clinically salient are presented in Table 4. which to build. Specific uses of the interview will vary Importantly, it is not necessary to obtain training with the setting and the specific clinical issues being to reliability in these measures to find them clinically addressed. valuable, especially since an overall classification is Following the AAI, other narrative interviews were not necessarily in and of itself illuminating. Fur- developed. For example, rather than focus on the thermore, in clinical use, deviation from strict caregiver’s past experiences with caregiving rela- research administration protocols is often indicated tionships, interviews like the Working Model of the in order to pursue more details about important Child Interview (WMCI; Zeanah et al., 1994) and the issues. Nevertheless, detailed understanding of Parent Development Interview (Slade et al., 1999) narrative features and how they relate to emotion focus on the caregiver’s perceptions of the child and regulation in parent and child means that training in their relationship with their child. The WMCI also administration and interpretation of a particular has been shown to be concordant with SSP classifi- interview will enhance its usefulness for the clini-

Table 4 Clinically relevant features of narrative attachment interviews

Narrative feature Examples of areas of clinical concern

Attributions about the child • Instances of derogation – direct expression of anger about the child’s needs – are noted. • The narrative is marked by distortion, such that the child’s needs are characterized as hurtful, frightening, or overwhelming. • The caregiver is generically positive about the (e.g., ‘loving’ or ‘caring’) and yet the story of the relationship is characterized by extreme disengagement such that the caregiver struggles to find language to talk about the child infant’s needs and seems disinterested. • The caregiver talks about the child as a friend, peer or confidant. • The caregiver talks about the child in an impersonal way – without showing understanding/ appreciation of the child as a unique individual. The tone of the interview • Indifference. • Moments of significant anger/hostility or thematic anger. • Notable guilt, shame, or disappointment. The capacity to reflect on • Little capacity to imagine what the child needs or feels. the child’s experience • Salient developmental issues like regulating sleep or crying or toilet training are described as (i.e., reflective functioning, burdensome, overwhelming or not described at all. empathy and insight) • Challenges with regulation are blamed, at least in part, on the infant though significant guilt may be expressed. Memories about the child • Limited. • Lack detail, positive emotion and richness. • Contradictory such that, for example, specific memories of the child described as loving focus instead on the child being manipulative or difficult. Psychological defenses/ • Moments of confusion or even dissociation. trauma • Previous experiences of loss or trauma are talked about even if not clearly related to the interview question. • Increasing irritation with the interviewer. • Questions are challenged or criticized or interview process is demeaned.

Ó 2011 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Ó 2011 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health. 826 Charles H. Zeanah, Lisa J. Berlin, and Neil W. Boris cian. Finally, for less experienced clinicians the Barriers to the formation of attachments and structure afforded by these interviews may be valu- particularly secure attachments may come from able if it does not become overly rigid. parent or child or from the unique fit between the There is, however, a significant cost in time, both two. Stovall-McClough and Dozier (2004) reported in conducting interactive assessments and narrative that children placed prior to 10 months of age interviews, and in being trained to interpret the data readily developed secure attachments to their foster provided by such measures. Still, these measures parents, but those placed after 10 months were more may be clinically valuable whether used alone or as likely to exhibit insecure behavior when distressed. part of attachment-based interventions (Steele & Importantly, they noted that when children avoided Steele, 2008; Zeanah & Benoit, 1995). their foster parents, the foster parents responded with withdrawal, and when children exhibited resistance in the form of difficulty settling once dis- Selected clinical contexts tressed, foster parents responded with impatience Although we suggest that attachment ought to be a and irritability. These cycles can be identified soon prominent component of assessment of young chil- after placement and should be the target of clinical dren in any clinical setting, there are certain situa- intervention. tions in which attachment assessment should have a Clearly, clinical intervention should begin with central role. We next turn to a discussion of appli- helping foster parents understand children’s cations of attachment theory and research in four attachment and exploratory needs, but also with specific clinical contexts. teaching foster parents that traumatized children often mislead caregivers about what they need. Caregivers, thus, must override their own problem- Maltreatment and foster care atic reactions to challenging behaviors (Dozier et al., Attachment disturbances are inherent in foster care 2005). In fact, foster parents’ own state of mind with for several reasons. First, young children are dis- respect to attachment has been identified as the proportionately likely to be classified as disorganized strongest predictor of whether foster children will in relation to their maltreating parents, with rates of become securely attached to them (Dozier et al., disorganization found to be as high as 90% (Cicchetti 2001). et al., 2006). Second, as noted, maltreatment, and Another critical component is foster parents’ specifically neglect, are necessary but not sufficient commitment to the children in their care. Young as etiologic conditions for attachment disorders children have an urgent need for regular and sub- (Zeanah & Smyke, 2009). Third, maltreated children stantial contact with their attachment figures, and it who are removed from their primary caregivers and is rarely possible for biological parents to serve this placed with foster parents they often have never seen function even with frequent visitation. Dozier (2007) before must form attachments to entirely new care- found that greater commitment by foster parents to givers. Finally, these children must attempt to the young child in their care was associated with resolve and/or repair attachments to their biological fewer placement disruptions. Parental commitment parents even as they develop new attachments to also is salient in work with post-institutionalized, foster parents. adopted children, to which we turn next. An initial question for clinicians evaluating young children in foster care is whether they are attached to Post-institutionalized and inter-country adopted anyone. For example, one study found that about a children third of 1- to 4-year-old children removed from their parents and placed in foster care had limited or no Attachment disturbances are among the most attachments three months after their removal prominent problems noted in post-institutionalized (Zeanah et al., 2004). Dozier and colleagues (Stovall- children and among those who are adopted into McClough & Dozier, 2004) had foster parents com- another country (Zeanah, 2000). In addition to plete structured daily diaries to describe the nascent reduced security and increased prevalence of attachment behaviors of the young children in their atypical classifications (e.g., insecure/other) in these care. They noted that attachments began to organize children, high levels of indiscriminant behavior are as secure, avoidant or resistant patterns within days quite common. Even after children have established to weeks of placement. Thus, attention to develop- attachments in their adoptive families, some con- ment and quality of attachment to foster parents tinue to exhibit high levels of indiscriminate behavior should be monitored from the outset. Important (Rutter et al., 2007). In studies to date, children who questions for the clinician include: Does the child are placed in families following early institutional consistently turn to preferred attachment figures for rearing develop more secure and less atypical comfort, support, nurturance and protection? Does patterns of attachment following enhanced caregiv- the child directly express negative emotions? Is the ing. For example, the Bucharest Early Intervention child convincingly comforted when seeking it from Project (BEIP) included careful assessment of preferred attachment figures? attachment of young children being raised in insti-

Ó 2011 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Ó 2011 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Practitioner Review: Clinical applications of attachment theory and research for infants and young children 827 tutions (Zeanah et al., 2005). Following this assess- a full commitment to the children. Also, parents’ own ment, children were randomly assigned to foster care attachment histories (and interpretations of their or to ‘care as usual.’ In this study, the intervention histories) are likely to be important for informing was an attachment-based model of child-centered their parenting behaviors, suggesting that clinicians foster care, and a team of Romanian social workers ought to help them increase reflective capacity and trained and supported foster parents in managing understanding of both their children’s behaviors and the complex challenges of caring for post-institu- their own responses to them. Increasing parents’ tionalized infants and toddlers (Smyke et al., 2009). reflective capacities is a central feature of interven- Paralleling Dozier’s emphasis on commitment tion efforts, including those with children experi- (Lindheim & Dozier, 2007), these foster parents were encing parental divorce. urged by their Romanian social workers to commit fully to the children in their care and to love them as Divorce and child custody their own. Children were placed between the ages of 6 and 30 months, and through 54 months of age, There is widespread consensus about the relevance only two placements disrupted (Smyke et al., 2009). of attachment theory, research, and assessments to By 42 months of age, secure attachments were sig- child custody decision-making required when par- nificantly increased and atypical (disorganized and ents divorce, including legal custody, physical cus- insecure other) attachments were significantly tody, daily and overnight visitation, and relocation decreased in children in foster care compared to (see Byrne, O’Connor, Marvin, & Whelan, 2005, for a children who experienced more prolonged care in comprehensive review). institutions (Smyke et al., 2010). Furthermore, Although it is hard to determine the proportion of recent data from this group indicate that, for girls these decisions that require a court hearing and/or (but not boys), security of attachment fully mediated other forms of dispute resolution (e.g., mediation), it the effect of the intervention on internalizing disor- is likely that those that do are more complex and ders (McLaughlin et al., under review). Timing of contentious, and can include accusations by one removal from institutional rearing also matters, as a parent concerning the other’s suitability to parent recent meta-analysis indicated that for children in their child. Exactly how best to apply attachment adoptive homes for an average of 26 months, those theory and research to custody decisions is not well who were adopted before 12 months of age were determined, however. significantly more likely to be securely attached than Recent thoughtful and comprehensive reviews those adopted after (Van den Dries, Juffer, van have recommended that principles of attachment IJzendoorn, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2009). theory and well-validated measures of attachment What is less clear from adoption studies and the security can help to inform custody evaluations BEIP is which parental behaviors and characteristics (Byrne et al., 2005; Calloway & Erard, 2009). At the most strongly promote secure attachments in chil- same time, standard attachment measures such as dren with histories of institutional rearing, although the SSP have not yet been widely used nor evaluated this is a current area of investigation. Until more in the context of divorce and custody litigation. The data are available, clinicians ought to be guided by resources required to use standard attachment the findings derived from studies of maltreated assessments may be prohibitive in the context of children. For example, Dozier et al. (2001) showed divorce and custody litigation. Moreover, even if that infants who had experienced serious neglect affordable and well implemented, it is not clear how could form secure attachments to their new care- assessments of attachment security should be givers, but this was far more likely if their mothers brought to bear on custody decisions (Garber, 2009). had organized (i.e., secure) responses during the That is, best interest of the child determinations AAI. Similarly, a study of 4- to 7-year-old children should be informed by more factors than attachment who had experienced multiple foster placements and alone, unless serious disturbances of attachment who had had disorganized attachments to their bio with either parent are evident. Ideally, young chil- parent became securely attached in their new dren can enjoy the benefits of regular contact and placements if they were placed with an adoptive sustained relationships with both parents and other parent who was classified as secure according to the family members through the inevitable stressors AAI (Steele et al., 2008). accompanying divorce. These findings from maltreated children (Dozier et Sometimes, because of conflicts or logistics, this al., 2002; Steele et al., 2008) and what evidence will not be possible, however. Specific issues of there is from studies of post-institutionalized chil- issues of separation and loss are especially impor- dren (Bakermans-Kranenburg et al., in press) con- tant in the context of divorce. When parents do not verge on several key clinical issues. Parents adopting co-reside and/or rarely share time together as a post-institutionalized children must be encouraged family, young children who have been attached to to learn what children need regardless of the off- both parents may have chronic feelings of loss and putting signals the children may transmit. Clinicians longing to be with both attachment figures at once. should also identify impediments to parents’ making The question is how best to manage these situations.

Ó 2011 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Ó 2011 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health. 828 Charles H. Zeanah, Lisa J. Berlin, and Neil W. Boris

Once attachment to a parent develops, usually at a helping families recover from exposure to partner cognitive age of 7 to 9 months, any visitation with the violence, establishing a safe and secure living situ- non-custodial parent most likely will involve sepa- ation is the most important initial consideration. The ration from the primary attachment figure. Sustain- clinician should work to make the physical envi- ing attachments to different adults living apart may ronment as safe as possible: re-establishing routines not be developmentally possible for young children, and rituals for the child, restoring interpersonal and separations such as overnight visitations for connections, and highlighting the fact that protec- children younger than 2 or 3 years may not only tion of the child’s needs are part of this effort. Chil- harm the primary attachment relationship, they can dren who are constantly afraid about the wellbeing of also make establishing a healthy attachment to the a traumatized caregiver can become overly con- non-custodial parent more difficult (see Solomon & cerned about the caregiver’s emotional wellbeing; George, 1999). For this reason, in children younger this means that emphasizing protection includes than 2 or 3 years old, extended visits with the non- restoring or establishing caregiver limit-setting and custodial parent may best be accomplished if the developing a treatment plan to address caregiver– custodial parent is present, assuming that parents child role reversal when it is apparent. Partner vio- can be together without conflict. For preschool chil- lence is a potent risk factor for disorganized attach- dren, who have a greater capacity to sustain ment and/or role-reversed relationship disturbances attachments over time and distance, sustaining (Macfie et al., 2008). Attachment-based interven- attachments to both parents may be possible. tions are often warranted when exposure to partner Child comfort may be increased if parents can violence is prolonged (Lieberman et al., 2006). maintain the child’s routines for sleeping/waking, feeding, and activities in both settings. Child comfort will also be increased by both parents allowing the Attachment-based interventions child to use the same transitional object (e.g., A number of early childhood interventions are com- favorite stuffed animal) when with both of them, and patible with or derived from Bowlby’s work (see by their following similar rules for the use of the Berlin, Zeanah, & Lieberman, 2008, for a compre- child’s bottle and/or pacifier. Similarly, although hensive review). We consider four examples of often a source of parental conflict, both parents’ use interventions that derived in whole or in part from of the same or similar parenting strategies with attachment theory and research. All of these thera- respect to emotional soothing and limit-setting will pies have an evidence base supporting them, as well provide a more consistent and coherent child-rearing as specific training protocols or processes through environment, as a whole. For older toddlers and which clinicians may train to fidelity in one or more preschool-aged children, consistency in parents’ of these approaches. Even if not training to research narratives about why they are apart should also be reliability, clinicians will likely enhance their prac- helpful. tices by becoming familiar with the detailed nuances High levels of parental conflict are likely to in- of implementing these interventions. It is important crease the probability of attachment disturbances in to note that these interventions are not employed young children, perhaps through reduced sensitivity only in the case of attachment disorders, but rather in parents who are preoccupied by their own con- to support the development of child–parent attach- cerns. When high levels of conflict, including vio- ment in high-risk conditions and/or to address lence, are evident, the threats to attachment concerning child–parent interactions and relation- relationships are even greater. ship disturbances.

Families with intimate partner violence Child–Parent Psychotherapy (CPP) Partner violence is considered both a reflection of The oldest dyadic psychotherapy that shared the and a risk for disorganized attachment (Lyons-Ruth relational focus of attachment theory was Fraiberg’s & Jacobvitz, 2008). As Kobak and Madsen (2008) Infant Parent Psychotherapy (Fraiberg, 1980), since note, partner violence is likely to undermine the refined and extended to serve infants and preschool child’s confidence in the parent’s availability and is a children by Lieberman and colleagues (Lieberman & context in which the child is likely to be frightened of Van Horn, 2005). Now called Child–Parent Psycho- and for the parent. Therefore, it is not surprising that therapy (CPP), this manualized dyadic intervention within a group of impoverished young mothers, has been used primarily with impoverished and partner violence was significantly associated with traumatized families with children younger than 5. disorganized infant attachment (Zeanah et al., CPP sessions include both parent and child together 1999). and take place either in the home or in an office Lieberman and colleagues have noted that the playroom. Sessions are unstructured, with the effects of partner violence on young children and themes largely determined by the parent and by the their relationships may be lasting (Lieberman, unfolding interactions between the parent and child. Ghosh Ippen, & Van Horn, 2006). For clinicians CPP emphasizes enhancing emotional communica-

Ó 2011 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Ó 2011 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Practitioner Review: Clinical applications of attachment theory and research for infants and young children 829 tion between parent and child, sometimes by et al., 2002). Originally created as a time-limited exploring links between the parents’ early childhood group psychotherapy using video feedback, the experiences and their current feelings, perceptions, intervention is easily adapted for individual therapy. and behaviors towards their children, as well as a More recently, parenting DVDs based on the model focus on the parent’s current stressful life circum- have been created; these combine education about stances and culturally derived values. This emphasis attachment with an opportunity for caregivers to on emotional communication, and defensive pro- reflect on their child’s needs and the challenges each cesses that threaten to distort it, highlights the link faces in meeting those needs (Cooper, Hoffman, & between attachment theory and CPP. Powell, 2009). For the video-therapy approach, an Five randomized clinical trials support the efficacy observational procedure including the standard SSP of CPP. These include infants of stressed, immigrant and the Circle of Security Interview are completed at families (Lieberman, Weston, & Pawl, 1991), infants baseline for treatment planning (Powell et al., 2009). and preschoolers from maltreating families (Cicch- Toward the end of treatment, a second SSP is con- etti, Rogosch, & Toth, 2006; Toth, Maughan, Manly, ducted for additional review. In this treatment, the Spagnola, & Cicchetti, 2002), toddlers of depressed SSP is used to not to classify attachment patterns, mothers (Cicchetti, Toth, & Rogosch, 1999; Toth, but rather to illustrate the parent’s emotional pres- Rogosch, Manly, & Cicchetti, 2006), and preschool- ence and the child’s exploratory and comfort-seeking ers exposed to partner violence (Lieberman et al., behavior (see Figure 1). 2006). In each, a central component of the therapy is The intervention emphasizes the sophisticated establishing open expression of the child’s experi- capabilities of young children and draws caregivers’ ence of distress and a need for the parent to respond attention to the meaning of subtle behaviors, using effectively, much as is seen in secure attachment video review liberally to highlight positive moments relationships. of parent–child interaction in order to engage the caregiver. This approach builds upon the work of McDonough (McDonough, 2000; Rusconi-Serpa Video-based Intervention to Promote Positive et al., 2009) and Shaver and colleagues (Mikulincer Parenting (VIPP) & Shaver, 2007), both of whom demonstrated that Video-based Intervention to Promote Positive Par- images of positive interactions effectively engage enting (VIPP) is a brief, home-based attachment difficult-to-reach parents and build unity in groups. intervention delivered in four home visits to parents Another key element of the COS approach is edu- of infants less than 1 year old, typically in lower-risk cation of caregivers about attachment and its families (Juffer, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van development. Once again, review of video material is IJzendoorn, 2007). VIPP was drawn explicitly from central. The Circle (Figure 1) is provided as a visual attachment research and attempts to promote guide for parents to learn about young children’s maternal sensitivity through interveners’ presenta- attachment needs and necessary caregiver behav- tion of written materials and review of in-home, iors, including supportive presence (‘Hands’), sup- videotaped infant–parent interactions. An expanded port for exploration (‘top of the Circle’), and support version, VIPP-R, provides an additional three-hour for closeness (‘bottom of the Circle’). The intervention home visit that focuses on the parent’s childhood aims to help parents better understand their child’s attachment experiences. attachment needs and to recognize when their own Findings are generally supportive of positive pro- reactions impede an appropriate response. gram effects on sensitive and nurturing parenting There are preliminary data on the efficacy of the behaviors, attachment disorganization, and exter- Circle of Security intervention. A pre–post study of nalizing behavior problems during preschool (Juffer, impoverished parents showed significant changes in Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2005; the proportion of securely attached toddlers. A study Klein Velderman, Bakermans-Kranenburg, Juffer, & of a perinatal Circle of Security intervention, pro- van IJzendoorn, 2006a; Klein Velderman et al., vided to pregnant, nonviolent offenders with a his- 2006b). VIPP-SD, a version of VIPP emphasizing tory of substance abuse, demonstrated rates of sensitive disciplinary practices for toddlers with infant attachment security (70%) and disorganiza- early signs of externalizing problems, has shown tion (20%) comparable to those in low-risk samples positive effects on mothers’ disciplinary attitudes (Cassidy et al., 2010). Although no randomized, and behaviors compared to control mothers (Mes- controlled trial has been conducted, COS is tightly man et al, 2007; van Zeijl et al., 2006). linked to attachment theory and research and, in its use of video feedback and promotion of caregiver reflection, leverages emerging best practices. The Circle of Securityâ (COS) The Circle of Security was developed as an inter- Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-up (ABC) vention to enhance attachment relationships between infants and young children and their care- Dozier and her colleagues developed a 10-session givers, primarily through work with parents (Marvin intervention aimed at reducing barriers to the

Ó 2011 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Ó 2011 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health. 830 Charles H. Zeanah, Lisa J. Berlin, and Neil W. Boris development of secure attachment relationships ple, have effectively rewritten the criteria for attach- between foster parents and the young children in ment disorders and created a series of loosely related their care (Dozier et al., 2005). They note four major interventions which are coercive and dangerous (see areas of challenge facing caregivers who foster young Chaffin et al., 2006, for a review and recommenda- children: (a) young children in foster care may reject tions). Treatments which force children to submit to care that is offered to them, (b) caregivers’ own being held or to sustain eye contact, promote histories may interfere with their providing nurtur- regression to achieve ‘reattachment,’ or encourage ing care, (c) young children in foster care may need children to ‘vent anger’ while being restrained are not special help with self-regulation, and (d) young only contraindicated, but such treatments have led maltreated children may be especially sensitive to to injury and even death (Mercer, Sarner, & Rosa, frightening behavior in caregivers. 2003). These premises were used to develop the ABC program’s four treatment modules: (a) parental nurturance, (b) following the child’s lead, (c) ‘over- Conclusions riding’ one’s own history and/or non-nurturing Developmental research has established parent– impulses, particularly as regards off-putting behav- child attachment as a central aspect of social and ior and negative emotional reactions in children, and emotional development. Established landmarks (d) avoiding frightening behavior with the child. detailing the emergence of attachment in children Carefully selected videotaped examples drawn from during the first few years of life describe an expected interactions between the foster parent and foster developmental trajectory against which an individ- child are used to discuss and develop these themes. ual infant may be compared. In addition, there are In addition, live interactions between parent and clearly defined phenotypes associated with extreme child are included as part of the therapeutic focus. disturbances, including attachment disorders. In A randomized controlled trial of the ABC inter- most clinical settings, young children’s attachment vention with foster parents compared it to a psy- should be assessed routinely, either formally or choeducational intervention of comparable intensity informally. Moreover, there are many clinical set- and frequency in 60 children between 3 months and tings in which a thorough knowledge about attach- 3 years of age and their foster parents (Dozier et al., ment and its manifestations ought to be a central 2006b). Initial results demonstrated normalization focus, such as children who are maltreated (espe- in diurnal cortisol levels in 93 foster children cially those in foster care), adopted children (espe- between the ages of 3 months and 3 years (Dozier cially post-institutionalized), children of divorce, and et al., 2006a; Dozier, Peloso, Lewis, Laurenceau, & children exposed to parental violence. Information Levine, 2008). A subset of 46 children whose parents about the development of attachment in early had received the ABC intervention showed signifi- childhood is widely available, though it is our cantly less avoidance than children of parents in the impression that many training programs which lack psychoeducational intervention (Dozier et al., 2009). infant mental health expertise do not adequately The ABC program has been adapted and is being cover this material or its applications. For this rea- evaluated with birth parents whose young children son we have emphasized throughout that thorough have been maltreated but not removed from them. understanding of attachment and its developmental The approach is also now being used with inter- course is essential in all clinical settings serving country adopted children. That nearly identical young children and their families. More specialized interventions are applied to foster parents, mal- attachment expertise will likely enhance clinical treating parents, and adoptive parents speaks to the work with young children and their families. fundamental attachment needs in young children. The relational paradigm that attachment research has informed now dominates the interdisciplinary field of infant mental health. In working with young Contraindicated interventions claiming attachment children and caregivers, clinicians have been pro- derivation vided methods for assessing both external, Despite the recent development of well-validated observable interactive behaviors between caregiver interventions to improve child–parent attachment, and child, and internal, subjective experiences of there are other clinical interventions which have caregivers about their child. Understanding the been developed with the goal of treating children who internal and external components of the relationship have a history of disruptions in early attachment allows clinicians to shift the clinical frame from an who also have developed oppositional or aggressive individual child to a child developing in the context behavior. Although early traumatic experiences of caregiving relationships. Though available, these coupled with disruptions in attachment can be methods require some training to master and may associated with aggressive behavior in affected chil- require additional time and resources to implement dren (Heller et al., 2006), proponents of the various meaningfully. Our view is that these additional treatments designed to promote ‘reattachment,’ investments are amply rewarded by the richness of through coercive holding and rebirthing, for exam- the data they provide.

Finally, there is a growing evidence base about Byrne, J.G., O’Connor, T.G., Marvin, R.S., & Whelan, W.F. effective attachment derived/compatible early (2005). Practitioner review: The contribution of attachment childhood interventions that have been shown to be theory to child custody assessments. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 115–127. effective. They share an emphasis on enhancing Calloway, G., & Erard, R.E. (2009). Introduction to the special caregivers’ appreciation of the complexity of the issue on attachment and child custody. Journal of Child emotional development of young children, the power Custody, 6, 1–7. caregivers have to affect their children, and the kinds Carlson, E.A., Sroufe, L.A., & Egeland, B.E. (2004). The of factors within and around the caregiver that may construction of experience: A longitudinal of representation and behavior. Child Development, 75, 66–83. interfere with providing what young children need. Cassidy, J., Ziv, Y., Stupica, B., Sherman, L.J., Butler, H., For clinicians who work regularly with young chil- Karfgin, A., Cooper, G., Hoffman, K.T. & Powell, B. (2010). dren and their families, these approaches also Enhancing attachment security in the infants of women in a demand much but offer more to those willing to jail-diversion program. Attachment and Human Develop- invest in their mastery and implementation. ment, 12, 333–353. Cassidy, J., Marvin, R.S., & The MacArthur Working Group on Attachment. (1992). Attachment organization in preschool children: Coding guidelines (4th edn). Unpublished manu- Acknowledgements script, University of Virginia. Charles H. Zeanah’s work on this paper was supported Chaffin, M., Hanson, R., Saunders, B.E., Nichols, T., Barnett, in part by NIMH R01 MH091363-01 (Charles Nelson, D., Zeanah, C., et al. (2006). Report of the APSAC task force PI); Lisa Berlin’s work on this paper was supported by on attachment therapy, reactive attachment disorder, and NIMH K01MH70378 and by NIDA P30DA023026/the attachment problems. Child Maltreatment, 11, 76–89. Duke University Transdisciplinary Prevention Research Cicchetti, D., & Barnett, D. (1991). Attachment organization in Center. maltreated preschoolers. Development and Psychopathol- ogy, 3, 397–411. Cicchetti, D., Rogosch, F.A., & Toth, S.L. (2006). Fostering Correspondence to secure attachment in infants in maltreating families through preventive interventions. Development and Psychopathology, Charles H. Zeanah; Email: [email protected] 18, 623–649. Cicchetti, D., Toth, S.L., & Rogosch, F.A. (1999). The efficacy of toddler–parent psychotherapy to increase attachment secu- References rity in offspring of depressed mothers. Attachment and Ainsworth, M.D., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Human Development, 1, 34–66. Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Cooper, G., Hoffman, K.T., & Powell, B. (2009). Circle of Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Security: COS-P facilitator DVD manual 5.0. Unpublished American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and sta- manuscript, Marycliff Institute, Spokane, WA. tistical manual (4th edn, text rev.). Arlington, VA: Author. Cyr, C., Euser, E.M., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., & van Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., Steele, H., Zeanah, C.H., Ijzendoorn, M.H. (2010). Attachment security and disorgani- Muhamedrahimov, R.J., Vorria, P., Dobrova-Krol, N.A., zation in maltreating and high-risk families: A series of meta- Steele, M., van IJzendoorn, M.H., Juffer, F., & Gunnar, analyses. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 87–108. M.R. (in press). Attachment and emotional development in DeKlyen, M., & Greenberg, M.T. (2008). Attachment and institutional care: Characteristics and catch-up. In R.B. psychopathology in childhood. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver McCall, M.H. van IJzendoorn, F. Juffer, V.K. Groza, & C.J. (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clin- Groark (Eds.), Children without permanent parental care: ical applications (2nd edn, pp. 637–665). New York: Guilford Research, practice, and policy. Monographs of the Society for Press. Research in Child Development. De Wolff, M., & van IJzendoorn, M.J. (1997). Sensitivity and Benoit, D. (2000). Atypical caregiver behaviours and disorga- attachment: A meta-analysis on parental antecedents of nized infant attachment. Newsletter of the Infant Mental infant attachment. Child Development, 68, 571–591. Health Promotion Project (IMP), 29, 1–3. Dobrova-Krol, N.A., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., Van IJzen- Benoit, D., Parker, K., & Zeanah, C.H. (1997). Mothers’ doorn, M.H., & Juffer, F. (in press). Effects of perinatal HIV representations of their infants assessed prenatally: Stabil- infection and early institutional rearing on preschoolers’ ity and association with infants’ attachment classifications. attachment and indiscriminate friendliness. Journal of Child Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 307–313. Psychology and Psychiatry. Berlin, L.J., Zeanah, C.H., & Lieberman, A.F. (2008). Preven- Dozier, M., Higley, E., Albus, K.E., & Nutter, A. (2002). tion and intervention programs for supporting early attach- Intervening with foster infants’ caregivers: Targeting three ment security. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook critical needs. Infant Mental Health Journal, 23, 541–554. of attachment (2nd edn, pp. 745–761). New York: Guilford Dozier, M., & Lindheim, O. (2006). This is my child: Differences Press. among foster parents in commitment to their young chil- Boris, N.W., Aoki, Y., & Zeanah, C.H. (1999). The development dren. Child Maltreatment, 11, 338–345. of infant–parent attachment: Considerations for assess- Dozier, M., Lindheim, O., & Ackerman, J. (2005). Attachment ment. Infants and Young Children, 11, 1–10. and biobehavioral catch-up. In L. Berlin, Y. Ziv, L. Amaya- Boris, N.W., Hinshaw-Fuselier, S.S., Smyke, A.T., Scheeringa, Jackson, & M.T. Greenberg (Eds.), Enhancing early attach- M., Heller, S.S., & Zeanah, C.H. (2004). Comparing criteria ments (pp. 178–194). New York: Guilford Press. for attachment disorders: Establishing reliability and valid- Dozier, M., Lindeheim, O., Lewis, E., Bick, J., Bernard, K., & ity in high-risk samples. Journal of the American Academy of Peloso, E. (2009). Effects of a foster parent training program Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 568–577. on young children’s attachment behaviors: Preliminary Bowlby, J. (1973). Separation. New York: Basic Books. evidence from a randomized clinical trial. Child and Adoles- Bowlby, J. (1980). Loss. New York: Basic Books. cent Social Work, 26, 321–332. Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment (2nd edn). New York: Basic Dozier, M., Manni, M., Gordon, M.K., Peloso, E., Gunnar, M.R., Books. Stovall-McClough, K.C., Eldreth, D., & Levine, S. (2006a).

Ó 2011 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Ó 2011 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health. 832 Charles H. Zeanah, Lisa J. Berlin, and Neil W. Boris

Foster children’s diurnal production of cortisol: An explor- Lieberman, A.F., Ghosh Ippen, C., & Van Horn, P. (2006). atory study. Child Maltreatment, 11, 189–197. Child–Parent Psychotherapy: 6-month follow-up of a ran- Dozier, M., Peloso, E., Lewis, E., Laurenceau, J., & Levine, S. domized controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of (2008). Effects of an attachment-based intervention on the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 45, 913–918. cortisol production of infants and toddlers in foster care. Lieberman, A.F., & Van Horn, P. (2005). Don’t hit my mommy: A Development and Psychopathology, 20, 845–859. manual for Child–Parent Psychotherapy with young wit- Dozier, M., Peloso, E., Lindheim, O., Gordon, M.K., Manni, M., nesses of family violence. Washington: Zero to Three Press. Sepulveda, S., & Ackerman, J. (2006b). Developing evi- Lieberman, A.F., Weston, D.R., & Pawl, J.H. (1991). Preventive dence-based interventions for foster children: An example of intervention and outcome with anxiously attached dyads. a randomized clinical trial with infants and toddlers. Journal Child Development, 62, 199–209. of Social Issues, 62, 767–785. Lindheim, O., & Dozier, M. (2007). Caregiver commitment to Dozier, M., Stovall, K.C., Albus, K.E., & Bates, B. (2001). foster children: The role of child behavior. Child Abuse and Attachment for infants in foster care: The role of caregiver Neglect, 31, 361–374. state of mind. Child Development, 72, 1467–1477. Lyons-Ruth, K., Bureau, J.F., Riley, C.D., & Atlas-Corbett, A.F. Fearon, R.P., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., Van IJzendoorn, (2009). Socially indiscriminate attachment behavior in the M.H., Lapsley, A., & Roisman, G.I. (2010). The significance Strange Situation: Convergent and discriminant validity in of insecure attachment and disorganization in the develop- relation to caregiving risk, later behavior problems, and ment of children’s externalizing behavior: A meta-analytic attachment insecurity. Development and Psychopathology, study. Child Development, 81, 435–456. 21, 355–372. Fraiberg, S. (1980). Clinical studies in infant mental health: The Lyons-Ruth, K., & Jacobvitz, D. (2008). Attachment disorga- first year of life. New York: Basic Books. nization: Genetic factors, parenting contexts, and develop- Garber, B.D. (2009). Attachment methodology in custody mental transformation from infancy to adulthood. In J. evaluation: Four hurdles standing between developmental Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment (2nd theory and forensic application. Journal of Child Custody, 6, edn, pp. 666–697). New York: Guilford Press. 38–61. Macfie, J., Fitzpatrick, K., Rivas, E., & Cox, M. (2008). Gleason, M.M., Fox, N.A., Drury, S., Smyke, A.T., Egger, H.L., Independent influences upon mother–toddler role reversal: Nelson, C.A., Gregas, M.G., & Zeanah, C.H. (2011). The valid- Infant–mother attachment disorganization and role reversal ity of evidence-derived criteria for reactive attachment disor- in mother’s childhood. Attachment and Human Development, der: Indiscriminately social/disinhibited and emotionally 10, 29–39. withdrawn/inhibited types. Journal of the American Academy Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security of of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 50, 216–231. attachment in infancy, childhood and adulthood: A move Greenberg, M.T., Speltz, M.L., DeKlyen, M., & Endriga, M.C. to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (1991). Attachment security in preschoolers with and with- (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research. out externalizing problems: A replication. Development and Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Develop- Psychopathology, 3, 413–430. ment, 50 (1–2, Serial No. 209), 66–104. Grossman, K.E., Grossman, K., & Waters, E. (Eds.). (2005). Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying Attachment from infancy to adulthood. New York: Guilford infants as disorganized/disoriented during the Ainsworth Press. Strange Situation. In M.T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E.M. Heller, S.S., Boris, N.W., Hinshaw-Fuselier, S.S., Page, T., Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, Koren-Karie, N., & Miron, D. (2006). Reactive attachment research and intervention (pp. 121–160). Chicago: University disorder in maltreated twins: Follow-up from 18 months to of Chicago Press. 8 years. Attachment and Human Development, 8, 63–86. Marvin, R.S., Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., & Powell, B. (2002). The Hesse, E. (2008). The Adult Attachment Interview: Protocol, Circle of Security project: Attachment-based intervention method of analysis, and empirical studies. In J. Cassidy & with caregiver–preschool child dyads. Attachment and Hu- P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, man Development, 4, 107–124. research and clinical applications (2nd edn, pp. 552–598). McDonough, S. (2000). Interaction guidance: An approach for New York: Guilford Press. difficult-to-engage families. In C.H. Zeanah, (Ed.), Handbook Juffer, F., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., & van IJzendoorn, of infant mental health (2nd edn, pp. 485–493). New York: M.H. (2005). The importance of parenting in the develop- Guilford Press. ment of disorganized attachment: Evidence from a preven- Mercer, J., Sarner, L., & Rosa, L. (2003). Attachment therapy tive intervention study in adoptive families. Journal of Child on trial: The torture and death of Candace Newmaker. Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 263–274. Westport, CT: Praeger. Juffer, F., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., & van IJzendoorn, Mesman, J., Stolk, M.N., van Zeijl, J., Alink, L.R.A., Juffer, F., M.H. (2007). Promoting positive parenting: An attachment- Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., et al. (2007). Extending the based intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. video-feedback intervention to sensitive discipline: The early Klein Velderman, M., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., Juffer, F., prevention of anti-social behavior. In F. Juffer, M.J. Baker- & van IJzendoorn, M.H. (2006a). Effects of attachment- mans-Kranenburg, & M.H. van Ijzendoorn (Eds.), Promoting based interventions on maternal sensitivity and infant positive parenting: An attachment-based intervention (pp. attachment: Differential susceptibility of highly reactive 171–192). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. infants. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 266–274. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P.R. (2007). Attachment in adult- Klein Velderman, M., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., Juffer, F., hood: Structure, dynamics and change. New York: Guilford van IJzendoorn, M.H., Mangelsdorf, S.C., & Zevalkink, J. Press. (2006b). Preventing preschool externalizing behavior prob- Miron, D., Lewis, M., & Zeanah, C.H. (2009). Clinical use lems through video-feedback intervention in infancy. Infant of observational procedures in early childhood relationship Mental Health Journal, 27, 466–493. assessment. In C.H. Zeanah (Ed.), Handbook of infant Kobak, R., & Madsen, S. (2008). Disruptions in attachment mental health (pp. 252–265). New York: Guilford Press. bonds: Implications for theory, research and clinical inter- NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2006). Infant– vention. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of mother attachment: Risk and protection in relation to attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications (2nd changing maternal caregiving quality over time. Develop- edn, pp. 23–47). New York: Guilford Press. mental Psychology, 42, 38–58.

O’Connor, T.G., Marvin, R.S., Rutter, M., Olrick, J., Britner, Toth, S.L., Rogosch, F.A., Manly, J.T., & Cicchetti, D. (2006). P.A., & the ERA Study Team. (2003). Child–parent attach- The efficacy of toddler–parent psychotherapy to reorganize ment following early institutional deprivation. Development attachment in the young offspring of mothers with major and Psychopathology, 15, 19–38. depressive disorder: A randomized preventive trial. Journal Powell, B., Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., & Marvin, R.S. (2009). The of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 1006–1016. Circle of Security. In C.H. Zeanah (Ed.), Handbook of infant Van den Dries, L., Juffer, F., Van IJzendoorn, M.H., & mental health (3rd edn, pp. 450–467). New York: Guilford Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J. (2009). Fostering security? A Press. meta-analysis of attachment in adopted children. Children Rusconi-Serpa, C., Sancho Rossignol, A., & McDonough, S. and Youth Services Review, 31, 410–421. (2009). Video feedback in parent–infant treatments. Child and van IJzendoorn, M.H. (1995). Adult attachment respresenta- Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 18, 735–751. tions, parental responsiveness, and infant attachment: A Rutgers, A.H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., van IJzendoorn, meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the Adult Attach- M.H., & Van Berckelaer-Onnes, I.A. (2004). Autism and ment Interview. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 387–403. attachment: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Child Psy- van IJzendoorn, M.H., Goldberg, S., Kroonenberg, P.M., & chology and Psychiatry, 45, 1123–1134. Frenkel, O.J. (1992). The relative effects of maternal and Rutter, M., Colvert, E., Kreppner, J., Beckett, C., Castle, J., child problems on the quality of attachment: A meta- Groothues, C., et al. (2007). Early adolescent outcomes for analysis of attachment in clinical samples. Child Develop- institutionally-deprived and non-deprived adoptees. I: Dis- ment, 63, 840–858. inhibited attachment. Journal of Child Psychology and van IJzendoorn, M.H., Schuengel, C., & Bakermans-Kranen- Psychiatry, 48, 17–30. burg, M.J. (1999). Disorganized attachment in early child- Rutter, M., Kreppner, J., & Sonuga-Barke, E. (2009). Emanuel hood: Meta-analysis of precursors, concomitants, and Miller Lecture: Attachment insecurity, disinhibited attach- sequelae. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 225–249. ment, and attachment disorders: Where do research findings Van Zeijl, J., Mesman, J., van IJzendoorn, M.H., Bakermans- leave the concepts? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychi- Kranenburg, M.J., Juffer, F., Stolk, M.N., et al. (2006). atry, 50, 529–543. Attachment-based intervention for enhancing sensitive dis- Schuengel, C., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., & van IJzendo- cipline in mothers of 1-to-3-year-old children at risk for orn, M.H. (1999). Frightening maternal behavior linking externalizing behavior problems: A randomized controlled unresolved loss and disorganized infant attachment. Journal trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 994– of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 54–63. 1005. Slade, A., Belsky, J., Aber, J.L., & Phelps, J.L. (1999). Mothers’ World Health Organization. (1992). The IDC-10 classification of representations of their relationships with their toddlers: mental and behavioral disorders: Clinical descriptions and Links to adult attachment and observed mothering. Devel- diagnostic guidelines (10th edn). Geneva, Switzerland: World opmental Psychology, 35, 611–619. Health Organization. Slade, A., Grienenberger, J., Bernbach, E., Levy, D., & Locker, Zeanah, C.H. (2000). Disturbances of attachment in young A. (2005). Maternal reflective functioning, attachment, and children adopted from institutions. Journal of Developmental the transmission gap: A preliminary study. Attachment and and Behavioral Pediatrics, 21, 230–236. Human Development, 7, 283–298. Zeanah, C.H., & Benoit, D. (1995). Clinical applications of a Smyke, A.T., Zeanah, C.H., Fox, N.A., & Nelson, C.A. (2009). A parent perception interview. In K. Minde (Ed.), Infant new model of foster care for young children: The Bucharest psychiatry: Child Psychiatric Clinics of North America (pp. Early Intervention Project. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric 539–554). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders. Clinics of North America, 18, 721–734. Zeanah, C.H., Benoit, D., Hirshberg, L., Barton, M.L., & Regan, Smyke, A.T., Zeanah, C.H., Fox, N.A., Nelson, C.A., & Guthrie, C. (1994). Mothers’ representations of their infants are D. (2010). Placement in foster care enhances attachment concordant with infant attachment classifications. Develop- among young children in institutions. Child Development, mental Issues in Psychiatry and Psychology, 1, 9–18. 81, 212–223. Zeanah, C.H., Danis, B., Hirshberg, L., Benoit, D., Miller, D., & Solomon, J., & George, C. (1999). The development of attach- Heller, S.S. (1999). Disorganized attachment associated with ment in separated and divorced families: The effects of partner violence: A research note. Infant Mental Health overnight visitation, parent and couple variables. Attach- Journal, 20, 77–86. ment and Human Development, 1, 2–33. Zeanah, C.H., & Gleason, M.M. (2010). Reactive attachment Steele, M., Hodges, J., Kaniuk, J., Steele, H., Hillman, S., & disorders: A review for DSM-V. Retrieved December 29, Asquith, K. (2008). Forecasting outcomes in previously 2010 from http://stage.dsm5.org/Proposed%20Revision%20 maltreated children: The use of the AAI in a longitudinal Attachments/APA%20DSM-5%20Reactive%20Attachment% adoption study. In H. Steele & M. Steele (Eds.), Clinical 20Disorder%20Review.pdf. applications of the Adult Attachment Interview (pp. 427–451). Zeanah, C.H., Scheeringa, M.S., Boris, N.W., Heller, S.S., New York: Guilford Press. Smyke, A.T., & Trapani, J. (2004). Reactive attachment Steele, H., & Steele, M. (Eds.). (2008). Ten clinical uses of the disorder in maltreated toddlers. Child Abuse and Neglect, Adult Attachment Interview. In H. Steele & M. Steele (Eds.), 28, 877–888. Clinical applications of the Adult Attachment Interview (pp. Zeanah, C.H., & Smyke, A.T. (2009). Disorders of attachment. 3–30). New York: Guilford Press. In C.H. Zeanah (Ed.), Handbook of infant mental health (3rd Stovall-McClough, K.C., & Dozier, M. (2004). Forming attach- edn, pp. 421–434). New York: Guilford Press. ments in foster care: Infant attachment behaviors during the Zeanah, C.H., Smyke, A.T., Koga, S., Carlson, E., & the BEIP first 2 months of placement. Development and Psychopa- Core Group. (2005). Attachment in institutionalized and thology, 16, 253–271. community children in Romania. Child Development, 76, Toth, S.L., Maughan, A., Manly, J.T., Spagnola, M., & Cicch- 1015–1028. etti, D. (2002). The relative efficacy of two interventions in altering maltreated preschool children’s representational Accepted for publication: 12 January 2011 models: Implications for attachment theory. Development Published online: 9 May 2011 and Psychopathology, 14, 877–908.

Ó 2011 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Ó 2011 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Copyright of Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law © 2014 American Psychological Association 2014, Vol. 20, No. 1, 46–67 1076-8971/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/law0000005

Social Science and Parenting Plans for Young Children: A Consensus Report

Richard A. Warshak University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, with the endorsement of the researchers and practitioners listed in the Appendix

Two central issues addressed in this article are the extent to which young children’s time should be spent predominantly in the care of the same parent or divided more evenly between both parents, and whether children under the age of 4 should sleep in the same home every night or spend overnights in both parents’ homes. A broad consensus of accomplished researchers and practitioners agree that, in normal circumstances, the evidence supports shared residential arrangements for children under 4 years of age whose parents live apart from each other. Because of the well-documented vulnerability of father–child relationships among never-married and divorced parents, the studies that identify overnights as a protective factor associated with increased father commitment to child rearing and reduced incidence of father drop-out, and the absence of studies that demonstrate any net risk of overnights, policymakers and decision makers should recognize that depriving young children of overnights with their fathers could compromise the quality of developing father-child relationships. Sufficient evidence does not exist to support postponing the introduction of regular and frequent involvement, including overnights, of both parents with their babies and toddlers. The theoretical and practical considerations favoring overnights for most young children are more compelling than concerns that overnights might jeopardize children’s development.

Keywords: child custody, children’s best interests, joint custody, overnights, shared parenting

One hundred and ten researchers and practitioners have read, ancies among findings, scientists strive to understand the reason provided comments, and offered revisions to this article. They for the discrepancies, and to assess the strength of the research endorse this article’s conclusions and recommendations, although designs and methods. By nature, scientific knowledge is incom- they may not agree with every detail of the literature review. Their plete; thus, not all findings and conclusions are equally trustwor- names and affiliations are listed in the Appendix. thy. Hence the need for balanced, accurate reviews. Advocacy Social science provides a growing and sophisticated fund of approaches are recognizable by certain core features: Advocates knowledge about the needs of young children, the circumstances select literature for the purpose of promoting a particular agenda, that best promote their optimal development, and the individual and ignore or minimize findings that fail to support the desired differences among children regarding their adaptability to different conclusions; they distort findings toward the advocate’s position; circumstances, stress, and change. Consequently, research focused and they use a variety of polemics, loose logic, and emotional on children whose parents never married, or whose parents sepa- appeals to build a persuasive case. With respect to critical thinking rated or divorced, should inform guidelines to advance the welfare about research, Meltzoff (1998) writes the following: and define the best interests of those children; indeed, policymakers and practitioners in family law look to that research for such “Research shows” is one of the favorite expressions of psychologists information. But the road from laboratories to legislatures and who are called on by the media to express their professional opinions family law courtrooms is hazardous—fraught with potential for on a wide range of topics, who are asked to consult with or testify misunderstandings, skewed interpretations, logical errors, even before lawmakers about social issues that affect public welfare, or This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its alliedoutright publishers. misrepresentations. The hazards can be traced, in large who are relied on to give expert counsel to other health service This article is intended solely for the personal use ofmeasure, the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. to differences between science and advocacy. providers or to educators. Research psychologists carry a heavy bur- Scientific approaches to a literature review aim for a balanced, den of responsibility for assuring the accuracy of their claims about accurate account of established knowledge and of unresolved their results. In turn, psychologists who cite or apply the research findings of others share their responsibility. They have an obligation issues that require further investigation. When there are discrep- to use their critical reading and evaluation skills in reviewing a study before they cite it as evidence that supports a point of view and before they apply the findings in their clinical work. (p. 9)

Richard A. Warshak, Department of Psychiatry, Division of Psychology, The purposes for this document are to provide the family court University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas. system—including lawmakers, mediators, decision-makers, par- I appreciate the valuable feedback to a draft provided by William V. Fabricius. ents, guardians ad litem, child custody evaluators, and therapists– Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Richard with an overview of the research on parenting plans for children A. Warshak 16970 Dallas Parkway, Suite 202, Dallas, TX 75248. E-mail: under the age of four years whose parents live apart, and to provide [email protected] empirically supported guidelines that reflect a consensus among 46 SOCIAL SCIENCE AND PARENTING PLANS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN 47

leading researchers and practitioners about the implications of that should young children spend nights in each parent’s home, or research for policy and practice. It is not possible in the limited should they sleep in the same home every night? Nearly all shared space here to offer a comprehensive review and analysis of that physical custody schedules include overnights, but not all children literature, although many published research articles and scholarly who spend overnights in both homes spend at least 35% time in literature reviews are discussed. each home. Third, if a parent is designated with the status of a Richard A. Warshak prepared the draft of this consensus docu- young child’s primary parent, are the benefits to the child of ment. The endorsers reviewed the draft and offered suggestions involvement with the other parent diminished or erased if the that were incorporated into the final manuscript. It is important to parents disagree about the parenting plan, or if one or both parents acknowledge that every endorser may not agree with every detail feel great discomfort or hostility toward the other? Different an- of the literature review. The endorsers are an international group of swers to these three questions reflect different assumptions about highly accomplished researchers and practitioners. This interdis- the roots of parent–child relationships, and about the nature of ciplinary group includes prominent representatives from the fields contact necessary to secure healthy parent–child relationships. of early child development, clinical and forensic psychology, At the outset we want to underscore that our recommendations psychiatry, sociology, social work, and counseling. Many head apply in normal circumstances. They do not extend to parents with their university departments, edit professional journals, and have major deficits in how they care for their children, such as parents served in leadership positions in professional associations. who neglect or abuse their children, and those from whom children Certain events raised awareness of the need for this consensus would need protection and distance even in intact families. Also, statement on parenting plans for young children. Advocates are our recommendations apply to children who have relationships promoting a report issued by an Australian government agency with both parents. If a child has a relationship with one parent and (McIntosh, Smyth, & Kelaher, 2010) as a basis for decisions no prior relationship with the other parent, or a peripheral, at best, regarding parenting plans for children of preschool age and relationship, different plans will serve the goal of building the younger. Accounts of the report appearing in the media, in pro- relationship versus strengthening and maintaining an existing re- fessional seminars, in legislative briefs, and in court directly con- lationship. tradict the actual data, overlook results that support opposite conclusions, and mislead their audience. Primary Parent Versus Equal Status Parents A “background paper” describing the Australian report, posted on the Internet (McIntosh & the Australian Association for Infant Opposition to shared and overnight parenting for preschool Mental Health, 2011), illustrates all three characteristics. We give children rests on monotropy, a concept proposed but later aban- brief examples here followed by a more complete review below. doned by John Bowlby (1969). Monotropy is the idea that infants An example of contradicting the actual data is seen in the follow- form attachment relationships (defined as enduring affectional ties ing quote, into which we have inserted the actual statistical means between one person and another across time and space) with a from McIntosh et al. (2010, p. 133, Figures 4–5) to show how the single caregiver before all other important relationships and that description contradicts the findings. “Babies under two years who this first relationship serves as a foundation and template for all lived one or more overnights a week with both parents [M ϭ 2.5] subsequent attachment bonds. This view posits that infants’ early were. . .more irritable. . .than babies who had less [M ϭ 2.2] or no relationships are hierarchically arranged with one primary relation- [M ϭ 2.6] overnight time away from their primary caregiver” (p. ship ranked above, and qualitatively different from, the others. The 2). (Note that the irritability score for babies with no overnights, concept of monotropy was predominant in 20th century child that is, with daytime only contacts, is slightly higher than the score custody case law (Warshak, 2011). Monotropy is the basis for the for babies who spent one or more nights per week with their other propositions that infants have one psychological parent and that parent.) An example of selective reporting of other findings occurs the task of custody decision makers is to identify this parent who in the following statement: “the only other study of young infants then receives sole decision-making authority, including the author- in overnight care [was] conducted by Solomon and George” ity to determine when and if the children see the other parent (McIntosh & the Australian Association for Infant Mental Health, (Goldstein, Freud, & Solnit, 1973/1979). 2011, p. 2). We discuss below the other studies of young infants in A careful survey of the social science literature fails to support overnight care that were available in 2011. the hypothesis of monotropy. In the context of typical conditions This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Advocates’ efforts against overnight parenting time for pre- of infant care, infants commonly developed attachment relation- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. school children have generated confusion and uncertainty about ships with more than one caregiver (Brown, Mangelsdorf, & Neff, where the scientific community stands on these issues. This doc- 2012; Brumariu & Kerns, 2010; Cassidy, 2008; Cohen & Campos, ument, begun in January 2012, is an attempt to stem the tide of this 1974; Lamb 1977a, 1977b; Ludolph & Dale, 2012; Sagi et al., misinformation before this advocacy becomes enshrined in pro- 1995; Spelke, Zelazo, Kagan, & Kotelchuck, 1973). Multiple fessional practice and family law. attachment relationships have been found cross-culturally, includ- Discussions of parenting plans for young children in normal ing in Germany, Israel, Japan, The Netherlands, the United King- situations concern three main issues. First, should young children’s dom, and the United States (Van IJzendoorn & Sagi-Schwartz, time be concentrated predominantly under the care and supervision 2008). Further, the quality of these relationships was independent of one parent, or should their time be more evenly divided between so that, for instance, neither the relationship with the mother nor parents? The professional literature and the law variously label as with the father was a template for the other (Kerns, Tomich, shared or joint, physical or residential custody, (as distinguished Aspelmeier, & Contreras, 2000; Main & Weston, 1981; Thomp- from sole physical custody) divisions of a child’s time between son, 1998; Verschueren & Marcoen, 1999). Each relationship homes that have no greater disparity than 65%–35%. Second, makes some unique and some overlapping contributions to chil- 48 WARSHAK

dren’s development (Lamb, 2010a, 2010b). These relationship ingly want to take on more nurturing roles with their children and differences are not ranked in a hierarchy of importance or salience. it is to their children’s advantage for society to encourage fathers Rather, they affect different aspects of children’s psychological to develop, engage in, and maintain rich multifaceted relationships development (Sagi-Schwartz & Aviezer, 2005). In a recent inter- with their children. view on the issue of overnight parenting time for infants, prominent attachment researcher Everett Waters clarified as follows: Face-to-Face Contact and the Development of The idea that there should be one figure only was not Bowlby’s view Healthy Parent–Child Relationships in the end. It is also difficult when you use a term like “hierarchy” which is a very specific claim about superordinate–subordinate rela- Children’s relationships with parental figures normally grow tionships; this one is more important than that one, that one is more from frequent child–parent interactions in a wide variety of con- important than that one; it implies a rank ordering. Rather than saying texts, such as holding, stroking, talking, singing, playing, feeding, that there is a hierarchy, I think a better perspective is this: it is changing diapers, soothing, placing and removing from the crib, possible for infants and children and for adults to use a multiplicity of and so forth (Cassidy, 1994; De Wolff & van IJzendoorn, 1997; figures for secure-base support. Multiplicity does not imply any Kochanska, 1997; Lucassen et al., 2011). Such interactions help particular relationship among them. You are not more or less, you are parents better understand the children’s needs, and give parents the just another (Waters & McIntosh, 2011, p. 480). knowledge to develop and hone parenting skills and behavior to meet their children’s needs. Although some child development Closely related to the idea that infants initially form one primary theories place more emphasis on genetics, neurobiology, or on attachment relationship, is the notion that this relationship in most environmental factors other than the behavior of parents (such as cases will be with the mother. This notion has not received support peers), most professionals agree that a good deal of parenting skill in the research literature. As Sir Michael Rutter (1979) wrote develops from experience and being on the job. decades ago when reviewing the science relevant to the concept of But how much does a parent need to be on the job, involved in monotropy, “Bowlby’s argument is that the child’s relationship child care, for the child to develop a relationship with the parent with mother differs from other relationships specifically with that is unique in significance compared with the child’s relation- respect to its attachment qualities, and the evidence indicates that ship with others in the child’s current and future life? We have no this is not so” (p. 287). basis for asserting a specific threshold of contact necessary or MacArthur scholar Professor Grazyna Kochanska and her col- sufficient for a child to develop the type of relationship with a leagues reported the most recent and methodologically rigorous caregiver that distinguishes itself as a parent–child relationship as study on this topic (Kochanska & Kim, 2013). Using the Strange opposed to the child’s relationship with other caregivers and Situation procedure, which most attachment theorists hold in high persons in the environment. Similarly, we have no basis for de- regard, the researchers assessed infants’ attachment security with termining a threshold of interaction necessary for the average each parent at 15 months. Then they measured behavior problems parent to gain the experience that helps the parent become attuned at age 8 using ratings from mothers, fathers, teachers, and the to, and respond skillfully to, the child’s needs. Two sources of children themselves. As expected, children with insecure relation- data, though, provide some parameters that are directly relevant to ships with both parents had the most behavior problems. Children parenting time decisions for young children: the amount of par- were no more likely to be securely attached to mothers than enting time the average child receives, and the impact of daycare fathers, and having a secure attachment with at least one parent had on the development of parent–child relationships. a powerful, beneficial, and protective effect that offset mental Parenting time in intact families. Measuring parenting time health risks. Most significant for parenting plan decisions, the is complicated. Such measurement depends, in part, on which benefits of a secure relationship with the father versus the mother aspects of parenting are included, whether direct interaction is were equivalent. Neither parent emerged as primary. measured versus the time in which the child is under the parent’s In sum, based on child development research, policymakers and care, whether one or both parents are present, and whether one or decision-makers cannot support a priori assumptions that parents more children are in the parents’ care (Lamb, 2007; Pleck, 2010).

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its alliedof publishers. infants and toddlers can be rank ordered as primary or second- No one time-use study is definitive. This paper finds useful the

This article is intended solely for the personal use ofary the individual user and isin not to be disseminated their broadly. importance to the children, and that mothers are more American Time Use Survey (ATUS), conducted by the U.S. Cen- likely to be the “psychologically primary” parents. Further, the sus Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (U.S. Department of research indicates that because infants develop attachment rela- Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). The ATUS divides par- tionships with both of their parents, there is a danger of disturbing enting time into primary and secondary childcare time. Primary one of those relationships by designating one parent as primary childcare time is the quantity of time that parents spend primarily and limiting the infant’s time with the other parent. Policies and doing activities that involve care for their children. Secondary parenting plans should encourage and maximize the chances that childcare time is when the children are in the parent’s care while infants will be raised by two adequate and involved parents. It the parent is engaged in activities other than primary childcare, stands to reason that if a secure attachment with at least one such as cooking dinner. Total childcare time is the sum of primary adequate parent is a sine qua non of optimal development, having and secondary childcare time. Time during which the children are relationships with two parents gives infants two chances to de- sleeping is excluded from the measure. From the parent’s point of velop a secure attachment and thus increases the odds of accom- view, total childcare time reflects the time the parent is caring for plishing this important developmental milestone. Fathers increas- the children. From the children’s point of view, primary childcare SOCIAL SCIENCE AND PARENTING PLANS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN 49

time reflects the time that the children are directly aware of, and formulating child custody policy and decisions. On the other hand, interacting with, the parent. if daily separations from parents do not harm the quality of In a typical week, in two-parent homes in which the youngest parent–child relationships, this would alleviate concerns about child is under the age of one, mothers spent 79 hours and fathers parenting schedules that keep children apart from one parent while spent 44 hours in total childcare. In other words, fathers spent 56% being cared for by the other parent. (44/79) of the amount of time that mothers spent in childcare, or The proposition that infants suffer ill effects from spending time 36% (44/(79 ϩ 44) of total parenting time. If we divide a full week in daycare centers has been investigated for more than 25 years. by these proportions, fathers provided the equivalent of 2.5 days of The Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SEC- childcare to the mother’s 4.5 days. The figures for primary child- CYD), a national research consortium sponsored by the National care in a typical week (the quantity of time that parents spent Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD), has primarily doing activities that involve care for their child) were produced 249 scientific publications, most appearing in prestigious 26.5 hours for mothers and 11.5 hours for fathers. peer-review journals. These studies included care given by fathers We can consider these data from two perspectives. From the and other relatives as daycare. Thus the findings most relevant to parents’ point of view, the children were in the father’s care 44 the issue of how parenting plans should divide a child’s time waking hours per week to the mother’s 79 hours. This is the between homes are those that address children who are in the care amount of time that each parent was accustomed to spending of their fathers. with the children, and presumably a sufficient amount of time When the SECCYD children were 12 years old, the study for each parent to feel a parent-like bond to the children. From reported some long-term benefits and drawbacks of early child- the children’s point of view, the children typically received, at care. On the whole what is most important is the quality of the most, 11.5 hours of direct care weekly from the father compared childcare setting and the quality of the relationships between with 26.5 hours from the mother. (This is an overestimate caregivers and children both at home and in childcare. But a key because the data do not differentiate how much of the parenting finding has particular relevance to the issue of young children time was directed specifically at the infant vs. divided among all the children in the home.) Presumably this is a sufficient being separated from mothers and in the care of their fathers: all of amount of time for children to develop what our society regards the negative effects associated with early child care were a func- as normal relationships with parents. From either perspective, tion of time cared for by nonrelatives and not by time spent in care these data should quell anxieties that young children whose provided by fathers and grandparents (Belsky et al., 2007; van time is divided relatively evenly between two homes will have IJzendoorn et al., 2003, March; van IJzendoorn et al., 2004, July; insufficient time with either parent to develop healthy relation- for a review, see Aviezer & Sagi-Schwartz, 2008). This replicated ships that, according to attachment theory, contribute to subse- an earlier finding when the children were 4 and one half years old quent optimal development. (van IJzendoorn et al., 2004). Furthermore, the researchers be- Children in daycare. The second data source relevant to the lieved that subsequent problem behavior linked to time in early issue of whether young children whose parents live apart need to child care, which did not rise to clinical levels (i.e., the behaviors live predominantly with one parent, and thus spend significantly did not require special attention; National Institute of Child Health less time with the other parent, is the literature on the impact of and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network, daycare on parent–child relationships. A corollary of the proposi- 2003), was not a function of mother–child attachment or parent- tion that children have only one psychological parent is that young ing, but was more likely a result of interactions with peers (Belsky children will suffer harm if separated from the parent and cared for et al., 2007; McCartney et al., 2010). by others. Goldstein, Freud, and Solnit (1973/1979) stated: Children in the NICHD study spent an average of 27 hours each week in child care, with more than one third spending 30 hours or In infancy, from birth to approximately 18 months, any change in more per week between the ages of 3 months and 1 and one half routine leads to food refusals, digestive upsets, sleeping difficulties, and crying. Such reactions occur even if the infant’s care is divided years. Interestingly although care by mothers, grandparents, and merely between mother and baby-sitter. They are all the more massive hired help in the home decreased over time, care by fathers where the infant’s day is divided between home and day care cen- remained stable over time with about 13% of children in this type

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. ter. . . . Every step of this kind inevitably brings with it changes in the of care regardless of children’s age (up to 4 and one half years;

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is notways to be disseminated broadly. the infant is handled, fed, put to bed, and comforted. Such National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early moves from the familiar to the unfamiliar cause discomfort, distress, Child Care Research Network, 2004). and delays in the infant’s orientation and adaptation within his sur- Given the findings that infants and toddlers who spent consid- roundings (p. 32). erable amounts of time away from their mothers and in the care of In 1999, 9.8 million American children under the age of five fathers and grandparents showed no negative effects in develop- years spent 40 or more hours a week in daycare away from parents ment, including in their relationship with their mothers, this early (Committee on Family & Work Policies, 2003), many beginning in child care research provides no support for denying young children the first year of life, and the majority experiencing some nonma- whose parents live apart from each other extensive time with their ternal care by 6 months of age (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1999). fathers (Bernet & Ash, 2007). Given the mixed findings of the On the one hand, if these children suffer impairments in the quality effect of center-based care on children (e.g., linked to more ear of their relationships with their parents that are traced directly to infections and upper respiratory and stomach illnesses), if care by lengthy separations from their parents while in daycare, rather than fathers allows less time in large group care, this may bring added to the quality of care, this would need to be taken into account in benefits. 50 WARSHAK

Summary on Developing Healthy Parent–Child each other. Nevertheless these studies do provide important per- Relationships spectives for custody policy and decisions. Sixteen studies were identified that provided relevant data on The research discussed above helps us better understand the families with infants, toddlers, and preschool age children whose nutrients of a healthy foundation for parent–child relationships parents live apart from each other. These studies offered observa- regardless of family structure. Based on this body of research we tions about parenting plans that either 1) designated one parent conclude the following: (usually, but not always, the mother) as a primary parent who is • Parents’ consistent, predictable, frequent, affectionate, and responsible for the child’s care more than 65% of the time, or 2) sensitive behavior toward their infants is key to forming meaning- divided the child’s time between homes with no greater division of ful, secure, and healthy parent–child relationships. time than 65%-35%. We use the term shared parenting time to • Having a secure attachment with at least one parent provides designate divisions of time in which each parent is responsible for children with enduring benefits and protections that offset mental the child’s care at least 35% of the time. health risks of stress and adversity. Few studies follow children from birth, through their parents’ • Having a relationship with two parents increases children’s separation and beyond. One such longitudinal study involved a odds of developing at least one secure attachment. group of 1,265 New Zealand children (Woodward, Fergusson, & • The deterioration of father–child relationships after divorce is Belsky, 2000). At ages 15 and 16 the investigators assessed the a pressing concern (Zill, Morrison, & Coiro, 1993). children’s views of their relationships with their parents and of • The majority of children from preschool through college are their mothers’ and fathers’ parenting attitudes and behavior toward dissatisfied, some even distressed, with the amount of contact they them during childhood. In this study of attachment, children who have with their fathers after divorce and with the intervals between experienced their parents’ separation before the age of 5 saw contacts (Kelly, 2012; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Warshak & themselves as less closely emotionally tied to their parents than did Santrock, 1983). children who grew up in intact families, and they viewed their • Policies and parenting plans should encourage and maximize parents as having been less caring and more restrictive toward the chances that children will enjoy the benefits of being raised by them during childhood. As with most findings in the divorce two adequate and involved parents. literature, the size of the significant effect was small to moderate, • We have no basis for rank ordering parents as primary or and this study needs replication with additional samples. This secondary in their importance to child development. study provided no comparisons of children in different living • Normal parent–child relationships emerge from less than full- arrangements, but it does suggest reason for concern about the time care and less than round-the-clock presence of parents. foundation of young children’s relationship with each parent when • Full-time maternal care is not necessary for children to de- their parents live apart from each other. velop normally. Children’s healthy development can and usually Three early exploratory studies in California relied on impres- does sustain many hours of separation between mother and child. sions derived from interviews (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1975, 1980; This is especially true when fathers or grandparents care for McKinnon & Wallerstein, 1987; Brotsky, Steinman, & Zemmel- children in place of their mothers. man, 1991). Notwithstanding the limits of such data (Amato, 2003; • These findings support the desirability of parenting plans that Kelly & Emery, 2003), the results are relevant to parenting plans are most likely to result in both parents developing and maintain- for young children. In the first study (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1975, ing the motivation and commitment to remain involved with their 1980), children between the ages of 2 and one half and 3 and one children, and that give young children more time with their fathers fourth years whose mothers worked full time outside the home did than traditional schedules allow (generally daytime visits every well with other caretakers including the father, when the caretaker other weekend with perhaps one brief midweek contact). was a consistent and loving presence in the child’s life. The • These findings do not necessarily translate into a preference location of caretaking did not affect the children’s psychological for parenting plans that divide young children’s time exactly health. This study noted children’s dissatisfaction with infrequent contacts with their fathers, and long intervals between contacts. evenly between homes. The second study (McKinnon & Wallerstein, 1987) found that equal time residential arrangements were associated with positive This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. outcomes when parents provided loving and sensitive care, and

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user andResearch is not to be disseminated broadly. on Young Children Whose Parents Live Apart From Each Other were associated with negative outcomes when parents were ne- glectful, violent, mentally ill, or directly involved children in From the general research on child development and parent– interparental conflicts. Children below the age of 3 handled tran- child relationships discussed above, we turn next to studies that sitions between homes better than did the older preschool children. focus specifically on young children whose parents live apart from The third study (Brotsky, Steinman, & Zemmelman, 1991) found each other. This includes parents who divorced, those who were that children under the age of 5, whose parents shared parenting never married but lived together for a period of time, and those time almost equally, adapted to the parenting plan better on aver- who never lived together. At the outset we stress that the body of age than did older children. Only 5 of the 26 younger children work comparing children under 4 years of age being raised with developed serious psychological difficulties. The lack of direct different parenting plans is not as extensive, and with few excep- comparisons of children living in different residential arrange- tions not as methodologically rigorous, as the wider body of ments did not allow conclusions about whether the children would research on early child development and daycare or on older have done better or worse in sole custody arrangements. But the children raised in families in which the parents live apart from results failed to support generalizations that shared parenting and SOCIAL SCIENCE AND PARENTING PLANS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN 51

overnights are incompatible with healthy adjustment in young provided by professionals, expert witnesses, advocacy groups, and children. the media. With effective marketing and press releases, some One study reported on telephone interviews with 30 parents of studies impact the public forum and child custody litigation dis- children under the age of 5 whose average parenting plan fell just proportionate to their quality. short of shared parenting time (the children spent on average 10 The Stanford Custody Project followed a random sample of days and nights per month with their father, but approximately one 1,386 families over a 3-year period (Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992). fourth of the sample did have shared parenting time with children The sample included 289 children two and younger, and 424 spending more time with fathers than with mothers) (Altenhofen, children between three and five years old. This project studied how Biringen, & Mergler, 2008). Three-quarters of the sample had custody arrangements are reached and how they change over time. children enrolled in part-time or full-time child care. The findings The findings revealed the familiar problem of mother-resident revealed a moderate correlation between interparental hostility and children losing contact with their father over time. What is most parental alienating behaviors. The number of overnights with relevant to parenting plans for young children, though, is that the fathers increased over time; this could be attributed either to the loss of contact was far greater for the group of children whose children’s age or the length of time since the parents separated. contacts were restricted to the daytime compared with those who The more overnight stays, the greater the father’s satisfaction with spent overnights with their fathers (56% father dropout vs. 1.6% the parenting plan. Fathers with fewer overnights reported more for children under three and 49% vs. 7.7% for children who were hostile relationships with the mother. The meaning of this associ- 3–5 years old at the time of their parents’ separation). ation is ambiguous. Two plausible explanations are that when The strong association between continued father involvement hostility was high, mothers were less likely to offer overnights to and shared parenting was replicated in a Wisconsin random sample fathers, or interparental hostility stemmed from the father’s belief of 1,100 families in which mothers and fathers were interviewed that the division of overnights was inequitable. an average of three years after divorce (Berger, Brown, Joung, Another study examined mother–child attachment in 24 chil- Melli, Wimer, 2008; Melli & Brown, 2008). The sample split dren 1–6 years old who spent an average of eight nights per month evenly between sole mother custody and shared parenting, and in with their fathers (Altenhofen, Sutherland, & Biringen, 2010). 40% of each custody group the youngest child in the family was Unfortunately, the statistical procedures did not suit the sample under five years old at the time of divorce with 16% two or size. Also, the attachment measure was completed by the mothers younger. Children with shared parenting plans spent as much or rather than by trained raters. This procedure leaves some doubt more time in their fathers’ care 3 years after divorce as they did at about what exactly is being measured (van Ijzendoorn, Vereijken, the outset, whereas children in sole mother custody were much Kranenburg, & Riksen-Walraven, 2004; Waters, 2013). The study more likely to experience a dropoff in contact with their fathers. examined the link between attachment security and the age of Both fathers and mothers with shared parenting plans were far onset of overnights, interparental communication and conflict, and more likely to report that fathers were very involved with the the mother’s emotional availability. In this sample, 54% of the children and most mothers were satisfied with the father’s involve- children were rated as insecurely attached. The only factor that ment or wanted even more. Shared time mothers (98%) reported correlated with attachment security was the mother’s emotional that their children’s physical health was good or excellent and 90% availability. Factors that were unrelated to attachment security thought the same about their children’s emotional health. Because include the child’s age when overnights began, the level of conflict this study conducted analyses for the sample as a whole without between the parents, and whether the child was in child care (about differentiating results based on the children’s age, we cannot be half were). Because of the lack of a comparison group, the study sure of the extent to which these positive findings for shared allowed no conclusions about how these children compared with parenting apply more, less, or equally to the infants and preschool- those with fewer, or more overnights, or with children whose ers. But since they made up such a large proportion of the sample, parents were married to each other. In sum, as with the five studies and in the context of the entire literature on shared parenting with discussed earlier, this study provided no support for any particular young children (with the exception of two outlier reports to be parenting plan. Some commentators hypothesize that shared care is discussed below), it is likely that the positive findings for parenting especially challenging for young children compared with older plans with greater father involvement apply to the young children. children (McIntosh, Smyth, Kelaher, Wells, & Long, 2011). This It is important to note that about 85% of the fathers and mothers This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. hypothesis lacks support from the studies discussed above. in shared parenting arrangements and about 80% of those with sole This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. The studies we discuss below provided direct comparisons of mother custody reported that their relationship was “friendly” or families with different types of parenting plans. Nielsen (2013c) “neutral/businesslike.” This is consistent with other data on copa- made a detailed review and analysis of this literature. In her work, renting (e.g., Ahrons, 1994; Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992). Policy- for each study Nielsen attended to the sample’s representativeness, makers should recognize that parents in protracted custody and validity and reliability of the measurements, statistical significance access disputes do not represent most divorced couples and should of the results, consistency of findings from multiple methods, not drive legislative statutes that apply to the general population of control for various factors that might account for the results, and mothers and fathers who raise their children while living apart whether the study passed peer review and appeared in a refereed from each other. journal. Rather than duplicate Nielsen’s analysis and describe in A Yale University project examined the relationship between detail each study, we discuss a few of the studies that merit greater overnights and psychological and behavior problems in 132 chil- attention. Some of the studies we mention employed superior dren between the ages of 2 and 6 years (Pruett, Ebling, & Insabella, methodology. Others are mentioned because their methodological 2004). The study merits significant weight in part because it used problems often go unrecognized or under recognized in accounts a fairly representative sample of lower middle class couples with 52 WARSHAK

a midrange of conflict, relied on standard measures, and reported children, and may bring benefits, especially promoting and main- data from both mothers and fathers. On the study’s measures, 15 to taining the father–child relationship that is vulnerable to deterio- 18 months after the parents filed for divorce, overnights had ration with other parenting plans. neither positive nor negative impact on children ages 2–3 years In contrast to the pool of studies that reported generally positive (considering aggression, anxiety, depression, social withdrawal, or neutral findings for shared parenting and overnights with fa- and sleep problems), and benefited 4- to 6-year-olds. Some gender thers, two studies reported negative findings and a third is some- differences were noted. Overnights were linked, among girls but times inaccurately cited as having reported negative effects of not boys, to fewer social problems. Inconsistent, erratic parenting infant overnights. The two outlier studies that reported negative schedules were more likely to be linked with negative outcomes effects of overnights for young children have received more wide- for boys than for girls. Poorer parent–child relationships and spread media coverage than the studies discussed above and are conflict between parents had stronger links to children’s outcomes cited by expert witnesses and advocacy groups to oppose shared than did overnights. Data from fathers showed a direct link be- parenting legislation and parenting plans which allow fathers to tween children’s adjustment and overnights and consistent sched- care for preschoolers overnight. ules. Data from mothers showed that their support for fathers’ The study that is mistakenly cited to support blanket restrictions involvement moderated the positive outcomes seen for overnights against overnights relied on the 20-min Strange Situation labora- (Pruett & Barker, 2009). About one third of the children had three tory procedure to assess the attachment classifications of infants 12 or more caregivers during the day. The 2- to 3-year-olds showed to 20 months old, 44 who had some overnights with their fathers, no differences related to multiple caretakers, but 4- to 6-year-olds 49 who had no overnights, and 52 who lived with their married with multiple caretakers had better outcomes. parents (Solomon and George, 1999a). No significant differences The Australian Institute of Family Studies analyzed longitudinal were found between the overnight group and the no overnight data on 7,718 children, nearly four thousand under the age of 5 group in the distribution of secure and insecure attachments, nor years (Kaspiew et al., 2009). The number of children whose was frequency or history of overnights related to attachment clas- parents shared parenting time, defined as 35–65% of overnights sifications. What confuses some commentators is that the over- spent with each parent, was 201 under age 3 (8% of children in this night group compared unfavorably with the children in intact age group) and 266 age 3–4 years (20%). Data from both mothers families. Naturally this comparison is irrelevant to parenting plans and fathers, 1–2 years after the parents separated, were reported for because any differences found may be attributable to divorce and the entire sample. not to overnights. Parents who shared parenting were more likely than parents in One year later 85% of the sample were observed interacting sole custody arrangements to believe that their parenting plan was with their mothers in two laboratory activities (Solomon & working well for the child; more than 90% of the parents whose George, 1999b). Again no statistically significant differences were children were under 3 years and were spending 35–47% over- noted between children with and without overnights. Overnighting nights with their fathers believed that their parenting plan was infants compared unfavorably with a combined group of infants working well. Data on children’s outcomes (such as the children’s from intact families and those with no overnights with a father who physical health) supported the parents’ beliefs. The results indi- lived apart from the mother, but the authors pointed out that the cated that children in shared parenting arrangements were doing as results of their brief laboratory procedure might be unrelated to well as, or marginally better than, children who spent fewer than infant behavior in shared parenting families. 35% overnights with their fathers. Consistent with the Stanford A difference that did not reach statistical significance was the study, overnights were linked to higher levels of continued father presence in the overnight group of more disorganized mother– involvement; one of five children with daytime only contact saw child attachments, which theorists generally associate with neglect the father only once a month or less. According to mothers, fathers or abuse and poorer long-term psychological development. But the with shared care time had been more involved parents prior to rate of unfavorable attachments in all three study groups was separation, so this study cannot attribute a causal relationship abnormally high. The authors noted the nonrepresentativeness of between overnights and continued father involvement. But in their their sample; a high percent of parents were under restraining review of the literature, Fabricius, Sokol, Diaz, and Braver (2012) orders (86% of fathers with overnights, 100% of fathers without concluded that the evidence to date is consistent with the hypoth- overnights, and 33% of mothers with overnights—compared with This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. esis that more parenting time has a causal effect on the quality of 9% of mothers in the no overnight group). Also, the parents in the This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. the father-child relationship security. Also consistent with previous overnight group differed in important ways from those in the no studies, Kaspiew et al. (2009) reported that conflict and violence overnight group: the overnighters’ parents had higher levels of between parents showed negative associations with children’s out- conflict, hostility, and abuse, were more likely to be unmarried, comes. This impact was no greater for children with shared par- and were more likely to have children from more than one rela- enting time than those in other arrangements according to fathers’, tionship. Because of the differences between the groups, the study but not mothers’, reports. cannot attribute outcomes to the presence or absence of overnight In sum, according to this large-scale study, in general no neg- contacts. Instead, attachment classifications were related to the ative, and some marginally positive consequences were associated coparenting relationships and to the mother’s parenting skills, with with parenting plans in which children ages 0–4 years spent at less secure attachments in all groups found when mothers were least 35% of the time with their fathers. Also, overnights were less responsive to their children’s needs. associated with protecting regular father involvement. These re- Other authors have highlighted additional significant limitations sults parallel the overall conclusions from most studies that shared of the study (Cashmore & Parkinson, 2011; Lamb & Kelly, 2001; parenting and overnights with fathers introduce no detriments to Nielsen, 2013c; Nielsen, 2013d; Pruett, Cowan, Cowan, & Dia- SOCIAL SCIENCE AND PARENTING PLANS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN 53

mond, 2012; Warshak, 2002). There was no evidence that the theorists who raise concerns that overnight separations from their infants had formed attachments to their fathers before the onset of primary parent (almost always the mother) harm young children. overnights; infants in the overnight group were less likely than Solomon and George (1999a) articulated a hypothesis of linear those in the no overnight group to have at least weekly contact effects whereby any harmful effects of overnights “should be more with their fathers and only 20% of overnighting infants saw their pronounced the longer and/or the more frequent the overnight fathers on a regular and consistent schedule; some of the infants separations are and the earlier such arrangements are put into were separated from their fathers repeatedly and for long periods place” (p. 5). Basically, if overnights are bad for young children of time effectively making the fathers strangers to their children; because they separate them from a parent designated as a primary the data about father–child contact, conflict, communication, and caregiver, we would expect that the longer and more frequent the mother’s responsiveness to the child came solely from mothers; separations, the worse the effects. the follow-up analyses did not differentiate between children We present the results of this study here. A subsequent section whose overnights began recently versus those who had overnights discusses concerns about the manner in which these results have at the outset of the study and at follow-up. The study’s first author been interpreted and promoted. For infants, two of six outcomes agrees that the results cannot be generalized to divorced parents were interpreted as more negative for frequent overnighters com- because a large portion of the sample had never married or lived pared with occasional overnighters, but not compared with infants together, most had separated before the infant was 4 months old, with no overnights (irritability and “visual monitoring of the and the parents’ level of hostility and conflict are unrepresentative primary caregiver”—infants with no overnights had the most neg- of the general population of parents facing decisions about parent- ative irritability score). Four of six outcomes showed no differing plans for young children (Solomon, 2013). Solomon (2013; ence: physical health, wheezing, mothers’ concerns about the Solomon, 2013, April) also believes that the current states of infant’s development, and negative responses to strangers. More research and of theory are insufficient to inform decision makers wheezing was reported for infants with frequent overnights com- about the best age to begin overnights and about whether to pared with occasional overnighters, but not compared with infants encourage shared parenting time with infants and toddlers. with no overnights. This difference approached but did not reach The first outlier study is a report issued by the Attorney Gen- statistical significance. For the 2- to 3-year-olds, two of seven eral’s department in Australia and copyrighted by a clinic founded outcomes were interpreted as negative for frequent overnighters by the study’s first author (McIntosh et al., 2010). This report, compared with the other two groups (persistence and behavior which has generated much publicity, is important because the first problems with mother). Four showed no difference for frequent author promotes the results of this study as a basis for child overnighters compared with the other two groups: physical health, custody decision-making and policy. conflict with caregivers, mother’s evaluation of the child’s emo- Analyzing data from a national random sample, this study tional functioning, and response to strangers. A trend that fell just examined the link between overnights and children’s health and short of statistical significance was better global health for children behavior. The study compared children in three age groups: under with overnights, whether frequent or occasional, when compared 2 years, 2–3 years, and 4–5 years. The sample is not representative with children with no overnights. The one positive outcome for of parents who are divorced because most of the parents were frequent overnighters compared with the other two groups was less never married to each other (90% for the sample of infants and wheezing. No analyses were reported for the toddler group that 60% for toddlers), and 30% never even lived together. Thus compared occasional overnighters with no overnighters, so no potentially the study is more relevant to parenting plans for never- claims can be made about the desirability of allowing versus married parents, and less relevant to divorced parents, particularly depriving toddlers of occasional overnights. those with infants. Only 1 of 13 analyses (none for infants under 2 and one for 2- The study is unique in that it divided the children with over- to 3-year-olds regarding persistence) supports the linear effects nights into two groups: occasional overnights (labeled primary hypothesis that the more overnights the worse the outcome. Infants care in this study: 1–3 nights monthly for infants and 5–9 nights with occasional overnights (which in this study means as much as for the 2- to 3- and 4- to 5-year-olds) and frequent overnights three nights per month) were less irritable and tended to wheeze (labeled shared care in this study: 4–15 nights monthly for infants, less than did infants with no overnights or frequent overnights. an overly broad range by conventional definitions of shared par- Toddlers, age 2–3 years, with frequent overnights wheezed less This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. enting, and 10–15 nights for the older children). Dividing the than those with occasional or no overnights. These positive links This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. groups in this manner brings one drawback and one benefit. The with overnights challenge the assumptions of those who, like the drawback is that it reduces the size of the groups. In some cases study’s first author, discourage parenting plans that allow infants this produced unacceptably small samples: the smallest were the to spend overnights with both parents. group of infants with occasional overnights, ranging from 14–20 The second outlier study, with the assistance of a widely dis- depending on the variable analyzed (e.g., 14 for the measure of tributed press release, similarly has garnered a lot of publicity irritability), and 2- to 3-year-olds with frequent overnights, ranging (Tornello et al., 2013). The more impact a particular study has on from 5–25 depending on the variable analyzed (e.g., 5 subjects for child custody decisions, the greater scrutiny it merits. Similar to a rating made by teachers and daycare attendants of conflict with the McIntosh et al. (2010) report, the sample was composed the child; 25 subjects for the mother’s evaluation of the child’s predominantly (85%) of children whose parents had never been emotional status). An analysis based on five respondents is unmarried to each other, but with a larger sample of overnighting likely to provide meaningful data. children. The data were drawn from the Fragile Families and Child The benefit of differentiating the two overnight groups is that it Well-Being Study of children born to inner-city low-income (62% allows a test of the hypothesis generated by those attachment below the poverty level), racial/ethnic minority families (85%), a 54 WARSHAK

majority of which had a parent incarcerated some time before their occasionally or frequently slept apart from their mother? Two children reached the age of five years (50% fathers, 10% mothers) concerns are important to keep in mind when considering these and whose parents had nonmarital births from more than one data on children’s attachment to their mothers. partner in their teenage or young adult years (65%). First, interpreting the higher rate of insecure attachments to Reliable data from such a sample is relevant to families in mothers in the frequent versus some overnights is confounded by similar circumstances and offers an opportunity to test the hypoth- an unfortunate design problem. More than half of the infants in the esis that overnights leave children vulnerable to other family frequent overnight group actually lived predominantly with their stressors. The Fragile Families sample is not representative of fathers (26 of the 51 frequent overnighting infants for whom impoverished families in general, of those above the poverty line, attachment was measured, some spending as much as 70% of and those who were married and subsequently divorced. Naturally, overnights with their fathers). (For the 3-year-olds, 45 of the 60 for results based on this sample are largely irrelevant to parents who whom attachment was measured lived predominantly with their can afford custody litigation. But the results may assist those who fathers.) When the outcome of interest is the infant’s attachment to advise parents in fragile families or formulate policy for such the parent who provides the majority of care, this group of atypical families. families should be eliminated from an analysis of infant-mother Based on mothers’ reports, the researchers categorized 1-year- attachment. Particularly in a sample drawn from a population olds according to the number of overnights they spent with their whose mothers had higher rates of substance abuse, depression, fathers each year: day contact only, some overnights (from 1 to and incarceration (McLanahan, 2013), without knowing why these 51), and frequent overnights (52 to 256, or 1 to 5 nights weekly). babies were living with their fathers, we cannot assume that Note that the frequent overnight group included residential plans overnights in their fathers’ home caused children’s insecure at- ranging from traditional mother custody arrangements, to equal tachment to their mothers any more than we assume that the physical custody, to shared custody in which children spent 2/3 of presence of umbrellas causes rain. their time in the father’s care. About 42% of the 1-year-olds had The second concern is that the Toddler Attachment Q-sort overnights. Four groups were created for the analysis of 3-year- (TAQ) used to measure attachment security was abbreviated and olds, again based on the number of overnights they spent with their modified from an established measure (the Attachment Q-sort father each year: day contact, rare overnights (1–12), some over- [AQS]), but there is no evidence of the validity of the reduced- nights (13–127), and frequent overnights (128–256). The latter version TAQ. Also, in place of trained raters using the TAQ to group meets conventional definitions of joint physical custody or classify mother–child attachment based on hours of observed dual residence, with the high end representing arrangements where interactions, in order to save money the Fragile Families study had the children spent 2/3 of their time in the father’s care. the mothers rate the behaviors that make up the attachment clas- Based on clinical experience, the theory of monotropy, and only sification. There is some question about what is being measured three studies (the authors overlook the additional studies discussed when mothers complete the AQS in place of trained raters (van above), the authors hypothesized that very young children who IJzendoorn, Vereijken, Kranenburg, & Riksen-Walraven, 2004; frequently spend the night at their fathers’ home would have more Waters, 2013). insecure attachments with their mothers. The outcome measures Even if the measure of attachment was valid and interpretable, were the mothers’ responses to an abridged and modified version of an established measure of attachment, completed when the when relying on these results to advocate for or against overnights, children were 3 years old, and the mothers’ responses to a standard it is important to go beyond statistically significant differences to checklist of children’s behaviors. One strength of the study is that ask if the differences raise meaningful concerns about develop- it took into account the mother’s report of depressive symptoms, of ment. Recall how the daycare researchers clarified that the higher her relationship with the father, and of her rating of the quality of level of problem behavior linked to time in childcare centers still the father’s parenting. remained within the norm of behavior that required no special The only significant finding with respect to a link between attention. And the irritability score for frequent overnighters in the overnight status and attachment to the mother was that children Australian study (albeit derived from a measure of questionable who at age 1 had frequent overnights (1 to 5 overnights per week) reliability), although higher than the occasional overnighters was were more likely than those with some overnights to be insecurely nonetheless identical to the sample of children in intact families This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. attached to their mothers at age 3. The relationship was nonlinear and was in the normal range for the larger data set of Australian This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. in that the children with frequent overnights and those with some children. Similarly, in a population of families in which mothers overnights were not more likely to be insecurely attached than are below the poverty line or have not completed high school, the those with day contact only. (The percent of insecure attachments rate of insecure attachment scores on the TAQ is 49%. All the was lower among those who had some overnights compared with groups in the Tornello et al. (2013) study, regardless of frequency those who had day only contact, but this difference was not of overnights, had lower percents of insecure attachment than what statistically significant.) Also, there were no significant links be- we would expect for children living in poverty with poorly edu- tween overnights at age 3 and attachment. cated mothers. As with McIntosh et al. (2010), the authors gave no explanation In contrast to the attachment measure that was modified from for findings that failed to support the linear effects hypothesis. If the original instrument and lacks evidence for its validity, chil- overnights with fathers are hypothesized to stress children’s at- dren’s behavior was assessed with a standard instrument adminis- tachment to their mothers, how are we to understand the finding tered in a standard manner. Behavior as rated by their mothers that children who slept every night in their mothers’ homes created seven variables each for children age 3 and 5. Of the 14 showed no more favorable attachment outcomes than those who analyses, none showed statistically significant differences with one SOCIAL SCIENCE AND PARENTING PLANS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN 55

exception. Frequent overnights at age 3 predicted more positive responses to three questions as an index of the infants’ insecurity behavior at age 5 than day contact only and rare overnights. and anxiety about separation from their mothers.1 The questions were extracted from the Communication and Symbolic Behavior Advocacy in Place of Critical Thinking and Science Scales (CSBS), a measure of an infant’s readiness to learn to talk versus being at risk for communication delays (Wetherby & Pri- The manner in which the studies by McIntosh et al. (2010) and zant, 2001). Paradoxically, the study interpreted scores that indi- Tornello et al. (2013) are being interpreted and promoted by cate healthier cognitive development (greater readiness to learn to advocates and applied by those who make policy and custody talk) as a negative outcome (anxiety), although none of the three decisions have raised concerns among social scientists (Lamb, questions reference anxiety. Moreover, the 3-question “visual 2012a, 2012b; Ludolph & Dale, 2012; Millar & Kruk, 2014; monitoring scale” was composed solely for the purposes of this Nielsen, 2013b; Cashmore & Parkinson, 2011; Pruett et al., 2012; study and has no known validity or reliability. Without such Warshak, 2012). In discussing the results of McIntosh et al. indices of the measure’s scientific value, the results are uninter- (2010), it is important to go beyond synopses of the results pretable. In legal parlance, the measure is unreliable in the sense presented in the report itself, and subsequently by the first author, that it is untrustworthy as an index of what it purports to measure which express concern about overnights for children under four. A (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 1993). very different picture emerges when analyzing the report’s data. • The study drew negative conclusions about overnights based The discrepancies are important because the 169-page report is far on scores that were within the normal range. The mean irritability longer than a typical article in a scientific journal and many score for the frequent overnighters and the infants in intact families readers—particularly legislators, the media, and others not versed was identical, and the mean score for all groups studied was within in research psychology—may read the synopses only and take the normal range (Sanson & Mission, 2005). Thus if the irritability these as an accurate and complete overview of the study’s results. scores generate concern about “stress regulation” among over- Multiple problems exist in the design, procedures, data analysis, nighting infants, the authors should express equal concerns about data reporting, and interpretation of results of the McIntosh et al. infants being raised in intact, two-parent Australian homes. Sim- (2010) study (Cashmore & Parkinson, 2011; Lamb, 2012b; Lu- ilarly, the frequent overnighters’ mean score on behavior problems dolph, 2012; Nielsen, 2013c, 2013d; Parkinson & Cashmore, with mother was well within the normal range and close to that of 2011). These are the type of problems that can affect the admis- children from intact families (Smart, 2010). The synopsis referred sibility and weight of the study when proffered as evidence in custody litigation. They include observations such as the follow- to specific problem behaviors such as refusing to eat, hanging on ing: to the parent, and often being very upset (although the report gives • The report’s synopsis (McIntosh et al., 2010, p. 9) selectively no scores for these individual behaviors). The larger database from presented what the authors interpreted as negative outcomes at- which this study’s data was extracted supports common sense: tributed to overnights, but ignored the more numerous findings that Based on 4400 mothers’ reports, nearly 50% of toddlers sometimes showed no statistically significant differences attributed to over- refused to eat and sometimes hung on their mother when she tried nights or that showed benefits of overnights (for a discussion of to leave, and nearly 40% often got upset with their mother (Smart, this cherry picking strategy, see Johnston, 2007). McIntosh has 2010). It is a mistake to draw negative conclusions about a par- been criticized for ignoring opposing viewpoints when she se- enting plan based on children’s behavior that falls within a normal lected theorists to interview who support the concept of an attach- range. ment hierarchy, for a journal issue that she edited, and excluded • Data are only as good as the validity and reliability of the those whose views challenge this position (Lamb, 2012b; Ludolph, measurements. In the case of the outcomes in the Australian study, 2012). She then gave a skewed summary of viewpoints that se- none of the four significant negative outcomes, nor the one that lectively excluded conflicting information and created a false approached but did not reach statistical significance, were based impression of consensus. on measures that have demonstrated acceptable validity or reli- • The authors drew unwarranted conclusions about their data. ability (Nielsen, 2013d). In addition to the problems with the Consider this sentence from the synopsis: “Infants under two years visual monitoring scale, the reliability of the irritability scale falls of age living with a nonresident parent for only one or more nights in the “questionable” range (George & Mallery, 2003); the inter- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. a week were more irritable, and were more watchful and wary of pretation of the wheezing measure, based on only one question, This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. separation from their primary caregiver than those primarily in the was faulty; the persistence measure lacked any reported validity, care of one parent” (p. 9). The first author subsequently described reliability, or norms; and the scale of behavior problems with the these negative outcomes as “a cluster of stress regulation prob- mother, abridged from a standard measure, had no measure of lems” (McIntosh, 2011, p. 3). This inference reveals an analytic reliability or validity for the new instrument. Also, the study gap between the data and the interpretation of data (for discussions reported data only from one parent, not both. Previous studies have of the legal implications of such a gap for the admissibility and found that reports of mothers and fathers about their children’s weight accorded to social science evidence, see Zervopoulos, 2008 wellbeing can vary significantly. and Zervopoulos, 2013). Because attachment theorists note that when infants are anxious they look at their mothers and try to get 1 her attention, the authors assume that the more infants looked at When this child plays with toys, does he/she look at you to see if you are watching?; When you are not paying attention to this child, does he/she and sought their mothers’ attention, the more anxious they were try to get your attention?; Does this child try to get you to notice interesting about her availability. This commits the logical error known as objects – just to get you to look at the objects, not to get you to do anything affirming the consequent. The authors interpreted the mothers’ with them? 56 WARSHAK

• The study used an unconventional definition of shared care for depart from the mainstream of scientific literature. Courts and infants so that the group was predominantly composed of infants legislators should be aware of the significant limitations of the who spent only one or two nights per week with their fathers. Only McIntosh et al. (2010) report before accepting testimony about the 11 infants saw their fathers on a schedule that would fit standard study as relevant and reliable evidence for restricting young chil- definitions of shared parenting. Even if the study had correctly dren’s contact with their father. labeled this group as shared care and had compared them with the Similar concerns limit the extent to which we can rely on other infants in the study (which it did not), a sample of 11 infants Tornello et al. (2013) for guidance in policy and custody decisions. hardly constitutes a basis for the policy recommendations prof- The authors acknowledged limitations of their attachment mea- fered by the study’s first author. Given the absence of any com- sure, stating that the measure “can be called into question” (p. parisons of infants who actually were in a shared parenting/joint 883). It would be accurate to state that we have no evidence of the residential custody arrangement, the study has no grounds for measure’s validity and that it is unclear what its results mean. drawing conclusions about shared parenting for infants. Other researchers using the Fragile Families dataset are forthright • The first author buttressed her recommendations against over- in stating that the instrument lacks objectivity (Pudasainee-Kapri nights with the claim that this study’s “findings are consistent with & Razza, 2013). Especially when research is promoted as a basis the only other study of infants in overnight care, conducted by for evidence in court, as in a quote attributed to Tornello in her Solomon and George, who found a greater propensity for anxious, university’s press release (Samarrai, 2013), lack of objectivity is unsettled behavior in infants when reunited with the primary an important factor in determining the admissibility and weight of caregiver, and greater propensity for development of insecure and the evidence. disorganized attachment with the primary caregiver” (McIntosh, In Tornello et al. (2013), the measure of attachment without 2011, p. 3). This not only perpetuates misunderstanding of the established validity showed an ambiguous relationship between Solomon and George (1999a, 1999b) study in the manner de- overnights and attachment security, and the valid measure of scribed earlier, but also denies the existence of all the other studies behavior showed one benefit linked to overnights, no drawbacks, discussed above. and no relationship for 13 outcomes. As with McIntosh’s (2011) • An article posted on the Internet (McIntosh & the Australian attempt to buttress her recommendations by claiming consistency Association for Infant Mental Health, 2011) illustrates how repre- between her study’s findings and those of Solomon & George sentations about this study contradict the actual data, overlook (1999a, 1999b), which McIntosh did not represent accurately, results that support opposite conclusions, and potentially mislead Tornello et al. (2013) similarly claimed that their study joined the the audience. In the Introduction we showed how this background previous two in finding evidence of increased insecurity among paper misrepresents the actual data on babies’ irritability and very young children with frequent overnights. Our earlier discus- overnights, and how it disregards all studies other than Solomon sion shows why such a claim is misleading. In a press release and George (1999a, 1999b). The Internet paper also perpetuates issued by the University of Virginia (Samarrai, 2013), the results the misleading interpretation of the three-item measure of the are cited to support a policy that discourages overnights for infants. infant’s readiness to learn to talk by stating that infants with Contrary to the press release’s claim of “dramatic” findings, in- overnights “were significantly stressed. . .and worked much harder fants who spent at least one night per week away from their to monitor the presence and to stay close to their primary parent mothers did not have more insecure attachments than babies who than babies who had less or no overnight time away their primary saw their fathers only during the day. The release’s misstatement caregiver” (McIntosh & the Australian Association for Infant underscores the pull to selectively cite and sometimes misrepresent Mental Health, 2011, pp. 2). In addition to the fact that the infants data in the service of advocating for or against a particular par- with occasional overnights were not compared with those with no enting plan. Decision makers are urged to distinguish between overnights, this scale does not measure stress or anxiety about the scientists’ reports and advocates’ hyperbole. presence of the caregiver. To understand the receptivity on the part of the media and some Given the numerous problems in the design, data analysis, and of our colleagues to the dramatic warnings attributed to the outlier presentation of results, the wide gap between the actual data and studies, we cannot rule out the fact that the studies’ conclusions the interpretation of the data, the selective focus on results that and the authors’ recommendations reinforce long-held gender ste- appear to support the authors’ theories, the de-emphasis of results reotypes about parental roles. McIntosh interviewed neuroscientist This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. that clearly support alternative viewpoints, and the failure to ac- Schore (Schore & McIntosh, 2011) who advanced the idea that This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. knowledge or appreciate the extent to which the measures lack women, but not men, are biologically wired to care for their babies, validity and reliability, we must agree with other scholars (Cash- by virtue of having generally larger orbitofrontal cortexes and more & Parkinson, 2011; Lamb, 2012b; Ludolph & Dale, 2012; enhanced capacities for nonverbal communication and empa- Nielsen, 2013b, 2013c, 2013d; Parkinson & Cashmore, 2011; thy—a 21st century spin on the “motherhood mystique” and the Warshak, 2012) that this study provides no reliable basis to support tender years presumption (Warshak, 1992; Warshak, 2011). custody policy, recommendations, or decisions. We are aware that the first author and the media have relied on this study to issue Conflict and Parenting Plans dramatic, alarming, and repeated warnings about shared care of young children (see Nielsen, 2013d, for numerous examples). A common response to research that portrays positive outcomes Nevertheless such statements, however well intentioned, fail to for children and parents in shared physical custody arrangements is offset this study’s considerable limitations. Experts who rely on to challenge the relevance of such research for parents who litigate the study incur a professional obligation to discuss its limitations custody or display high levels of conflict when interacting with and the extent to which its conclusions and recommendations each other (Martindale, 2011). The two are sometimes equated by SOCIAL SCIENCE AND PARENTING PLANS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN 57

psychologists who argue that if a couple take their dispute to court, parent who is less angry, particularly if the other parent fails to by definition they are a “high conflict couple” and this should recognize and support the children’s need for positive relationships automatically exclude the option of the court imposing joint resi- with two parents (Garber, 2012). Such a policy also overlooks the dential custody when one or both parents seek sole custody (Bu- heterogeneity of the dynamics of interparental conflict (Kelly, chanan, 2001; Emery, 2004). These psychologists dismiss the 2003; Kelly, 2012). The label high conflict couple implies that positive outcomes found in studies of shared parenting as relevant both parents actively engage in conflict. Although this is true in only to those couples who voluntarily agree to share custody. The some cases, in other cases the label is a misnomer because one hypothesis is that couples who settle out of court for shared parent may be a victim of the other parent’s vindictive rage or physical custody begin with lower levels of conflict and that the attempts to marginalize the parent’s involvement in raising the same factors that play a role in their agreeing to share custody may child (Friedman, 2004; Kelly, 2003; Kelly, 2012). also contribute to the positive outcomes in these families. Because of the consistency of findings regarding the harmful This hypothesis lacks empirical support. The Stanford study impact of parental conflict to which children are exposed, we (Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992) found that children in joint residen- recommend the following: tial arrangements compared with other children were most satis- • When feasible parents should be encouraged to create parent- fied with the custody plan and showed the best long-term adjusting plans through a collaborative, nonadversarial process that ments, even after controlling for factors that might predispose increases the likelihood that both parents will be satisfied with the parents to select joint physical custody (such as education, income, plan and can give it relatively unambivalent support. and initial levels of parental hostility) (Maccoby, Buchanan, • Interventions such as mediation and parenting coordination Mnookin, & Dornbusch, 1993). In fact in 80% of the joint resi- can help parents better manage conflict and reduce its negative dential families one or both parents initially did not want and agree impact on children. to the arrangement (Fabricius et al., 2012). Other studies found that • When considering the implications of conflict for custody parents with shared time arrangements had no less conflict than dispositions, courts, operating under the best-interest standard, can those with sole custody parenting plans (Melli & Brown, 2008; for hear evidence that goes beyond identifying the presence of conflict a review, see Nielsen, 2013a). and sheds light on the dynamics of the conflict, the contributions A meta-analysis of 33 studies reported better emotional, behav- of each party to it, and the quality of parenting. ioral, and academic functioning for children in joint physical • When tension and conflict accompany transfers of children custody compared with children in sole custody, regardless of the from one home to the other, rather than reduce children’s time with level of conflict between parents (Bauserman, 2002). Studies that one parent as a response to concerns about parental conflict, measured amount of parenting time as opposed to frequency of consideration should be given to conducting transfers at neutral transitions between homes found that more parenting time is not sites where both parents are not present at the same time (Main, associated with poorer child outcomes in high-conflict families Hesse, & Hesse, 2011). For instance, the children can be dropped where there is no violence or abuse (Fabricius et al., 2012). With off at daycare by one parent and picked up by the other. This the exception of reports by mothers who had concerns about protects children from exposure to parental conflict. children’s safety in the care of the father, 1 to 2 years after • To the extent that conflict is generated by a father who separation, conflict was neither more nor less damaging for chil- opposes the mother’s efforts to marginalize his participation in dren in shared care-time arrangements than for children in other raising the young child, efforts should be made to educate the arrangements (Kaspiew et al., 2009). Rather than magnify harmful mother about the benefits to children of parenting plans that give effects of parental conflict, shared parenting may protect children more opportunities for the development and strengthening of from some of its negative consequences (Braver & O’Connell, father–child relationships and that keep fathers more involved. 1998; Fabricius, Braver, Diaz, & Velez, 2010; Fabricius et al., • Both parents should be encouraged to understand the emo- 2012; Gunnoe & Braver, 2001; Sandler, Miles, Cookston, & tional difficulty that can attend being apart from a young child for Braver, 2008; Sandler, Wheeler, & Braver, 2013). extended time periods, difficulty that is multiplied when a parent’s One way in which shared parenting time can reduce children’s employment keeps him or her away from the child for most of the exposure to tension-filled communications between parents is that weekdays. Parents should be encouraged to provide regular feed- longer periods of time with each parent reduces the number of back to each other about the young child’s routines, behavior, and This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. transfers between parents. For instance, a 2-hr contact means the health, and to the extent possible assuage each other’s concerns This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. child makes two transitions a day between parents. Simply chang- about the child’s development when in the care of the other parent. ing the 2-hr contact to an overnight reduces the transitions between homes to one per day. Also, not all parents who litigate custody are Stability of Shared Physical Custody Arrangements in high conflict. Some parents disagree about which parenting plan is in the child’s best interests and take their dispute to court, but Some commentators express concern that shared physical cus- otherwise treat each other with civility. tody arrangements are not stable and tend to “drift” into de facto A policy of automatically denying joint physical custody when physical custody with the mother (with a concomitant concern that a couple is labeled as “high conflict” brings additional drawbacks child support payments fail to adjust accordingly). The data rein addition to denying children the protective buffer of a nurturing garding the stability of shared physical custody are mixed relationship. It sends the message that generating or sustaining (Nielsen, 2013b). Earlier studies identified this phenomenon (Mac- conflict can be an effective strategy to override shared custody coby & Mnookin, 1992; Buchanan & Maccoby, 1996), as did a (Kelly, 2012; Warshak, 2011). This discourages civil communica- more recent Australian study (Smyth, Weston, Moloney, Richard- tion and cooperation, and may reduce children’s time with the son, & Temple, 2008). But another recent and methodologically 58 WARSHAK

rigorous large-scale study in Wisconsin found no such drift seen by therapists are those who are not doing well. We do not (Berger et al., 2008). Three years after divorce, the shared physical know how many children might benefit from, or be unaffected by, custody arrangements were as durable as sole mother custody a plan we might reject as theoretically unwise. arrangements, with 90% of the dual residence children remaining in this arrangement. Although the basic custody arrangement did Conclusions and Recommendations not change, children in sole mother custody were much more likely to experience a dropoff—and thus instability—in contact with Two central issues addressed in this article are the extent to their father. Kaspiew et al. (2009) found mother-custody arrange- which young children’s time should be spent predominantly in the ments the most stable, but also reported high stability for equal care of the same parent or divided more evenly between both (48–52% division of time) parenting. parents, and whether children under the age of 4 should sleep in the Regardless of the level of stability of sole, shared, and equal same home every night or spend overnights in both parents’ custody, or the reasons for the discrepant findings among the homes. Differences of opinion regarding shared parenting for studies, it would be a mistake to assume that changing parenting young children focus on the issue of whether giving children more plans as children mature necessarily means that the custody ar- time with their fathers, aimed at strengthening father–child rela- rangement failed. Parents who change the children’s residential tionships, risks harming the mother–child relationships. The con- schedule may be responding to changes in the family and changes cern is that spending too much time away from the mother, or in their children’s needs and preferences. Such flexibility may having overnights away from her, rather than ensure that a child further rather than impede children’s optimal development and has a high quality relationship with both parents, will result in the satisfaction with the parenting plan. child having poor relationships with both parents. Research allays such concerns for older children in shared custody (Fabricius et al., Special Circumstances 2012). More frequent contact with fathers brings benefits but does not come at the expense of the quality of the mother–child rela- Some circumstances depart significantly from the norm and do tionships. The research reviewed earlier on parenting time in intact not lend themselves to the same general recommendations that families shows that the average infant in the United States spends apply to the majority of parenting plan decisions. These circum- less than half time in the care of the mother and even less time stances include a history of intimate partner violence, a history or receiving direct care from her. Combined with the daycare studies, credible risk of neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, or psycho- this research should put to rest the idea that children are inevitably logical abuse toward a child, manifestations of restrictive gate- harmed by extended separations from their mothers. keeping such as persistent and unwarranted interference with par- The results of the 16 studies relevant to parenting plans gener- enting time (Austin, Fieldstone, & Pruett, 2013; Pruett, Arthur, & ally support rather than oppose shared parenting and overnights for Ebling, 2007; Pruett et al., 2012; Warshak et al., 2003), a history young children. But predominantly the studies show little direct of child abduction, a child’s special needs (e.g., cystic fibrosis or impact of overnights in the short run. The three studies that often autism), and a significant geographical separation between the are cited as evidence for the harmful effects of greater father parents. With the exception of relocation, each of these circum- involvement with young children actually found mixed or ambig- stances requires special safeguards to protect children. uous results perhaps because the measures used were inadequate The relocation of a parent with the child away from the other by scientific standards. Nevertheless the lack of long-term studies parent alters the range of feasible parenting plans and magnifies directly comparing different residential schedules for children who a parent’s ability to effectively exclude and erase the nonmoving are raised from a young age in two homes perpetuates debate parent from the child’s life, particularly if the relocation is to a among professionals and opens the door for opinions and recom- foreign destination (Warshak, 2013). Recommendations derived mendations that reflect hypotheses, speculations, and biases rather from attachment theory and research encourage parents to delay a than scientifically established facts. move until the child is at least three years old (Austin, 2010; Kelly Until we have more studies on the long-term outcome of par- & Lamb, 2003). As mentioned earlier, children require frequent enting plans that originated in early childhood, we must rely on interaction with and caring from each parent to lay the building extrapolations from what is known about how much time and what blocks of a solid parent–child relationship. Younger children have type of care infants and toddlers need for their wellbeing. The This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. more limited ability to tolerate separations and to sustain a mean- research on children being raised by parents who live apart from This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ingful relationship over a prolonged absence. They change more each other, in the larger context of scientific knowledge about the rapidly and the parent needs regular contact to remain in sync with factors that foster optimal child development and the formation the child. and maintenance of healthy parent–child relationships, offers Braver, Ellman, and Fabricius (2003) found negative effects guidelines that should inform decision makers and those who assist associated with a child’s relocation far away from one parent. them, such as parents, mediators, child custody experts, lawyers, Nevertheless no empirical research exists regarding the long-term and judges. When compared with the wider body of child devel- impact of a very young child’s lengthy separations from one opment and daycare research relevant to parenting plans, the parent, while living with the other parent. Concerns and guidelines number and quality of studies that focus specifically on young offered by evaluators and therapists arise from their clinical expe- children whose parents live apart from each other is limited. rience with children whose problems apparently reflect stress This document is not the first consensus report on the implica- aroused by a residential schedule that is insensitive to their devel- tions of research for parenting plans. A multidisciplinary group of opmental needs. We need to exercise caution about making gen- experts, sponsored by the U.S. National Institute of Child Health eralizations based on these anecdotal observations. The children and Human Development, met in 1994 to evaluate the empirical SOCIAL SCIENCE AND PARENTING PLANS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN 59

evidence regarding the ways in which children are affected by norms and political considerations affect the type of custody policy divorce and the impact of various custody arrangements. This that society deems as desirable. To the extent that policy and group issued a report (Lamb, Sternberg, & Thompson, 1997) with custody decisions seek to express scientific knowledge about child the following conclusion relevant to parenting plans for young development, the analyses in this article should receive significant children: weight by legislators and decision makers.

To maintain high-quality relationships with their children, parents 1. Just as we encourage parents in intact families to share need to have sufficiently extensive and regular interaction with them, care of their children, we believe that the social science but the amount of time involved is usually less important than the evidence on the development of healthy parent–child quality of the interaction that it fosters. Time distribution arrange- relationships, and the long-term benefits of healthy ments that ensure the involvement of both parents in important aspects parent–child relationships, supports the view that shared of their children’s everyday lives and routines—including bedtime and waking rituals, transitions to and from school, extracurricular and parenting should be the norm for parenting plans for recreational activities—are likely to keep nonresidential parents play- children of all ages, including very young children. We ing psychologically important and central roles in the lives of their recognize that some parents and situations are unsuitable children. How this is accomplished must be flexibly tailored to the for shared parenting, such as those mentioned in point #7 developmental needs, temperament, and changing individual circum- below. stances of the children concerned (p. 400). 2. Young children’s interests benefit when two adequate Between 1999 and 2001, a well-cited exchange of articles chal- parents follow a parenting plan that provides their chil- lenged the wisdom of guidelines that restricted young children dren with balanced and meaningful contact with each from sleeping in their fathers’ home. One group of authors sup- parent while avoiding a template that calls for a specific ported flexible, individualized parenting plans, rather than absolute division of time imposed on all families. rules favoring or prohibiting overnights (Kelly & Lamb, 2000; Lamb & Kelly, 2001; Warshak, 2000; Warshak, 2002). They 3. In general the results of the studies reviewed in this recommended that decision makers consider the option of over- document are favorable to parenting plans that more nights with fathers for its potential benefits to the children’s evenly balance young children’s time between two developing relationships with both parents. Those opposing this homes. Child developmental theory and data show that view conceded the need for some relaxation of restrictions but babies normally form attachments to both parents and continued to emphasize concerns about potential harm rather than that a parent’s absence for long periods of time jeopar- potential benefits of overnights (Solomon & Biringen, 2001; Birin- dizes the security of these attachments. Evidence regard- gen et al., 2002). They proposed that overnights should be viewed ing the amount of parenting time in intact families and with caution rather than prohibited or contraindicated on an a regarding the impact of daycare demonstrates that spend- priori basis, thus accepting that in some cases overnights with their ing half time with infants and toddlers is more than fathers might be in young children’s best interests. sufficient to support children’s needs. Thus, to maximize In the aftermath of the 1997 consensus report, the subsequent children’s chances of having a good and secure relation- articles on parenting plans for young children, and a growing body ship with each parent, we encourage both parents to of research relevant to shared parenting, the importance of provid- maximize the time they spend with their children. Parents ing sufficient opportunities to ensure that children develop and have no reason to worry if they share parenting time up maintain high quality relationships with both parents was increas- to 50/50 when this is compatible with the logistics of ingly recognized (Finley & Schwartz, 2010; Schwartz & Finley, each parent’s schedule. 2010). The decade between 2001 and 2011 saw increasing acceptance of overnights among mental health professionals, courts, and 4. Research on children’s overnights with fathers favors parents of infants and toddlers. Despite some backlash from those allowing children under four to be cared for at night by who advocate designating one parent as a primary caregiver, each parent rather than spending every night in the same discouraging shared parenting for young children, and resurrecting home. We find the theoretical and practical consider- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied20th publishers. century blanket restrictions unless overnights are deemed to ations favoring overnights for most young children to be This article is intended solely for the personal use ofbe the individual user and helpful is not to be disseminated broadly. to the parent designated as the primary caregiver (e.g., more compelling than concerns that overnights might McIntosh, 2011), for reasons discussed above we think this is jeopardize children’s development. Practical consider- misguided and inconsistent with an evidence-based approach to ations are relevant to consider when tailoring a parenting parenting plans. The research published since the 1997 consensus plan for young children to the circumstances of the par- reinforces that consensus’ conclusions (Adamsons & Johnson, ents. Such considerations may not be evident in the 2013; Nielsen, 2013a, 2013b; Sarkadi, Kristiansson, Oberklaid, & laboratory, or measured by existing studies, but they are Bremberg, 2007). readily apparent to parents and consultants who must Nevertheless we acknowledge that both the quantity and quality attend to the feasibility of parenting plan options (Lu- of research leave much unknown and call for modesty in formu- dolph, 2012). Overnights create potential benefits related lating conclusions to guide custody decisions. With this caveat in to the logistics of sharing parenting time. mind, the endorsers of this document agree that the current state of Parents of young children are more likely than parents of the scientific literature supports the following conclusions and older children to be at an early stage in their career or recommendations. We recognize that many factors such as cultural employment at which they have less flexibility and con- 60 WARSHAK

trol over their work schedules. Parenting schedules that obstacles in the path of fathers’ involvement with their offer the father and child 2-hr blocks of time together, children, society should encourage fathers to be more two or three times per week, can unduly stress their productively and directly engaged in their children’s contacts. Consider the logistics of loading a baby and lives. Broadly speaking, diverse stakeholders must col- necessary paraphernalia in a car, driving to the father’s laboratively develop a range of social initiatives—includ- residence, unloading the car, feeding the child, and helping public policy and psychoeducational programs—that ing the child become accustomed to the surroundings. If help set the stage for fathers and young children to forge the child has to be returned within 2 hours of being healthy bonds (Cowan, Cowan, Pruett, Pruett, & Wong, picked up by the father, this leaves little time for relaxed 2009; Marsiglio & Roy, 2012). interaction. Overnights help to reduce the tension associated with rushing to return the child, and thus poten- 6. There is no evidence to support postponing the introduc- tially improve the quality and satisfaction of the contact tion of regular and frequent involvement, including over- both for the parent and child. Overnights allow the child nights, of both parents with their babies and toddlers. to settle in to the father’s home, which would be more Maintaining children’s attachment relationships with familiar to the child who regularly spends the night in the each parent is an important consideration when develop- home compared with one who has only 1-hr segments in ing parenting plans. The likelihood of maintaining these the home (allowing for transportation and preparation for relationships is maximized by reducing the lengths of the return trip). The physical spaces in which father– separations between children and each parent and by child interactions take place influence the nature and providing adequate parenting time for each parent. Such types of interaction, and affect the father’s identity as a arrangements allow each parent to learn about the child’s parent (Marsiglio, Roy, & Fox, 2005). Spending the night individual needs and to hone parenting skills most ap- allows the father to participate in a wider range of bond- propriate for each developmental period. The optimal ing activities, such as engaging in bedtime rituals and frequency and duration of children’s time with each comforting the child in the event of nighttime awaken- parent will differ among children, depending on several ings. An additional advantage of overnights is that in the factors such as their age and their parents’ circumstances, morning the father can return the child to the daycare; motivations, and abilities to care for the children. Other this avoids exposing the child to tensions associated with important considerations include children’s unique rela- the parents’ direct contact with each other. tionship histories with each parent and their experience of each parent’s care and involvement. In each case where it Nonetheless, because of the relatively few studies cur- is desirable to foster the parent–child relationship, the rently available, the limitations of these studies, and the parenting plan needs to be sensitive to the child’s needs, predominance of results that indicate no direct benefit or titrating the frequency, duration, and structure of contact. drawback for overnights per se outside the context of other factors, we stop short of concluding that the current 7. Our recommendations apply in normal circumstances, for state of evidence supports a blanket policy or legal pre- most children with most parents. The existence of parents sumption regarding overnights. Because of the well- with major deficits in how they care for their children, documented vulnerability of father–child relationships such as parents who neglect or abuse their children, and among never-married and divorced parents, and the stud- those from whom children would need protection and ies that identify overnights as a protective factor associ- distance even in intact families, should not dictate policy ated with increased father commitment to child rearing for the majority of children being raised by parents who and reduced incidence of father drop-out, and because no live apart from each other. Also, our recommendations study demonstrates any net risk of overnights, decision apply to children who have relationships with both par- makers should recognize that depriving young children of ents. If a child has a relationship with one parent and no overnights with their fathers could compromise the qual- prior relationship with the other parent, or a peripheral, at ity of their developing relationship. best, relationship, different plans will serve the goal of This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. building the relationship versus strengthening and main- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 5. Parenting plans that provide children with contact no taining an existing relationship. more than six days per month with a parent, and require the children to wait more than a week between contacts, The endorsers of this document, all highly accomplished in their tax the parent–child relationships. This type of limited fields, nonetheless do not represent the views of all child devel- access schedule risks compromising the foundation of the opment and divorce specialists. We hope the stature of the signa- parent–child bond. It deprives children of the type of tories garners respect and attention from decision makers. But we relationship and contact that most children want with do not ask others to accept our opinions based solely on our both parents. The research supports the growing trend of reputations as experts. Rather it is our conviction that our analyses statutory law and case law that encourages maximizing meet the test of scientific validity and reliability, and thus are children’s time with both parents. This may be even more trustworthy in the legal sphere. We anticipate and invite responses important for young children in order to lay a strong from colleagues who favor different positions. But we encourage foundation for their relationships with their fathers and to policymakers and decision makers to carefully distinguish between foster security in those relationships. Rather than place balanced, accurate presentations versus biased accounts of re- SOCIAL SCIENCE AND PARENTING PLANS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN 61

search and to avoid over relying on outlier studies with question- legal considerations. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 206–219. doi: able methods and results. 10.1037/0893-3200.17.2.206 Meltzoff (1998) warns: “Uncritical acceptance of invalid re- Braver, S. L., O’Connell, D. (1998). Divorced dads: Shattering the myths. search can impede the development of the field and jeopardize New York, NY: Tarcher. human welfare” (p. 9). We believe that uncritical acceptance of Brotsky, M., Steinman, S., & Zemmelman, S. (1991). Joint custody invalid research on shared parenting plans for young children has through mediation. In J. Folberg (Ed.), Joint custody and shared par- jeopardized the welfare of many parent–child relationships. This enting (pp. 167–176). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Brown, G. L., Mangelsdorf, S. C., & Neff, C. (2012). Father involvement, document is our attempt to correct misrepresentations of the state paternal sensitivity, and father–child attachment security in the first 3 of science and the harm such misrepresentations threaten. years. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 421–430. doi:10.1037/ a0027836 References Brumariu, L. E., & Kerns, K. A. (2010). Parent–child attachment and internalizing symptoms in childhood and adolescence: A review of Adamsons, K., & Johnson, S. K. (2013). An updated and expanded empirical findings and future directions. Development and Psychopa- meta-analysis of nonresident fathering and child well-being. Journal of thology, 22, 177–203. doi:10.1017/S0954579409990344 Family Psychology, 27, 589–599. doi:10.1037/a0033786 Ahrons, C. (1994). The good divorce: Keeping your family together when Buchanan, C. M. (2001). Divorce. In J. V. Lerner, R. M. Lerner, & J. your marriage comes apart. New York, NY: HarperPerennial. Finkelstein (Eds.), Adolescence in America: An encyclopedia (pp. 232– Altenhofen, S., Biringen, Z., & Mergler, R. (2008). Significant family dynam- 235). ABC-CLIO. ics related to postdivorce adjustment in parents and children. Journal of Buchanan, C., & Maccoby, E. (1996). Adolescents after divorce. Cam- Divorce & Remarriage, 49, 25–40. doi:10.1080/10502550801971280 bridge, MA: Harvard University. Altenhofen, S., Sutherland, K., & Biringen, Z. (2010). Families experienc- Cashmore, J., & Parkinson, P. (2011). Parenting arrangements for young ing divorce: Age at onset of overnight stays as predictors of child children: Messages from research. Australian Journal of Family Law, attachment. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 51, 141–156. doi: 25, 236–257. 10.1080/10502551003597782 Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relation- Amato, P. R. (2003). Reconciling divergent perspectives: Judith Waller- ships. In N. A. Fox (Ed.), The development of emotion regulation: stein, quantitative family research, and children of divorce. Family Biological and behavioral considerations. Monographs of the Society for Relations, 52, 332–339. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00332.x Research in Child Development, 59, Serial No. 240. Austin, W. G. (2010). Relocation and forensic mental health evaluation in Cassidy, J. (2008). The nature of the child’s ties. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Colorado: Issues involving very young children. In R. M. Smith (Ed.), Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical The role of the child and family investigator and the child’s legal applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press Publications. representative in Colorado (pp. C-1-23–C). Denver, CO: Colorado Bar Cohen, L. J., & Campos, J. J. (1974). Father, mother and stranger as Association. elicitors of attachment behaviors in infancy. Developmental Psychology, Austin, W. G., Fieldstone, L., & Pruett, M. K. (2013). Bench book for 10, 146–154. doi:10.1037/h0035559 assessing parental gatekeeping in parenting disputes: Understanding the Committee on Family and Work Policies. (2003). Working families and dynamics of gate closing and opening for the best interests of children. growing kids: Caring for children and adolescents. Washington, DC: Journal of Child Custody, 10, 1–16. doi:10.1080/15379418.2013 The National Academies Press. .778693 Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., Pruett, M. K., Pruett, K., & Wong, J. J. (2009). Aviezer, O., & Sagi-Schwarz, A. (2008). Attachment and non-maternal Promoting fathers’ engagement with children: Preventive interventions care: Towards contextualizing the quantity versus quality debate. At- for low-income families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 663–679. tachment & Human Development, 10, 275–285. doi:10.1080/ doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00625.x 14616730802366699 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. (1993). 509 U.S. 579. Bauserman, R. (2002). Child adjustment in joint-custody versus sole- De Wolff, M. S., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity and attach- custody arrangements: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Psy- ment: A meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment. chology, 16, 91–102. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.16.1.91PMid:11915414 Child Development, 68, 571–591. doi:10.2307/1132107930663610 Belsky, J., Burchinal, M., McCartney, K., Vandell, D. L., Clarke-Stewart, .2307/11321071997-06053-001 K. A., Owen, M. T., & the NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Emery, R. (2004). The truth about children and divorce: Dealing with (2007). Are there long-term effects of early child care? Child Develop- emotions so you and your children can thrive. New York, NY: Viking/ ment, 78, 681–701. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01021.x Penguin.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its alliedBerger, publishers. L. M., Brown, P. R., Joung, E., Melli, M. S., & Wimer, L. (2008). Fabricius, W. V., Braver, S. L., Diaz, P., & Velez, C. E. (2010). Custody

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual userThe and is not to bestability disseminated broadly. of child physical placements following divorce: Descriptive evidence from Wisconsin. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 273– and parenting time: Links to family relationships and well-being after 283. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00480.x divorce. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development Bernet, W., & Ash, D. R. (2007). Children of divorce: A practical guide for (5th ed. pp. 201–240). New York, NY: Wiley. parents, therapists, attorneys, and judges (2nd ed.). Malabar, FL: Fabricius, W. V., Sokol, K. R., Diaz, P., & Braver, S. L. (2012). Parenting Krieger Publishing Company. time, parent conflict, parent–child relationships, and children’s physical Biringen, Z., Greve-Spees, J., Howard, W., Leith, D., Tanner, L., Moore, health. In K. Kuehnle & L. Drozd, (Eds.), Parenting plan evaluations: S., . . . Williams, L. (2002). Commentary on Warshak’s “Blanket Applied research for the family court (pp. 188–213). New York, NY: restrictions: Overnight contact between parents and young children”. Oxford University Press. Family Court Review, 40, 204–207. doi:10.1111/j.174-1617.2002 Finley, G. E., & Schwartz, S. J. (2010). The divided world of the child: .tb00831.x Divorce and long-term psychosocial adjustment. Family Court Review, Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1. Attachment. London, UK: 48, 516–527. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2010.01326.x Hogarth. Friedman, M. E. (2004). The so-called high-conflict couple: A closer look. Braver, S. L., Ellman, I. M., & Fabricius, W. V. (2003). Relocation of American Journal of Family Therapy, 32, 107–117. doi:10.1080/ children after divorce and children’s best interests: New evidence and 01926180490424217 62 WARSHAK

Garber, B. D. (2012). Security by association? Mapping attachment theory Lamb, M. E. (2012b). A wasted opportunity to engage with the literature onto family law practice. Family Court Review, 50, 467–470. doi: on the implications of attachment research for family court profession- 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2012.01461.x als. Family Court Review, 50, 481–485. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2012 George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple .01463.x guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Lamb, M. E. (Ed.), (2010a). The role of the father in child development Goldstein, J., Freud, A., & Solnit, A. J. (1973/1979). Beyond the best (5th ed.). Hoboken NJ: Wiley. interests of the child. New York, NY: Free Press. Lamb, M. E., & Kelly, J. B. (2001). Using the empirical literature to guide Gunnoe, M. L., & Braver, S. L. (2001). The effects of joint legal custody the development of parenting plans for young children: A rejoinder to on mothers, fathers, and children, controlling for factors that predispose Solomon and Biringen. Family Court Review, 39, 365–371. doi:10.1111/ a sole maternal versus joint legal award. Law and Human Behavior, 25, j.174-1617.2001.tb00618.x 25–43. doi:10.1023/A:1005687825155 Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Thompson, R. A. (1997). The effects of Hetherington, E. M., & Kelly, J. (2002). For better or for worse: Divorce divorce and custody arrangements on children’s behavior, development, reconsidered. New York, NY: Norton. doi:10.2143/INT.8.2.2004434 and adjustment. Family & Conciliation Courts Review, 35, 393–404. Johnston, J. R. (2007). Introducing perspectives in family law and social doi:10.1111/j.174-1617.1997.tb00482.x science research. Family Court Review, 45, 15–21. doi:10.1111/j.1744- Lucassen, N., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Volling, B. L., Tharner, A., 1617.2007.00125.x Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Verhulst, F. C.,...Tiemeier, H. (2011). Kaspiew, R., Gray, M., Weston, R., Moloney, L., Hand, K., Qu, L., and the The association between paternal sensitivity and infant–father attach- Family Law Evaluation Team. (2009). Evaluation of 2006 family law ment security: A meta-analysis of three decades of research. Journal of reforms in Australia. Australian Institute of Family Studies, Sydney. Family Psychology, 25, 986–992. doi:10.1037/a0025855 Kelly, J. B. (2003). Parents with enduring child disputes: Multiple path- Ludolph, P. S. (2012). The special issue on attachment: Overreaching ways to enduring disputes. Journal of Family Studies, 9, 37–50. doi: theory and data. Family Court Review, 50, 486–495. doi:10.1111/j 10.5172/jfs.9.1.37 .1744-1617.2012.01464.x Kelly, J. B. (2012). Risk and protective factors associated with child and Ludolph, P. S., & Dale, M. D. (2012). Attachment in child custody: An adolescent adjustment following separation and divorce: Social science additive factor, not a determinative one. Family Law Quarterly, 46, applications. In K. Kuehnle & L. Drozd, (Eds.), Parenting plan evalu- 1–40. ations: Applied research for the family courts (pp. 49–84). New York, Maccoby, E., & Mnookin, R. (1992). Dividing the child. Cambridge, MA: NY: Oxford University Press. Harvard University Press. Kelly, J. B., & Emery, R. E. (2003). Children’s adjustment following Maccoby, E. E., Buchanan, C. M., Mnookin, R. H., & Dornbusch, S. M. divorce: Risk and resilience perspectives. Family Relations, 52, 352– (1993). Postdivorce roles of mothers and fathers in the lives of their 362. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00352.x children: Families in transition. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 24–38. Kelly, J. B., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Using child developmental research to doi:10.1037/0893-3200.7.1.24 make appropriate custody and access decisions for young children. Main, M., Hesse, E., & Hesse, S. (2011). Attachment theory and research: Family & Conciliation Courts Review, 38, 297–311. doi:10.1111/j.174- Overview with suggested applications to child custody. Family Court 1617.2000.tb00577.x Review, 49, 426–463. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2011.01383.x Kelly, J. B., & Lamb, M. E. (2003). Developmental issues in relocation Main, M., & Weston, D. R. (1981). The quality of the toddler’s relationship cases involving young children: When, whether, and how? Journal of to mother and to father: Related to conflict behavior and the readiness to Family Psychology, 17, 193–205. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.17.2.193 establish new relationships. Child Development, 52, 932–940. doi: Kerns, K. A., Tomich, P. L., Aspelmeier, J. E., & Contreras, J. M. (2000). 10.2307/1129097 Attachment-based assessments of parent–child relationships in middle Marsiglio, W., & Roy, K. (2012). Nurturing dads: Social initiatives for childhood. Developmental Psychology, 36, 614–626. doi:10.1037// contemporary fatherhood. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. 0012-1649.36.5.614 Marsiglio, W., Roy, K., & Fox, G. L. (Eds.). (2005). Situated fathering: A Kochanska, G. (1997). Mutually responsive orientation between mothers focus on physical and social spaces. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Little- and their young children: Implications for early socialization. Child field. Development, 68, 94–112. doi:10.2307/1131928 Martindale, D. A. (2011). Imposed joint custody: Does it work? Keynote Kochanska, G., & Kim, S. (2013). Early attachment organization with both address, given at the 2011 Annual Program of the New York State parents and future behavior problems: From infancy to middle child- Interdisciplinary Forum on Mental Health and Family Law, New York hood. Child Development, 84, 283–296. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012 County Lawyers Association, NYC, May. .01852.x McCartney, K., Burchinal, M., Clarke-Stewart, A., Bub, K. L., Owen, This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its alliedLamb, publishers. M. E. (1977a). Father-infant and mother-infant interaction in the M. T., Belsky, J., & the NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual userfirst and is not to beyear disseminated broadly. of life. Child Development, 48, 167–181. doi:10.2307/1128896 (2010). Testing a series of causal propositions relating time in child care Lamb, M. E. (1977b). The development of mother-infant and father-infant to children’s externalizing behavior. Developmental Psychology, 46, attachments in the second year of life. Developmental Psychology, 13, 1–17. doi:10.1037/a0017886 637–648. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.13.6.637 McIntosh, J. E. (2011). Special considerations for infants and toddlers in Lamb, M. E. (2007). The “Approximation Rule”: Another proposed reform separation/divorce: Developmental issues in the family law context. that misses the target. Child Development Perspectives, 1, 135–136. Emery, R. E., topic Ed. In: R. E. Tremblay, M. Boivin, R. DeV. Peters doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2007.00030.x (Eds.), Encyclopedia on early childhood development [online] (pp. 1–6). Lamb, M. E. (2010b). How do fathers influence child development? Let me Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Develop- count the ways. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child ment and Strategic Knowledge Cluster on Early Child Development. development (5th ed., pp. 1–26). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Retrieved from http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/documents/ Lamb, M. E. (2012a). Critical analysis of research on parenting plans and McIntoshANGxp1.pdf children’s well-being. In K. Kuehnle & L. Drozd (Eds.), Parenting plan McIntosh, J. E., Smyth, B., & Kelaher, M. (2010). Parenting arrange- evaluations: Applied research for the family court (pp. 214–243). New ments post-separation: Patterns and developmental outcomes, Part II. York, NY: Oxford University Press. Relationships between overnight care patterns and psycho-emotional SOCIAL SCIENCE AND PARENTING PLANS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN 63

development in infants and young children. In J. McIntosh, B. Smyth, Pruett, M., Ebling, R., & Insabella, G. (2004). Critical aspects of parenting M. Kelaher, Y. Wells, & C. Long, Post-separation parenting arrange- plans for young children. Family Court Review, 42, 39–59. doi:10.1177/ ments and developmental outcomes for infants and children: Collected 1531244504421004 reports (pp. 85–168). North Carlton, Victoria, Australia: Family Tran- Pudasainee-Kapri, S., & Razza, R. (2013). Attachment security among sitions. Retrieved from http://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/ toddlers: The impact of coparenting and father engagement. Fragile Families/FamilyViolence/Documents/Post%20separation%20parenting Families Working Paper WP13-01-FF. Retrieved from http://crcw %20arrangements%20and%20developmental%20outcomes%20for .princeton.edu/publications/publications.asp %20infants%20and%20children.pdf Rutter, M. (1979). Maternal deprivation, 1972–1978: New findings, new McIntosh, J., Smyth, B., Kelaher, M., Wells, Y., & Long, C. (2011). Post concepts, new approaches. Child Development, 50, 283–305. doi: separation parenting arrangements: Patterns and developmental out- 10.2307/1129404 comes: Studies of two risk groups. Family Matters, 86, 40–48. Sagi, A., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Aviezer, O., Donnell, F., Koren-Karie, McIntosh, J., & the Australian Association for Infant Mental Health. (2011, N., Joels, T., & Harel, Y. (1995). Attachments in a multiple-caregiver Nov 26). Infants and overnight care – post separation and divorce: and multiple-infant environment: The case of the Israeli kibbutzim. In E. Clinical and research perspectives. Retrieved from http://www.aaimhi Waters, B. E. Vaughn, G. Posada, & K. Kondo-Ikemura (Eds.), Care- .org/inewsfiles/AAIMHI_Infants_and_overnight_care.pdf giving, cultural, and cognitive perspectives on secure-base behavior and McKinnon, R., & Wallerstein, J. (1987). Joint custody and the preschool working models: New growing points of attachment theory and research child. Conciliation Courts Review, 25, 39–47. doi:10.1111/j.174-1617 (pp. 71–91). Special issue in the Monographs of the Society for Research .1987.tb00171.x on Child Development, 60, Serial #244 No. 2–3. McLanahan, S. (2013). Fragile families and child wellbeing study fact Sagi-Schwartz, A., & Aviezer, O. (2005). Correlates of attachment to sheet.Retrievedfromhttp://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/ multiple caregivers in kibbutz children from birth to emerging adult- documents/FragileFamiliesandChildWellbeingStudyFactSheet.pdf hood: The Haifa Longitudinal Study. In K. E. Grossmann, K. Gross- Melli, M. S., & Brown, P. R. (2008). Exploring a new family form—The mann, & E. Waters (Eds.), Attachment from infancy to adulthood (pp. shared time family. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 165–197). New York, NY: Guilford Press. 22, 231–269. doi:10.1093/lawfam/ebn002 Samarrai, F. (2013, July). Overnights away from home affect children’s attachments, study shows. UVA Today News Release. Retrieved from Meltzoff, J. (1998). Critical thinking about research: Psychology and https://news.virginia.edu/content/overnights-away-home-affect- related fields. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. children-s-attachments-study-shows Millar, P., & Kruk, E. (2014). Maternal attachment, paternal overnight Sandler, I., Miles, J., Cookston, J., & Braver, S. (2008). Effects of father contact, and very young children’s adjustment: A re-examination. Jour- and mother parenting on children’s mental health in high- and low- nal of Marriage and Family, 76, 256–260. conflict divorces. Family Court Review, 46, 282–296. doi:10.1111/j National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care .1744-1617.2008.00201.x Research Network. (2003). Does amount of time spent in child care predict Sandler, I. N., Wheeler, L. A., & Braver, S. L. (2013). Relations of parenting socioemotional adjustment during the transition to kindergarten? Child quality, interparental conflict, and overnights with mental health problems Development, 74, 976–1005. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00582 of children in divorcing families with high legal conflict. Journal of Family National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Psychology, 27, 915–924. doi:10.1037/a0034449 Care Research Network. (2004). Type of child care and children’s Sanson, A., & Mission, S. (2005). Summarising children’s wellbeing: The development at 54 months. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, LSAC outcome index. Sydney, Australia: Australian Institute of Family 203–230. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.04.002 Studies. Nielsen, L. (2013a). Shared residential custody: A recent research review Sarkadi, A., Kristiansson, R., Oberklaid, F., & Bremberg, S. (2007). (part one). American Journal of Family Law, 27, 61–72. Fathers’ involvement and children’s developmental outcomes: A sys- Nielsen, L. (2013b). Shared residential custody: A recent research review tematic review of longitudinal studies. Acta Paediatrica, 97, 153–158. (part two). American Journal of Family Law, 27, 123–137. doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2007.00572.xPMid:18052995 Nielsen, L. (2013c). Infant and toddler overnighting after parents sepa- Schore, A., & McIntosh, J. (2011). Family law and the neuroscience of rate: A review of research. Manuscript submitted for publication. attachment, Part I. Family Court Review, 49, 501–512. doi:10.1111/j Nielsen, L. (2013d). Woozles: Their role in custody law reform, parenting .1744-1617.2011.01387.x plans, and family court. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Manuscript Schwartz, S. J., & Finley, G. E. (2010). Troubled ruminations about submitted for publication. parents: Conceptualization and validation with emerging adults. Journal Parkinson, P., & Cashmore, J. (2011). Parenting arrangements for young of Counseling & Development, 88 (No. 1), 80–91. doi:10.1002/j.1556- children: A reply to Smyth, McIntosh and Kelaher. Australian Journal of 6678.2010.tb00154.x This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Family Law, 25, 284–286. Smart, D. (2010). How children are faring: Behaviour problems and This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Pleck, J. H. (2010). Paternal involvement: Revised conceptualization and the- competencies. Sydney, Australia: Australian Institute of Family Studies. oretical linkages with child outcomes. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the Smyth, B., Weston, R., Moloney, L., Richardson, N., & Temple, J. (2008). father in child development (2nd ed., pp. 58–93). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Changes in patterns of parenting over time: Recent Australian data. Pruett, M. K., Arthur, L. A., & Ebling, R. (2007). The hand that rocks the Journal of Family Studies, 14, 23–36. doi:10.5172/jfs.327.14.1.23 cradle: Maternal gatekeeping after divorce. Pace Law Review, 27, 709– Solomon, J. (2013). An attachment theory framework for planning infant 739. and toddler visitation. In L. Gunsberg & P. Hymowitz (Eds.), Handbook Pruett, M. K., & Barker, R. (2009). Children of divorce: New trends and of divorce and custody (pp. 259–278). New York, NY: Routledge. ongoing dilemmas. In J. H. Bray & M. Stanton (Eds.), The handbook of Solomon, J. (2013, April). Rethinking attachment and divorce: Facts, family psychology (pp. 463–474). New York, NY: Blackwell. doi: myths and dilemmas in custody disputes. In A. Sagi-Schwartz (Moder- 10.1002/9781444310238.ch31 ator), Roundtable conducted at the Society for Research in Child De- Pruett, M., Cowan, P., Cowan, M., & Diamond, J. (2012). Supporting velopment, Seattle, WA. father involvement after separation and divorce. In K. Kuehnle & L. Solomon, J., & Biringen, Z. (2001). Another look at the developmental Drozd (Eds.), Parenting plan evaluations: Applied research for the research: Commentary on Kelly and Lamb’s “Using children develop- family court (pp. 257–330). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ment research to make appropriate custody and access decisions for 64 WARSHAK

young children”. Family Court Review, 39, 355–364. doi:10.1111/j.174- Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1980). Surviving the breakup. New York, 1617.2001.tb00617.x NY: Basic Books. Solomon, J., & George, C. (1999a). The development of attachment in Warshak, R. A. (1992). The custody revolution: The father factor and the separated and divorced families: Effects of overnight visitation, parent, motherhood mystique. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. and couple variables. Attachment & Human Development, 1, 2–33. Warshak, R. A. (2000). Blanket restrictions: Overnight contact between doi:10.1080/14616739900134011 parents and young children. Family & Conciliation Courts Review, 34, Solomon, J., & George, L. (1999b). The effects on attachment of overnight 396–409. doi:10.1111/j.174-1617.1996.tb00429.x visitation on divorced and separated families: A longitudinal follow-up. Warshak, R. A. (2002). Who will be there when I cry in the night?: In J. Solomon & C. George (Eds.), Attachment disorganization (pp. Revisiting overnights—A rejoinder to Biringen et al. Family Court 243–264). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Review, 40, 208–219. doi:10.1111/j.174-1617.2002.tb00832.x Spelke, E., Zelazo, P., Kagan, J., & Kotelchuck, M. (1973). Father inter- Warshak, R. A. (2011). Parenting by the clock: The best interests of the action and separation protest. Developmental Psychology, 9, 83–90. child standard, judicial discretion, and the American Law Institute’s doi:10.1037/h0035087 “Approximation Rule”. University of Baltimore Law Review, 41, 83– Thompson, R. A. (1998). Early sociopersonality development. In W. 163. Damon (Ed.-in-Chief) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child Warshak, R. A. (2012, May). Securing children’s best interests while psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th resisting the lure of simple solutions. Paper presented at Parenting in ed., pp. 25–104). New York, NY: Wiley. practice and law: Terminology, rhetoric, and research, conference con- Tornello, S., Emery, R., Rowen, J., Potter, D., Ocker, B., & Xu, Y. (2013). ducted at the Center for the Study of Child Development, Haifa, Israel. Overnight custody arrangements, attachment and adjustment among Warshak, R. A. (2013). In a land far, far away: Assessing children’s best very young children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 871–885. interests in international relocation cases. Journal of Child Custody, 10, 295–324. doi:10.1080/15379418.2013.851577 U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1999). Statistical abstract of the United States. Warshak, R. A., Braver, S. L., Kelly, J. B., Bray, J. H., Austin, W. G., Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Ahrons, C. R.,...Santrock, J. W. (2003). Brief of Richard A. Warshak U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). American et al. as Amici Curiae on behalf of LaMusga Children, In re Marriage of time use survey. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/tus/ LaMusga, 88 P.3d 81 (Cal. 2004) (No. S107355), available at http:// van IJzendoorn, M. H., Kroonenberg, P. M., Out, D., Randsdorp, Y., www.warshak.com/pdf/publications/LaMusga.pdf Lehmann, A., & van der Maas, H. (2003, March). Does more non- Warshak, R. A., & Santrock, J. W. (1983). The impact of divorce in maternal care lead to aggression? The NICHD Study of Early Child father-custody and mother-custody homes: The child’s perspective. In Care and Youth Development on quantity of non-maternal care and L. A. Kurdek (Ed.), Children and divorce (pp. 29–46). San Francisco, aggression. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for CA: Jossey-Bass. Research of Child Development, Tampa, FL. Waters, E. (2013). Assessing secure base behavior and attachment security van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Sagi-Schwartz, A. (2008). Cross-cultural pat- using the Q-sort method. Stony Brook University, State University of terns of attachment: Universal and contextual dimensions. In J. Cassidy New York. Retrieved from http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/ & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment (2nd ed., pp. 880–905). attachment/measures/content/aqs_method.html New York, NY: Guilford Press. Waters, E., & McIntosh, J. (2011). Are we asking the right questions about van IJzendoorn, M. H., Tavecchio, L. W. C., Riksen-Walraven, J. M. A., attachment? Family Court Review, 49, 474–482. doi:10.1111/j.1744- Schipper, J. C., de Gevers Deynoot-Schaub, M., & Schaub, M. (2004, 1617.2011.01385.x July). Center day care in The Netherlands. What do we know about its Wetherby, A., & Prizant, B. (2001). Communication and symbolic behav- quality and effects? Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the ior scales developmental profile- Preliminary normed edition. Balti- International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development, Ghent, more, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Belgium. Woodward, L., Fergusson, D. M., & Belsky, J. (2000). Timing of parental van IJzendoorn, M., Vereijken, C., Kranenburg, M., & Riksen-Walraven, separation and attachment to parents in adolescence: Results of a pro- M. (2004). Assessing attachment security with the attachment Q sort: spective study from birth to age 16. Journal of Marriage & Family, 62, Meta-analytic evidence for the validity of the observer AQS. Child 162–174. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00162.x Development, 75, 1188–1213. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00733.x Zervopoulos, J. A. (2008). Confronting mental health evidence. Chicago, Verschueren, K., & Marcoen, A. (1999). Representation of self and socio- IL: American Bar Association. emotional competence in kindergartners: Differential and combined Zervopoulos, J. A. (2013). How to examine mental health experts. Chicago, effects of attachment to mother and to father. Child Development, 70, IL: American Bar Association. 183–201. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00014 Zill, N., Morrison, D. R., & Coiro, M. J. (1993). Long-term effects of

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its alliedWallerstein, publishers. J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1975). The effects of parental divorce: parental divorce on parent-child relationships, adjustment, and achieve-

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual userExperiences and is not to be disseminated broadly. of the preschool child. Journal of the American Academy of ment in young adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 91–103. Child Psychiatry, 14, 600–616. doi:10.1016/S0002-7138(09)61460-6 doi:10.1037/0893-3200.7.1.91 SOCIAL SCIENCE AND PARENTING PLANS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN 65

Appendix Endorsements From Researchers and Practitioners

The 110 researchers and practitioners who have read, com- 20. K. Alison Clarke-Stewart, Ph.D., Research Professor and mented, and offered revisions to this article are listed below. They Professor Emerita, Department of Psychology and Social Behav- endorse this article’s conclusions and recommendations, although ior, University of California, Irvine they may not agree with every detail of the literature review. 21. Hugh Clarkson, MCChB, FRANZCP, Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, Practice 92, Auckland, New Zealand 1. Kari Adamsons, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of 22. Marilyn Coleman, Ed.D., Curators’ Professor Emerita, Hu- Human Development and Family Studies, University of Connect- man Development and Family Studies, University of Missouri icut 23. Scott Coltrane, Ph.D., Interim Senior Vice President and 2. Francesca Adler-Baeder, Ph.D., Professor, Human Develop- Provost, University of Oregon ment and Family Studies, Auburn University 24. Mary Connell, Ed.D., ABPP, Independent Practice in Clin- 3. Karen E. Adolph, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology and Neural ical and Forensic Psychology, Fort Worth, Texas Science, New York University 25. Jeffrey T. Cookston, Ph.D., Professor and Chair, Department 4. Constance Ahrons, Ph.D., Professor Emerita of Sociology, of Psychology, San Francisco State University University of Southern California 26. James W. Croake, Ph.D., ABPP, Professor Emeritus of 5. Akira Aoki, M.A., Professor, Department of Clinical Psy- Psychiatry, University of South Alabama College of Medicine; chology, Taisho University, Tokyo, Japan Independent Practice, Edmonds, WA 6. Jack Arbuthnot, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Psychology, 27. Mick Cunningham, Ph.D., Professor and Chair, Department Ohio University of Sociology, Western Washington University 7. William G. Austin, Ph.D., Independent Practice, Lakewood, 28. David H. Demo, Ph.D., Associate Dean for Graduate Pro- Colorado and Raleigh, North Carolina grams, School of Health and Human Sciences, University of North 8. Jennifer L. Bellamy, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, School of Carolina at Greensboro Social Service Administration, University of Chicago 29. Emily M. Douglas, Ph.D., Associate Professor, School of 9. Jay Belsky, Ph.D., Robert M. and Natalie Reid Dorn Profes- Social Work, Bridgewater State University; Chair, National Re- sor, Department of Human Ecology, Human Development and search Conference on Child and Family Programs and Policy Family Studies Program, University of California, Davis 30. James R. Dudley, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of 10. Anna Beth Benningfield, Ph.D., former President of the Social Work, College of Health and Human Services, University American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy; Indepen- of North Carolina at Charlotte dent Practice, Dallas, Texas 31. Don Edgar, Ph.D., Foundation Director of the Australian 11. Malin Bergtröm, Ph.D., Clinical Child Psychologist and Institute of Family Studies Researcher, Centre for Health Equity Studies, Karolinska Institute, 32. Mark A. Fine, Ph.D., Professor and Chair, Department of Stockholm University, Sweden Human Development and Family Studies, University of North Carolina at Greensboro 12. William Bernet, M.D., DLFAPA, Professor Emeritus, De- 33. Gordon Finley, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of partment of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine Psychology, Florida International University 13. Thoroddur Bjarnason, Ph. D., Professor of Sociology, Uni- 34. Lluís Flaquer, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, Universitat versity of Akureyi, Iceland Autonoma de Barcelona, Spain 14. James H. Bray, Ph.D., former American Psychological As- 35. Emma Fransson, Ph.D., Psychologist, Karolinska Institutet/ sociation President; Associate Professor, Department of Family Stockholm University; Centre for Health Equity Studies (CHESS), and Community Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine Stockholm, Sweden 15. Glenn Ross Caddy, PhD., ABPP, Founder and Chairman, 36. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Ph.D., Emeritus Zellerbach Family MindExperts International LLC; Independent Practice, Fort Lau- Professor of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its alliedderdale, publishers. Florida 37. Lawrence Ganong, Ph.D., Professor and Co-Chair, Depart- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user16. and is not to be disseminatedTerence broadly. W. Campbell, Ph.D., ABPP, Independent Practice, ment of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Sterling Heights, Michigan Missouri 17. Asa Carlsund, Ph.D., Lecturer, Mid Sweden University, 38. Donald A. Gordon, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, Emer- Östersund, Sweden itus, Ohio University 18. Judith Cashmore, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of 39. Michael C. Gottlieb, Ph.D., ABPP, Independent Practice, Sydney Law School, Australia Dallas, Texas 19. Marco Casonato, Psy.D., Professor of Psychodynamics, 40. Geoffrey L. Greif, Ph.D., Professor, School of Social Work, Senior Researcher, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy University of Maryland

(Appendix continues) 66 WARSHAK

41. Neil S. Grossman, Ph.D., ABPP, President, Division of 60. Jay Lebow, Ph.D., ABPP, Clinical Professor of Psychology, Forensic Psychology, New York State Psychological Association; Family Institute, Northwestern University Independent Practice, Dix Hills, New York 61. Werner Leitner, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Special Educa- 42. Karin Grossmann, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, associated at the tion Psychology, University of Oldenburg, Germany Department of Psychology, University of Regensburg, Germany 62. Ronald F. Levant, Ed.D., ABPP, former American Psycho- 43. Per Gustafsson, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Child and Ado- logical Association President; Professor of Psychology, University lescent Psychiatry, Department of Clinical and Experimental Med- of Akron icine, University Hospital, Linkoping, Sweden 63. Charlie Lewis, Ph.D., Head of Department and Professor of 44. Melvin J. Guyer, Ph.D., J.D., Professor of Psychology, Family and Developmental Psychology, Lancaster University, Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan Medical School United Kingdom 45. John Harvey, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Psychology, 64. Ken Lewis, Ph.D., Director of Child Custody Evaluation University of Iowa Services, Philadelphia, PA 46. Carolyn S. Henry, Ph.D., Professor, Human Development 65. Colleen Logan, Ph.D., Former President of the American and Family Science, Oklahoma State University Counseling Association; Program Director, Marriage, Couple and 47. Lisa Herrick, Ph.D., Founder and Principal, Collaborative Family Counseling, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Practice Center of Greater Washington; former President and co- Walden University; Independent Practice, Dallas, Texas founder, DC Academy of Collaborative Professionals; Founding 66. Pamela S. Ludolph, Ph.D., Independent Practice, Ann Ar- Faculty, Collaborative Practice Training Institute; Independent bor, Michigan practice, Washington, D. C. and Falls Church, Virginia 67. William Marsiglio, Ph.D., Professor, Sociology and Crimi- 48. E. Mavis Hetherington, Ph.D., Emerita Professor of Psy- nology & Law, University of Florida chology (retired), University of Virginia 68. Robert Milardo, Ph.D., Professor of Family Relations, Uni- versity of Maine 49. Denise A. Hines, Ph.D., Associate Research Professor, De- 69. Paul Millar, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Nipissing Univer- partment of Psychology, Clark University; Director, Family Im- sity, Canada pact Seminars; Co-Director, Clark Anti-Violence Education Pro- 70. W. Roger Mills-Koonce, Ph.D., Associate Professor, De- gram partment of Human Development and Family Studies, University 50. Anders Hjern, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Social Epidemiol- of North Carolina at Greensboro ogy of Children and Youth, Clinical Epidemiology, Department of 71. Bert S. Moore, Ph.D., Aage and Margareta Møller Distin- Medicine, Karolinska Institutet and Centre for Health Equity Stud- guished Professor and Dean of the School of Behavioral and Brain ies (CHESS), Stockholm, Sweden Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas 51. Tirtsa Joels, Ph.D., Head, Interdisciplinary MA Program in 72. John Moran, Ph.D., Independent Practice, Phoenix, Arizona Child Development, and Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Univer- 73. A. Bame Nsamenang, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology and sity of Haifa, Israel Counseling, University of Bamenda, Cameroon 52. Scott Johnson, Ph.D., former President of the American 74. Lisa A. Newland, Ph.D., Professor of Human Development, Association for Marriage and Family Therapy; Associate Professor University of South Dakota and Program Director, Marriage and Family Therapy PhD Pro- 75. Linda Nielsen, Ed.D., Professor of Adolescent and Educa- gram, Virginia Tech tional Psychology, Wake Forest University 53. Florence W. Kaslow, Ph.D., ABPP, Kaslow Associates, 76. Barry Nurcombe, M.D., Emeritus Professor of Child & Palm Beach Gardens, Florida Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Queensland, Australia, and 54. Robert A. Kenedy, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department Vanderbilt University of Sociology, York University, Canada 77. Edward Oklan, M.D., M.P.H., Independent Practice, San 55. H. D. Kirkpatrick, Ph.D., ABPP, Independent Practice, Anselmo and Petaluma, California Charlotte, North Carolina 78. Mark R. Otis, Ph.D., Independent Practice, Denver, Colo- 56. Louis Kraus, M.D., DFAPA, FAACAP, Woman’s Board rado Professor and Chief of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Rush 79. Rob Palkovitz, Ph.D., Professor, Human Development and This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. University Medical Center Family Studies, University of Delaware This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 57. Edward Kruk, Ph.D., Associate Professor, School of Social 80. Ross D. Parke, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of Work, University of British Columbia, Canada Psychology, University of California - Riverside 58. Luciano L’Abate, Ph.D., ABPP, Professor Emeritus (re- 81. Kay Pasley, Ed.D., Norejane Hendrickson Professor and tired), Georgia State University Chair, Department of Family and Child Sciences, Florida State 59. Jeffry Larson, Ph.D., Alumni Professor of Marriage and University Family Therapy, School of Family Life, Brigham Young Univer- 82. Pekka Pere, Ph.D., University Lecturer, Department of So- sity cial Research, University of Helsinki, Finland

(Appendix continues) SOCIAL SCIENCE AND PARENTING PLANS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN 67

83. William S. Pollack, Ph.D., ABPP, Associate Clinical Pro- 98. Seth Schwartz, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of fessor, Harvard Medical School; former President of the Massa- Public Health Sciences, Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine, chusetts Psychological Association University of Miami 84. Debra Ann Poole, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Psychol- 99. Louise Bordeaux Silverstein, Ph.D., former President of the ogy, Central Michigan University American Psychological Association’s Division of Family Psy- 85. Karen J. Prager, Ph.D., ABPP, Professor of Psychology and chology and former Chair of the APA Committee on Women in Program Head in Gender Studies, University of Texas at Dallas Psychology; Professor, Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, 86. Deirdre Rand, Ph.D., Independent Practice, Mill Valley, Yeshiva University California 100. Len Sperry, M.D., Ph.D., ABPP, Clinical Professor of 87. Barbara Risman, Ph.D., Professor and Head, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Medical College of Wiscon- Sociology, University of Illinois at Chicago sin; Professor of Mental Health Counseling, Florida Atlantic Uni- 88. Jaipaul L. Roopnarine, Ph.D., Jack Reilly Professor of Child versity and Family Studies, Syracuse University 101. Howard Steele, Ph.D., Professor and Director of Graduate 89. Hilary A. Rose, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Studies, Department of Psychology, New School for Social Re- Applied Human Sciences, Concordia University, Canada 90. Kevin M. Roy, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of search Family Science, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, 102. Miriam Steele, Ph.D., Professor and Director of Clinical College Park Training, Department of Psychology, New School for Social Re- 91. Abraham Sagi-Schwartz, Ph.D., Director, Center for the search Study of Child Development, and Professor of Psychology, Uni- 103. Catherine S. Tamis-LeMonda, Ph.D., Professor of Applied versity of Haifa, Israel Psychology, New York University 92. John W. Santrock, Ph.D., Professor, School of Behavior and 104. Ross A. Thompson, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Brain Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas Psychology, University of California, Davis 93. S. Richard Sauber, Ph.D., ABPP, Independent Practice, 105. Deborah Lowe Vandell, Ph.D., Professor and Founding Boca Raton, Florida Dean, School of Education, University of California, Irvine 94. David E. Scharff, M.D., Chair of the Board and former 106. Sandra L. Warshak, Ph.D., Clinical Associate Professor, Director, International Psychotherapy Institute; Clinical Professor Department of Psychiatry, Division of Psychology, University of of Psychiatry, Georgetown University; Teaching Analyst, Wash- Texas Southwestern Medical Center; Independent Practice, Dallas, ington Psychoanalytic Institute; Chair, International Psychoana- Texas lytic Association’s Working Group on Family and Couple Psycho- 107. Sharlene A. Wolchik, Ph.D., Professor, Department of analysis; former President, American Association of Sex Psychology, Arizona State University Educators, Counselors and Therapists 108. Abraham C. Worenklein, Ph.D., Professor, Dawson Col- 95. Jill Savege Scharff, M.D., ABPN Board Certified Child lege; Sessional Lecturer, Concordia University, Canada; Indepen- Psychiatrist and APSaA Certified Child Analyst; Co-founder, In- dent Practice, Montreal, Quebec, Canada ternational Psychotherapy Institute; Clinical Professor of Psychi- 109. Lise M. Youngblade, Ph.D., Professor and Department atry, Georgetown University; Supervising analyst, International Head, Human Development and Family Studies; Associate Dean Institute for Psychoanalytic Training, Chevy Chase, Maryland 96. Kate Scharff, M.S.W., Founder and Principal, Collaborative for Research and Graduate Programs, College of Health and Hu- Practice Center of Greater Washington; former President and co- man Sciences, Colorado State University founder, DC Academy of Collaborative Professionals; Faculty and 110. John A. Zervopoulos, Ph.D., J.D., ABPP, PsychologyLaw Co-Founder, Collaborative Practice Training Institute; Indepen- Partners, Dallas, Texas dent Practice, Washington, DC and Bethesda, Maryland 97. David G. Schramm, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Mis- Received November 29, 2013 souri Accepted November 29, 2013 Ⅲ This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law © 2014 American Psychological Association 2014, Vol. 20, No. 1, 46–67 1076-8971/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/law0000005

Social Science and Parenting Plans for Young Children: A Consensus Report

Richard A. Warshak University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, with the endorsement of the researchers and practitioners listed in the Appendix

Keywords: child custody, children’s best interests, joint custody, overnights, shared parenting

Appendix Endorsements From Researchers and Practitioners

(Appendix continues) 66 WARSHAK

(Appendix continues) SOCIAL SCIENCE AND PARENTING PLANS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN 67

The Approximation Rule, Child Development Research, and Children’s Best Interests After Divorce Richard A. Warshak

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas

ABSTRACT—To remedy perceived problems with the best- parent. Under the rule, physical (residential) custody would be interests-of-the-child standard, the American Law Insti- determined by the relative amount of time each parent had tute proposes that in contested custody cases, courts contributed to caretaking prior to the separation. ALI’s prestige allocate custodial time to each parent that approximates ensures that its recommendations receive serious consideration the proportion of time each spent performing caretaking (Emery, Otto, & O’Donohue, 2005; Kelly & Ward, 2002; functions in the past. This article evaluates the goals, Maccoby, 2005). assumptions, and potential benefits of the proposed This article examines the best-interests-of-the-child standard approximation rule in the light of child development and the approximation rule in the light of child development research. It concludes that the rule is unlikely to better research and concludes that the rule is unlikely to accomplish define and secure children’s best interests and recom- its objectives or better serve children’s best interests. It mends more widespread adoption both of uniform criteria proposes that the best-interests standard is preferable when defining the best-interests standard and of reforms that uniform criteria are used in its application and when it is encourage nonadversarial, individualized resolutions of considered in the context of other reforms, endorsed by the custody disputes. Principles, that encourage nonadversarial means of deciding children’s residential schedules. The concerns expressed about KEYWORDS—approximation rule; child custody; divorce; the approximation rule in this article should not, however, custody disputes obscure an appreciation of the Principles’ other recommendations to move the law of family dissolution in a rational direction The prevailing rule for deciding contested custody cases in the through such approaches as a deference to private parenting United States—the best-interests-of-the-child standard—has agreements that are uncoerced and avoid harm to the child, been criticized for being vague and allowing too much judicial individualized written parenting plans, parenting education discretion. In its Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution programs, alternatives to relitigation to resolve postdivorce (hereinafter Principles), the American Law Institute (ALI) disputes, promotion of the child’s meaningful contact with both recommends reform that includes an approximation rule (ALI, parents, and avoiding traditional adversarial terminology asso- 2002, § 2.08 (1)) to govern court decisions in cases where ciated with a win–lose concept of divorce. parents cannot agree on the division of the child’s time with each BEST-INTERESTS STANDARD

Legal standards and presumptions function as default rules Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Richard A. Warshak, 16970 Dallas Parkway, Suite 202, Dallas, when couples are unable to agree on the division of parenting TX 75248; e-mail: [email protected]. responsibilities and take the dispute to court. Even when

# 2007, Copyright the Author(s) Volume 1—Number 2, Pages 119–125 Journal compilation # 2007, Society for Research in Child Development 119 Approximation Rule

parents settle out of court, which they do in the vast majority of adversarial interactions and the likelihood of a custody trial. cases, the prevailing legal standard influences these settlements These parameters include (a) educational programs for parents by creating a negotiating context that allows each side to weigh to help their children adjust to divorce, (b) alternative dispute the other’s offers against the likely result of going to court. resolution options such as mediation and collaborative divorce, With regard to the best-interests standard, critics express four (c) mandatory mediation of cases that have no allegations of main concerns about what they perceive as the standard’s domestic violence, (d) postmediation settlement conferences indeterminancy: that provide another opportunity for out-of-court settlements, (e) use of mental health professionals as evaluators and counselors, 1. The standard encourages couples to litigate rather than (f) specification of factors that define best interests, (g) statutes negotiate because the judicial outcome is too difficult to that define public policy as encouraging children’s frequent and predict (Jellum, 2004). continuing contact with both parents, and (h) a menu of model 2. The ambiguity of the best-interests criteria invites broad parenting time plans that accommodate individual circum- character assassinations rather than a focus on one or more stances (Arizona Supreme Court, 2006). discrete factors. Parents may engage in attempts ‘‘to influence The degree to which these parameters succeed in minimizing the child, the child’s teachers, and others to see the other the drawbacks of the best-interests standard could be measured parent in a negative light’’ (ALI, 2002, § 2.02, comment c). by the degree to which they reduce the rate of custody trials. 3. The standard’s lack of precision allows gender biases and Unfortunately, to date, there have been no studies of the rate of subjective value judgments to replace objective consider- custody trials versus settlement in jurisdictions with and ations. Critics believe that many judges are biased either in without these parameters, and there are no national data on favor of mothers or fathers (Polikoff, 1982; Schafran, 1994) the rate at which custody is decided through trial versus settle- or in favor of those litigants ‘‘whose attributes and values ment. However, it may be possible to extrapolate from a most closely resemble their own’’ (Levy, 1993, p. 194). California study of more than 1,000 families that divorced when 4. The standard provides no objective basis for predicting several of the reforms listed above were in place (Maccoby & which custody arrangements will promote a particular Mnookin, 1992). Usually, custody was either uncontested or child’s best interests (Emery et al., 2005; Tippins & Wittman, decided after negotiations (80%) or was settled through man- 2005). datory mediation (11%) or through negotiations following Despite these criticisms, the best-interests standard has two a custody evaluation or during a trial (7.5%). Only 1.5% of main advantages. The first is that it directs the courts to focus the cases were decided by a judge. The design of the study does explicitly on each child’s specific needs and thereby eschews not allow conclusions about the extent to which the parameters, reliance on gender stereotypes and notions of parental entitle- such as mediation and custody evaluations, contributed to ments. In the view of Schepard (2004), this is ‘‘a great moral a context that induced the high rate of out-of-court settlements, virtue’’ and ‘‘a tribute to our society’s collective sense that although it is clear that the additional 18.5% of settlements were relationships between children and parents are unique and reached during mediation or following a custody evaluation. should be judged individually.’’ Though these results may not generalize to other jurisdictions The second advantage of the best-interests standard is its and other times, they suggest that the best-interests standard, in built-in flexibility. Because it avoids equating any single factor the context of the above parameters (many of which the with children’s best interests, the standard can incorporate new Principles advocates), allows most couples to reach agreements knowledge pertaining to those interests and respond to changing rather than go to trial. Further support for this conclusion comes social and legal trends. For instance, research has shown that from studies that demonstrate that mediation significantly frequent transitions between parents in very high conflict are lowers trial rates (Emery et al., 2005). Such research tempers associated with children’s poorer adjustment, particularly in the concern that the best-interests standard necessarily encour- girls, and especially when the children witness violence ages custody trials. (Johnston, 1995) or are used as pawns in the parents’ conflict (Baker, 2007; Warshak, 2002). Such research has led to best- THE APPROXIMATION RULE interests parenting plans with transitions that reduce contact between hostile parents (Kelly, 2007). To remedy concerns about the best-interests standard, the Principles proposes that, in contested cases, ‘‘the court should CONTEMPORARY APPLICATIONS OF THE BEST- allocate custodial responsibility so that the proportion of INTERESTS STANDARD custodial time the child spends with each parent approximates the proportion of time each parent spent performing caretaking To minimize the drawbacks of the best-interests standard while functions for the child prior to the parents’ separation’’ (ALI, retaining its virtues, many jurisdictions introduce parameters to 2002, § 2.08 (1)). The Principles emphasizes the benefits of out- promote more uniform application of the standard and lessen of-court settlements and advances the approximation rule solely

120 Volume 1—Number 2, Pages 119–125 Richard A. Warshak

as a default rule that applies only to custody decisions decided disputing parents would agree to if they were functioning by a court. rationally and with a realistic view of the future. In addition, In addition, the Principles lists eight factors that trump the the Principles’ analysis does not consider the context of past application of the approximation rule (ALI, 2002, § 2.08 parental decisions. When a couple decides on a homemaker– (1a–h)). These exceptions are invoked to meet such objectives breadwinner division of roles, for example, they are not as ensuring a minimum amount of parenting time set by each necessarily making a long-term agreement that one will give state; accommodating a child’s firm and reasonable preferences; up outside career opportunities and the other will spend less protecting the child’s welfare when there is ‘‘a gross disparity in time with the children despite any changes in family circum- the quality of the emotional attachment between each parent stances. Primary wage earners in the family would most likely and the child or in each parent’s demonstrated ability or argue that the rule does not apply to their situation because of availability to meet the child’s needs’’; accommodating prior the exception to the rule regarding reasonable expectations. agreements, ‘‘including the reasonable expectations of the They did not expect that their role as wage earner would parties, the extent to which they could have reasonably anti- marginalize their postdivorce parental prerogatives (Braver & cipated the events that occurred and their significance’’; and O’Connell, 1998). avoiding ‘‘substantial and almost certain harm to the child.’’ Further, one parent might spend less time with the children The Principles (§ 2.11(1)) cites other circumstances that limit than the other, not because the children are better off in the the rule’s application, including child abuse, domestic violence, other parent’s care but because the other parent acts as substance abuse, and persistent interference with a parent’s a gatekeeper, regulating the scope and amount of contact that access to the child. The Principles anticipates that a past his or her spouse has with the children. Also, in unhappy caretaking standard will offer several benefits over the best- marriages, one spouse commonly spends more time away from interests standard. However, the promise of these benefits may the home (Kelly, 1994). This reduces difficult interactions not be realized in practice. between the parents and, consequently, the overt conflict to which the children might be exposed. Given such conditions, Gender Neutrality the choice to spend more time with the children following the The Principles proposes the approximation rule in gender- separation might be a rational decision rather than one anchored neutral language intended to offer a standard that appears fair in ‘‘emotion-based aspirations.’’ to mothers and fathers, but, in practice, the rule will favor mothers in most cases. Riggs (2005) notes that because more Simplifying, Expediting, and Reducing the Incidence of Custody Trials fathers than mothers work full time outside the home, the The Principles expects the focus on one factor to reduce strategic approximation rule may resemble ‘‘little more than the maternal bargaining, hostile negotiations, and the motivation to take preference standard of the past’’ (p. 489). a case to trial and to simplify and expedite the judicial process The perception of a tilt in favor of mothers is further suggested when trials do occur. Such benefits are unlikely, however, by legal scholars and advisors to ALI’s Principles. Brinig (2001) because disputes are common over how much time each parent believes that ‘‘feminist principles permeate’’ the Principles’ cared for the children and because exceptions to the rule chapter describing the approximation rule, and she devotes provide plenty of focus for litigation, allow as much judicial a section of her article to ‘‘selling’’ the Principles to men. Kay discretion as the best-interests standard, and render the (2002) describes the rule as ‘‘crafted by women’’ and adds that approximation rule indistinguishable from a multifactored test. the list of caretaking functions ‘‘is likely to spell mother in many, Although the Principles strives to avoid an adversarial divorce if not most, households’’ (p. 43). paradigm, it repeatedly describes the rule as requiring the court to ‘‘allocate primary custodial responsibility’’ (e.g., ALI, 2002, § Implications of Parent’s Past Decisions 2.08, illustration 1, § 2.08 comment c, and § 2.08 illustration 5). The Principles states that the approximation rule ‘‘respect[s] the The awarding of ‘‘primary’’ custodial responsibility to one decisions parents have made about their children in the past’’ parent implicitly demotes the other parent to ‘‘secondary’’ (ALI, 2002, § 2.02, comment d) and that it ‘‘may be the most status. Rank ordering parents is likely to fuel discord, partic- reliable proxy for the shares of responsibility they would agree ularly at a time when parents are struggling to preserve their upon if they were focused on their child’’ (ALI, 2002, chap. 1, identity as a parent in the face of the loss of their identity as topic 1, subchapter 2, IIc). In short, it presumes that ‘‘the way a spouse. Schepard (2004) regards this process as ‘‘reminiscent the parents chose to divide responsibility when the family lived of the search for a single psychological parent’’ (p. 169). This together anchors the negotiations in their own lived experience situation can be especially volatile when—as is frequently the rather than in unrealistic or emotion-based aspirations about the case—one parent wants to move the child to another city or state future’’ (ALI, 2002, § 2.08, comment b). In some cases, the because, here too, the Principles favors the parent ‘‘who has parents’ past division of responsibilities does offer valuable been exercising the clear majority of custodial responsibility’’ guidance. In other cases, the past is a poor index of what (ALI, 2002, § 2.17 (4) (a)). Given all the premiums that attach to

Volume 1—Number 2, Pages 119–125 121 Approximation Rule

a designation determined by past caretaking time, this factor claiming gross disparity in the quality of caretaking. It could would certainly become a focus of dispute. also lead more parents to manipulate their children to express The Principles recognizes that disputes about past caretaking preferences and to side with them against the other parent may introduce difficulties in applying the approximation rule because the child’s preference exemption trumps the applica- but expects that disputes over the relative amounts of the tion of the rule if the court judges the preference to be parents’ past child care are easier to resolve objectively than are reasonable. This consequence may be even more likely because those over the parents’ relative ability to meet their children’s the Principles provides no exception for gross disparities in each needs and the quality of their child care. If this expectation were parent’s support of the child’s relationship with the other. grounded in the practical realities of parenting, the outcome of Thus, cases that go before a judge under Principles will trigger litigation might be more predictable and the rule might best-interests type investigations of a wide range of factors, with accomplish its mission of reducing the incidence of trials. the option to order custody evaluations being as likely to be However, tracking parental time devoted to children’s care is exercised under the approximation rule as it is under the best- a dauntingly complex task. (To what degree, for example, does interests standard. For instance, if a parent proffers a child’s a parent’s being available to, as opposed to engaged with, firm preference as an exception to the approximation rule, under offspring qualify as caretaking?) Even with the use of sophis- the Principles the court would have to determine if the ticated methods, sociologists do not agree on contemporaneous preference was ‘‘reasonable.’’ To assist in its determination, measures of parenting time (Budig & Folbre, 2004; Stafford & the court may appoint an expert to examine the reasons for the Yeung, 2005); surely, then, parents in a custody battle will child’s preference and the maturity and independence of the dispute each other’s estimates of past time devoted to caretak- child’s judgment (Warshak, 2003). ing. Making matters even more complicated, parents often Available evidence suggests that a best-interests standard, spend different amounts of time with each child in the family. operating in a context that encourages nonadversarial resolu- In addition, much of the time that parents invest in caretaking tions, is compatible with a very low trial rate. Although this low cannot be measured. For instance, the Principles’ list of rate may leave little margin for significant improvement, given caretaking functions includes ‘‘helping the child to develop the number of divorces, even a small reduction in trials might be and maintain appropriate interpersonal relationships’’ and considered a substantial benefit. Whether or not the approxi- ‘‘providing moral and ethical guidance’’ (ALI, 2002, § 2.03 mation rule brings such a benefit remains a topic for empirical (5)). The time each parent spent instilling social skills and moral research. But a clear-cut default rule does not necessarily values cannot be reduced to the time each parent spent lecturing reduce the incidence of trials. A primary caretaker preference the child in these areas. Similarly, it is impossible to quantify in Minnesota produced ‘‘a frenzy of litigation’’ that two authors the time a parent spends providing children with an atmosphere who support the preference attribute to an overly loose and in which they feel physically protected (Warshak, 2007). flexible application (Crippen & Stuhlman, 2001). Similarly, Further, in giving primacy to past caretaking, the Principles Oregon’s experience with a default joint custody presumption, does not take into practical account the kinds of changes that are assuring children of frequent and continuing contact with both likely to occur in family functioning after a divorce and the parents, led to unanticipated consequences, such as increases effects that these changes may have on parenting time. Most in the number of abuse actions and postdivorce custody motions mothers who spent proportionally more time with children either (Allen & Brinig, 2005). enter or reenter the workforce or work longer hours away from home, yet the approximation rule makes no allowance for such The Rule as a Proxy for Quality of Parent–Child Relationships predictable changes. For separations that occur when children The Principles expects the approximation rule to reduce are preschoolers, the rule freezes the allocation of custodial time indeterminancy and simultaneously provide a reasonable at a level that maximizes the difference in the amount of time the proxy for factors related to a child’s best interests. It asserts children spend with each parent, additionally failing to recog- that the past division of caretaking provides ‘‘a relatively nize that even if the family were to remain intact, there would be concrete point of reference which is likely to reflect various a significant reduction in the difference when the children qualitative factors that are otherwise very hard to measure, entered elementary school. including the strength of the emotional ties between the child In cases that go to trial, the issues in dispute are the same and each parent, relative parental competencies, and the issues that the Principles lists as exceptions to the approxima- willingness of each parent to put the child’s interests first’’ tion rule (Parkinson, 2006). Anecdotal observations suggest that (ALI, 2002, chap. 1, topic 1, subchapter 2, IIc). Another the same holds true in most cases that reach a custody evaluator assumption is that the division ofpastcaretakingcorrelates and in all cases that proceed to trial following the evaluation well with ‘‘the quality of each parent’s emotional attachment (Warshak, 2007). Indeed, for litigants who believe that the past to the child’’ (ALI, 2002, § 2.08, comment b). caretaking standard works against them, the approximation rule Evidence from a variety of studies suggests that there is little creates an incentive to invoke one of the exceptions, such as relationship between the quantity of caretaking and its quality.

122 Volume 1—Number 2, Pages 119–125 Richard A. Warshak

Summarizing the results of multiple studies, Lamb (1997) § 2.08, comment b). Nevertheless, the Principles places a clear concludes that ‘‘the amount of time spent together is a poor priority on maintaining the stability of the child’s relationship predictor of the quality of the infant’s relationship with either with the parent who is designated the primary caretaker: ‘‘[T]he mother or father’’ (p. 4). Further evidence for the lack of parents’ separation may make it necessary for them to change relationship between caretaking quantity and quality comes their work schedules and rearrange other obligations. The from studies that show comparable adjustment of children in the inevitability of such changes, however, makes it all the more custody of mothers and fathers who did not have the majority of desirable that there be stability as to those matters the court can custodial responsibility in the marriage (Warshak, 1986). In affect, especially the child’s relationships with the primary addition, a child can spend more time with, and have a stronger caretaker’’ (ALI, 2002, § 2.08, comment b). tie to, the parent who is less equipped to meet his or her needs, In contrast, the best-interests standard assigns no priority to and there is no evidence that parents who spend more time either parent–child relationship. In some cases, a court- interacting with their children do so more competently. A imposed residential schedule will resemble an approximation parent’s excessive involvement in caretaking, for example, rule outcome. In other cases, the schedule may increase the can inhibit the child from developing an age-appropriate sense proportion of time with a parent to accommodate postdivorce of autonomy (Stearns, 2003), and parents can be highly effective changes and to offset the loss of daily contact. The best- issuing firm appropriate limits with minimal conversation, just interests standard employs this flexibility; the approximation as parents can be ineffective engaging in lengthy explanations rule does not. (Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1979). The Principles’ emphasis on preserving the child’s relation- Contrary to the quantitative standards proposed by the ship with the primary caretaker may be influenced by research Principles, developmental psychologists strongly agree that with children in sole custody arrangements. In general, this the impact of the parent–child relationship is better predicted research reports a relatively high correlation between children’s by the parent’s sensitivity and responsiveness to the child’s positive adjustment after divorce and the psychological adjust- needs than by the amount of parent–child interaction (Kelly, ment and quality of parenting provided by the residential parent 2007; Lamb, 2002). In line with this view, Kelly (2005) faults (see Kelly & Emery, 2003, for a review of this literature). In the approximation rule for failing to ‘‘consider the quality and addition, some developmental psychologists see children as meaning of children’s relationship with each parent, the age and having a more salient attachment to one parent than to the other developmental needs of children, or the substantial changes in (Biringen et al., 2002), a view that would support an approach parental role and function necessarily precipitated by the focused on preserving the stability of the child’s relationship separation of the parents’’ (p. 241). with one parent even at the expense of the relationship with the Although the Principles assumes that past parenting time other parent. Whatever its inspiration, the Principles’ emphasis provides a rough estimate of past parenting quality, the on a primary caretaker, in practice, risks undermining its own emphasis on quantity as opposed to quality is apparent to declared valuing of both parents after the divorce, a valuing that Bartlett, the Principles’ reporter, who notes that ‘‘the ALI has widespread consensus among developmental researchers past-caretaking standard . . . is indifferent to the nature of the (e.g., Lamb, Sternberg, & Thompson, 1997). past-caretaking arrangements’’ (Bartlett, 2002, p. 18). The Prin- The importance of preserving high-quality relationships with ciples’ strongest argument on behalf of the approximation rule is both parents is highlighted by research that documents the that all legal reforms involve trade-offs between multifactored, deterioration of postdivorce father–child relationships (Biller, nuanced, and individualized decision making and ease of 1993; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Zill, Morrison, & Coiro, administration. But without further research, the suggestion that 1993) and the benefits of greater father involvement (Clarke- the approximation rule would be easier to administer than Stewart & Hayward, 1996; Kelly, 2005, 2007; Lamb et al., 1997; a contemporary best-interests standard is speculative. Even if it Warshak, 2000; Warshak & Santrock, 1983). With respect to is easier, when legislators weigh the potential of the approxima- the relationship between children’s adjustment and frequency tion rule to streamline family court cases, they should not assume of contact with fathers (which is different from amount and type that past caretaking is an objective index of the strength of of contact), the literature is inconsistent, but the benefits of a child’s attachment to a parent, the quality of the relationships, father involvement, especially for boys, are most apparent the competence of the parent, the ability of the parent to meet the when the mother values the father–child relationship, the child’s needs, or the motivation of the parent to do so. children witness little overt conflict between parents, and the father is reasonably well adjusted, supportive, and authorita- Promoting Stable Parent–Child Relationships tive (Amato & Rezac, 1994; Kelly, 2007). Other factors that The Principles values the importance of both parents, calls for mediate the impact of father–child contact are the length of the a minimum presumptive amount of parenting time, and asserts contacts, the types of activities that fathers share with their that the approximation rule ‘‘is calculated to preserve the children, and whether the contact disrupts the children’s social greatest degree of stability in the child’s life’’ (ALI, 2002, lives and extracurricular activities.

Volume 1—Number 2, Pages 119–125 123 Approximation Rule

Although across studies, active involvement by competent caretaking—to make the outcome of disputes more predictable divorced fathers is linked to more positive adjustment in and reduce the incidence of custody trials. Proponents expect children, the effect size revealed by meta-analysis is relatively the rule to simplify the court’s investigation by serving as an small (Amato & Gilbreth, 1999), perhaps due to mediating objective index for other factors relevant to children’s best factors and to inconsistent research findings related to the use of interests, such as parental competence and motivation and the different measures of involvement. However, additional support quality of parent–child relationships. for giving greater weight to involvement than to contact comes The limited evidence does not support the premise that the from a Department of Education survey of nearly 17,000 best-interests standard encourages high rates of litigation, and children (Nord, Brimhall, & West, 1997). Reporting an associ- there is no evidence that the approximation rule will make ation between fathers’ greater participation in school activities a significant dent in the already low rate of custody trials. In and their children’s better grades and behavior, the study addition to the difficulties in measuring past caretaking time, concluded, ‘‘It is not contact, per se, that is important, but the exceptions to the rule provide much opportunity for rather other dimensions of involvement that go along with litigation and would override the rule in cases that go before contact that are beneficial to children’s lives. Indeed, contact the court. Even if the rule yields more predictable results, it is may be a mixed blessing if the contact is enough to tantalize incorrect to assume that past caretaking correlates with qual- children but not enough to satisfy.’’ Based on her review, Kelly itative factors. A rule that reduces the intricate rhythms of (2005) concludes: ‘‘[I]t seems apparent that children’s contacts a family’s life to an estimate of only those behaviors that can be with their adequate and interested fathers should occur during quantified will not reduce the court’s need for a comprehensive some part of each school week, as well as on alternate weekends, investigation of all relevant factors. A better alternative is resulting in, more time with their children than has been a best-interests standard with reforms that allow for more possible with the alternating weekend schedule’’ (p. 247). uniform and predictable decisions in litigated cases, retain Because of its exclusive emphasis on past caretaking, the the benefits to children of individualized decision making, and application of the approximation rule can result in decisions accommodate new knowledge about the individual child, as well far removed from such optimal parenting plans. as about child development in general. Studies of children living in joint custody homes also support the importance of stability of relationships with both parents. Bauserman’s (2002) meta-analysis of 33 studies reported better REFERENCES adjustment for these children compared with that of children in sole custody, regardless of the level of parental strife. Advocates Allen, D. W., & Brinig, M. F. (2005, October). Bargaining in the may wish to site this research in support of replacing the best- shadow of joint parenting (University of Iowa Legal Studies interests standard with a default rule dividing the child’s time Research Paper No. 05-25). Retrieved February 27, 2007, from between homes equally, but most of the joint custody studies http://ssrn.com/abstract=820104 involved families in which the division of time between homes Amato, P., & Gilbreth, J. (1999). Nonresident fathers and children’s was not necessarily equal. In addition, joint custody was well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 557–573. decided by agreement of the parents and not imposed by the Amato, P., & Rezac, S. (1994). Contact with residential parents, court. The same factors that play a role in parents’ agreeing to interparental conflict, and children’s behavior. Journal of joint custody may also contribute to the outcomes in these Family Issues, 15, 557–573. families (see Braver & O’Connell, 1998; Gunnoe & Braver, American Law Institute. (2002). Principles of the law of family dis- 2001, for opposing views). solution: Analysis and recommendations. Newark, NJ: Matthew Public policies that encourage children’s involvement with Bender. both parents after divorce are consistent with the scientific Arizona Supreme Court. (2006). Model parenting time plans for parent/child access. Retrieved February 27, 2007, from literature. They define one aspect of children’s best interests http://www.supreme.state.az.us/dr/Text/ModelPTPlans.htm and establish an important context for custody negotiations. An Baker, A. J. L. (2007). Adult children of parental alienation syndrome: equal-time presumption, though, carries the same liabilities of Breaking the ties that bind. New York: W.W. Norton. any presumption that elevates a single factor (e.g., gender, past Bartlett, K. T. (2002). U.S. custody law and trends in the context of caretaking, or children’s preferences) above all others. the ALI Principles of the law of family dissolution. Virginia Journal of Social Policy and Law, 10, 5–53. Bauserman, R. (2002). Child adjustment in joint-custody versus sole-custody arrangements: A meta-analytic review. Journal of CONCLUSIONS Family Psychology, 16, 91–102. Biller, H. B. (1993). Fathers and families: Paternal factors in child As a default rule for custody disputes, the approximation rule development. Westport, CN: Auburn House. explicitly eschews an investigation of multiple factors relevant Biringen, Z., Greve-Spees, J., Howard, W., Leigh, D., Tanner, L., to a child’s best interests. Instead, it relies on one factor—past Moore, S., et al. (2002). Commentary on Warshak’s ‘‘Blanket

124 Volume 1—Number 2, Pages 119–125 Richard A. Warshak

restrictions: Overnight contact between parents and young Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Thompson, R. A. (1997). The effects children.’’ Family Court Review, 40, 204–207. of divorce and custody arrangements on children’s behavior, Braver, S. L., & O’Connell, D. (1998). Divorced dads: Shattering the development, and adjustment. Family and Conciliation Courts myths. New York: Tarcher/Putnam. Review, 35, 393–404. Brinig, M. F. (2001). Feminism and child custody under chapter two Levy, R. J. (1993). Rights and responsibilities for extended family of the American Law Institute’s Principles of the law of family members? Family Law Quarterly, 27, 191–212. dissolution. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 8, 301–321. Maccoby, E. E. (2005). A cogent case for a new child custody Budig, M., & Folbre, N. (2004). Activity, proximity, or responsibility? standard. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6, i–ii. Measuring parental childcare time. In N. Folbre & M. Bittman Maccoby, E. E., & Mnookin, R. H. (1992). Dividing the child: Social (Eds.), Family time: The social organization of care (pp. 51–68). and legal dilemmas of custody. Cambridge, MA: Harvard New York: Routledge. University Press. Clarke-Stewart, K. A., & Hayward, C. (1996). Advantages of father Nord, C., Brimhall, D., & West, J. (1997). Fathers’ involvement in custody and contact for the psychological well-being of school- their children’s schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of age children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 17, Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 239–270. Parkinson, P. (2006). The past caretaking standard in comparative Crippen, G. L., & Stuhlman, S. M. (2001). Minnesota’s alternatives to perspective. In R. F. Wilson (Ed.), Reconceiving the family: primary caretaker placements: Too much of a good thing? Critique on the American Law Institute’s. Principles of the law of William Mitchell Law Review, 28, 677–695. family dissolution (pp. 446–471). New York: Cambridge Uni- Emery, R. E., Otto, R. K., & O’Donohue, W. T. (2005). A critical versity Press. assessment of child custody evaluations: Limited science and Polikoff, N. (1982). Why mothers are losing: A brief analysis of a flawed system. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6,1–29. criteria used in child custody determinations. Women’s Rights Gunnoe, M. L., & Braver, S. L. (2001). The effects of joint legal Law Reporter, 7, 235–243. custody on mothers, fathers, and children controlling for factors Riggs, S. A. (2005). Is the approximation rule in the child’s best that predispose a sole material versus joint legal award. Law & interests? A critique from the perspective of attachment theory. Human Behavior, 25, 25–43. Family Court Review, 43, 481–493. Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1979). Family interactions Schafran, L. H. (1994). Gender bias in family courts. Family and the social, emotional, and cognitive development of children Advocate, 17, 22–28. following divorce. In V. C. Vaughan & T. B. Brazleton (Eds.), Schepard, A. (2004). Children, courts, and custody: Interdisciplinary The family: Setting priorities (pp. 71–88). New York: Science models for divorcing families. New York: Cambridge University and Medicine. Press. Hetherington, E. M., & Kelly, J. (2002). For better or for worse: Stafford, F., & Yeung, W. J. (2005). The distribution of children’s Divorce reconsidered. New York: W.W. Norton. developmental resources. In D. S. Hamermesh & G. A. Pfann Jellum, L. (2004). Parents know best: Revising our approach (Eds.), Economics of time use (pp. 289–313). Amsterdam: to parental custody agreements. Ohio State Law Journal, 65, Elsevier. 615–657. Stearns, P. N. (2003). Anxious parents: A history of modern child- Johnston, J. R. (1995). Research update: Children’s adjustment in rearing in America. New York: New York University. sole custody compared to joint custody families and principles Tippins, T. M., & Wittman, J. P. (2005). Empirical and ethical problems for custody decision making. Family and Conciliation Courts with custody recommendations: A call for clinical humility and Review, 33, 415–425. judicial vigilance. Family Court Review, 43, 193–222. Kay, H. H. (2002). No-fault divorce and child custody: Chilling out Warshak, R. A. (1986). Father-custody and child development: A the gender wars. Family Law Quarterly, 36, 27–47. review and analysis of psychological research. Behavioral Kelly, J. B. (1994). The determination of child custody. Future of Sciences & the Law, 4, 185–202. Children, 4, 121–142. Warshak, R. A. (2000). Social science and children’s best interests in Kelly, J. B. (2005). Developing beneficial parenting plan models for relocation cases: Burgess revisited. Family Law Quarterly, 34, children following separation and divorce. Journal of the 83–113. American Academy of Matrimonial Law, 19, 237–254. Warshak, R. A. (2002). Divorce poison: Protecting the parent-child bond Kelly, J. B. (2007). Children’s living arrangements following separa- from a vindictive ex. New York: HarperCollins. tion and divorce: Insights from empirical and clinical research. Warshak, R. A. (2003). Payoffs and pitfalls of listening to children. Family Process, 46, 35–52. Family Relations, 53, 373–384. Kelly, J. B., & Emery, R. E. (2003). Children’s adjustment following Warshak, R. A. (2007). Punching the parenting time clock: The divorce: Risk and resilience perspectives. Family Relations, 52, approximation rule, social science, and the baseball bat kids. 352–362. Family Court Review, 45, 600–619. Kelly, R. F., & Ward, S. L. (2002). Allocating custodial responsibilities at Warshak, R. A., & Santrock, J. W. (1983). The impact of divorce in divorce: Social science research and the American Law Institute’s father-custody and mother-custody homes: The child’s perspec- approximation rule. Family Court Review, 40, 350–370. tive. In L. A. Kurdek (Ed.), Children and divorce (pp. 29–46). Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (1997). The role of the father in child development San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. Zill, N., Morrison, D. R., & Coiro, M. J. (1993). Long-term effects of Lamb, M. E. (2002). Placing children’s interests first: Developmen- parental divorce on parent-child relationships, adjustment, and tally appropriate parenting plans. Virginia Journal of Social achievement in young adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, Policy and Law, 10, 98–119. 7, 91–103.

Volume 1—Number 2, Pages 119–125 125 This article was downloaded by: [Northcentral University] On: 17 August 2014, At: 13:13 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Child Custody Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjcc20 The Chameleon Child: Children as Actors in the High Conflict Divorce Drama Benjamin D. Garber a a HealthyParent.com , Nashua , New Hampshire Published online: 14 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: Benjamin D. Garber (2014) The Chameleon Child: Children as Actors in the High Conflict Divorce Drama, Journal of Child Custody, 11:1, 25-40, DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2014.892805 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2014.892805

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions Journal of Child Custody, 11:25–40, 2014 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1537-9418 print=1537-940X online DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2014.892805

The Chameleon Child: Children as Actors in the High Conflict Divorce Drama

BENJAMIN D. GARBER HealthyParent.com, Nashua, New Hampshire

Contemporary theory asserts that children become triangulated into their parents’ conflicts due to alienation, estrangement, and enmeshment. These dynamics account for some children’s alliance with one parent and rejection of the other. The present article suggests that the child’s innate need to adapt and the caregivers’ corresponding needs for confirmation together create an additional dynamic that must be considered as part of any family system evaluation. The ‘‘chameleon child’’ engages in necessary and natural short-term adaptive behaviors at unknown developmental costs. An observational protocol is described with which evaluators can begin to distinguish among these dynamics. Case illustrations are provided.

KEYWORDS divorce, custody, alienation, estrangement, enmeshment, attachment, adaptation

Research, theory, and hard-won experience have converged to suggest that a child’s polarized position within the high conflict family is commonly determined by multiple factors (Friedlander & Walters, 2010; Garrity & Baris, 1994; Johnston, Roseby, & Kuehnle, 2009; Meier, 2010). Seldom is the child’s Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:13 17 August 2014 alliance with Parent A and rejection of Parent B the exclusive result of one adult’s actions. Instead, evaluators and courts are now learning to ask how each of several specific dynamics co-determine the quality of the child’s familial relationships and, on this basis, how best to assure that the child has the opportunity to enjoy a healthy relationship with both parents. Among these dynamics are the child’s experience of domestic violence, alienation, estrangement, and enmeshment. The present article suggests that the child’s own behavior within the conflicted family system must be

Address correspondence to Benjamin D. Garber, Ph.D., 400 Amherst Street, Suite 407, Nashua, NH 03063. E-mail: [email protected]

25 26 B. D. Garber

considered as yet another relevant factor; that the child is, in fact, an active participant in the family’s turmoil. The child’s natural and necessary need to adapt to the caregiving environment is described as prompting some children, caught in the midst of warring parents, to behave in a chameleon-like manner. These ‘‘chameleon children’’ change their emotional colors so as fit in to each of two very disparate environments. When Parent A misinterprets the chameleon child’s contextually-determined words and behavior as confirming and validating his or her negative beliefs about Parent B, conflict needlessly escalates to the detriment of all.

INTRA-FAMILIAL DYNAMICS OF HIGH CONFLICT DIVORCE

In recent decades, family law has made significant strides understanding and evaluating the dynamics of high conflict custody litigation. In particular, the introduction of the concept of alienation has opened many courts’ eyes to the complex and often destructive dynamics at work within families in transition and their impact on child-parent relationships. Of course, controversy about the nature of alienation has incited painful professional schisms not yet entirely healed, but the dispute has both deepened and broadened the discussion (Gardner, 2004; Kelly & Johnston, 2001). As a result, alienation is now generally conceptualized as one among several commonly co-occurring family system dynamics, all of which must be evaluated if one is to presume to serve the best interests of any particular child (Fidler & Bala, 2010).

Alienation, Estrangement, and Enmeshment Children’s relationship with their parents must be understood as potentially impacted by a number of intrafamilial pressures. Alienation describes the child’s experience of Parent A’s negative emotions, words, and behaviors regarding Parent B, such that the child resists or rejects contact with Parent B without objective cause (Garber, 2004a; Kelly & Johnston, 2001). Estrangement or realistic rejection describes the child’s resistance to or rejection of Parent B due to direct experience of Parent B’s relatively insensitive, unresponsive, or Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:13 17 August 2014 inappropriate caregiving behaviors (Drozd & Olesen, 2004; Lee & Olesen, 2001). Enmeshment describes a corruption of roles and boundaries between the child and Parent A, such that the child is, for example, enlisted as that parent’s ally or caregiver (Garber, 2011). The enmeshed dyad often resists separation, contributing not only to the child’s resistance to contact with Parent B, but to other age-appropriate activities as well.

Domestic Violence The immediate and developmental impacts of the child’s experience of violence between caregivers has been well-documented (Hardesty, The Chameleon Child 27

Haselschwerdt, & Johnson, 2012; Jaffe, Crooks, & Bala, 2009). Some authors have suggested that the child’s experience of parental violence is one factor to be considered relevant to estrangement and part of a larger hybrid model (Drozd & Olesen, 2004; Fidler & Bala, 2010; Friedlander & Walters, 2010).1 Others have argued, instead, that a determination of domestic violence is sufficient to explain a child’s rejection of Parent B and thereby to preclude consideration of alienation Meier (2010).2

INTRAFAMILIAL CONFLICT AS A CYBERNETIC SYSTEM

Describing how these multiple pressures co-occur over time and in the context of the larger family system challenges the linear, logical, cause-effect structure of our language. In fact, the dynamics of even the most basic system can take on the circularity of an Escher print and the complexity of predicting a weather pattern (Stroud, Durbin, Wilson, & Mendelsohn, 2011). Where the insoluble chicken-egg system has only two elements, the family system has at least three (Parent A, Parent B, child), each of which simultaneously serves as both cause and effect of its internal dynamics, thereby creating a cybernetic system. As the number of players increase (e.g., siblings, new partners, grandparents), the number of relationships and subsystems grows exponen- tially and so, too, does the complexity of the system. More than defying description, however, the complexity of the family system defies the court’s accustomed search for guilt and innocence, perpetrator and victim, and hero and villain. Recognizing the number and complexity of the dynamics at work suggests that there is seldom a good guy or a bad guy. One is left to understand the child, instead, living in the midst of a maelstrom of conflicted needs, emotions, behaviors, and perceptual biases.

THE CHAMELEON CHILD

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:13 17 August 2014 As it presently stands, the child caught in the midst of parental conflict is often cast as a passive recipient of the pressures imposed by alienation, estrangement, enmeshment, and domestic violence; a blank slate upon which caregivers write their respective and conflicting agendas. The child is credited with adapting to these pressures, perhaps by accommodating internal working models of attachment figures (Garber, 2004a). However, these adaptations are seldom considered as they feedback into and themselves contribute to the family’s ongoing dynamics. The resulting emphasis on the adults’ behavior as causes of the child’s distress is characteristic of the court’s guilt-versus-innocence, perpetrator-victim heritage, but neglects entirely the child’s active contribution to the system’s dynamics. 28 B. D. Garber

In fact, from at least birth on, children bring idiosyncratic needs and behaviors to the family which shape the group’s dynamics no less than those of the adults and which, in turn, shape the child’s needs and need expression. Chief among these needs and pervasive throughout the course of development is the evolutionary imperative to adapt to the caregiving environment. Attachment theory describes how children adapt their behavior uniquely to each of their caregivers so as to maximize safety and the opportunity for nurturance. John Bowlby (1969=1982), the father of attachment theory, suggested that, beginning early in infancy, the child gradually builds an internal working model of the experience with each caregiver so as to better anticipate that caregiver’s likely behavior and thereby get the child’s needs ful- filled. Thus, ‘‘secure,’’ ‘‘insecure,’’ and ‘‘disorganized’’ attachments (and the subtypes thereof) do not reflect attributes of the child like height or weight or intelligence, but instead describe how the child has adapted to a particular caregiving relationship. This point is made time and again by reference to studies of children’s attachment relationships with each of their two parents: The quality of a child’s attachment to the mother is independent of the quality of the attachment to the father (Brown, Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, & Neff, 2010; Caldera & Lindsey, 2006; Freeman, Newland, & Coyl, 2010; Main & Weston, 1981). Nowhere is this fact more dramatically illustrated than among children whose parents are intractably conflicted.3 The adaptive demands faced by a child forced to migrate between disparate and warring caregivers can be overwhelming. Smart (2002) speaks of these children, ‘‘ ...moving not simply from one house to another, but from one emotional landscape to another’’ (p. 311). No sooner has this child settled into the routines and expectations of one home, the schedule demands another transition. Where caregiver consistency and mutual support would otherwise lay the foundation for the emergence of the child’s identity, caregiver conflict and discontinuity can compromise the child’s behavior, sense of self, and even sense of reality (Bornovalova, Blazei, Malone, McGue, & Iacono, 2013; Miller, 2001). This child is at risk for learning to cope in a chameleon-like manner, constantly changing emotional Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:13 17 August 2014 colors to fit into the proximal caregiving environment. The chameleon child’s stories are contradictory over time, varying with the caregiving environment. Interviewed in father’s care, this child will sing his praises and recite mom’s failings. Interviewed in mother’s care, the same child will vilify dad. Confronting the chameleon child’s contradictions is likely to elicit denials (and make you wonder if you misunderstood), indignation, obfuscation, or even dissociation (Helm, Snow, Triplett, Morgan, & Lambert, 2007; Silberg, 2013).4,5 In its present formulation, the hybrid model would likely attribute this child’s contradictions to alienation, concluding that the proximal parent must be selfishly scripting the child’s words. Although this hypothesis is plausible The Chameleon Child 29

and must be evaluated, one risks doing harm by neglecting to consider other mutually compatible hypotheses. Among these is the chameleon-like effect of the child’s need to adapt to the immediate caregiving environment, a phenomenon known as social referencing (Dunne & Askew, 2013). Social referencing describes the child’s inherent tendency to take approach-avoidance cues from a proximal caregiver’s behavior, emotions, and physiological state (Cigala & Venturelli, 2011; De Rosnay, Cooper, Tsigaras, & Murray, 2006; Dickstein, Thompson, Estes, Malkin, & Lamb, 1984; Mumme & Fernald, 1996). The phenomenon has been reliably observed among infant- and toddler-parent dyads (Aktar, Majdandzˇic´, de Vente, & Bo¨gels, 2013; Fusaro & Harris, 2013), as a factor in the development of anxiety in school-aged children (Mo¨ller, Majdandzˇic´, Vriends, & Bo¨gels, 2013), and in adult risk-taking behavior (Parkinson, Phiri, & Simons, 2012). The otherwise innate and universal predisposition to social referencing has been found deficient among children diagnosed on the autistic spectrum (Cornew, Dobkins, Akshoomoff, McCleery, & Carver, 2012) and with Down’s syndrome (Kasari, Freeman, Mundy, & Sigman, 1995).

CASE ILLUSTRATION

Michael and Susan were back in court on yet another post-divorce motion for contempt. Susan argued that Michael continued to defy the parenting plan, keeping 5-year-old Abby long after she was due to be returned to her mother’s care. In fact, Michael acknowledged his behavior, but reported that Abby tearfully refused to return to her mother. He argued that he was only respecting the child’s wishes and assured the court that Abby’s resistance certainly revealed the mother’s mistreatment, therefore prompting his request for full custody. Susan informed the court that Michael’s claim was ludicrous. Abby hated to go with her father, complaining that he was mean and spent all of his time with his new girlfriend. A custody evaluation ensued, including interviews with Abby transported to the evaluator’s office on one occasion by her mother and on a second occasion by her father. Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:13 17 August 2014 The evaluator found that the parents’ seemingly mutually exclusive reports were, in fact, both accurate. The little girl plainly wanted to stay ‘‘forever’’ in the care of whichever parent had delivered her to the interview.6 She offered only vague and insubstantial complaints about the absent parent on each occasion, and always in language appropriate to her age. Her distress was obviously real, even if her complaints were contradictory. Confronted with these contradictions, Abby first became silly and then started sucking her thumb. In his report to the court, the evaluator acknowledged the possibility that the two parents were each prompting their little girls’ complaints about one another in a manner consistent with alienation, but he concluded that 30 B. D. Garber

the more likely explanation was that Abby simply wanted her family reunited. He recommended family therapy, including alternating meetings between mother and child, and father and child in order to shore up the boundaries within and between the child’s two family groups. He also recommended a facilitated co-parenting intervention (Garber, 2004b) intended to improve the consistency of parenting between the two homes.

CONFIRMATIONAL BIAS

We are prone to see what we expect to see. This phenomenon has been demonstrated in areas of psychology as diverse as vocational counseling (Wright-McDougal & Toriello, 2013), forensic psychological assessment (Kassin, Dror, & Kukucka, 2013), clinical intervention with anxiety (Remmerswaal, Huijding, Bouwmeester, Brouwer, & Muris, 2014), and as a function of anger (Young, Tiedens, Jung, & Tsai, 2011). Cautioning custody evaluators against the natural tendency to confirm one’s expectations, Gould and Martindale (2007) advise that, ‘‘[U]ncovering information that supports one’s initial impressions is inherently gratifying, while uncovering information that calls into question one’s initial impressions generates discomfort’’ (p. 87). Courts and custody evaluators must recognize that this wisdom applies to the families that we evaluate at every level of analysis, from the dynamics within the individual, to evaluation of each dyad, to an understanding of the family system as a whole and the family as a part of a larger social system (Johnston & Campbell, 1988). The parents who are evaluated are no less prone to see and hear what they expect Rashomon-like than we are our- selves (Davenport, 2010).7 Indeed, to the extent that the win-lose mentality of the court system and the intense emotions inherent in family transition and contested custody litigation are regressive influences on otherwise mature adult functioning, custody litigants are likely to be far less objective observers than most. Thus, in the same way that we are vulnerable to interpret test data consistent with pre-existing beliefs (Ben Shakhar, Bar Hillel, Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:13 17 August 2014 Bilu, & Shefler, 1998) and distort our recall of critical incidents (Harley, Carlsen, & Loftus, 2004), we must understand and expect that custody litigants interpret and report their children’s words and actions consistent with their own needs. Many high conflict divorcing parents cope with the stresses of the process by seeking external vindication or confirmation (Hoppe, 1997; Saposnek & Rose, 1990). The experience of real and threatened loss associated with divorce coupled with the promise of public defamation by someone who was once beloved, together with an attorney’s encouragement to produce case-conclusive (if not partner-eviscerating) evidence is strong motivation to see a child’s every action and posture and complaint The Chameleon Child 31

as vindication. Examples are epidemic and familiar to every courtroom. One parent contends that her 2-year-old being upset at transition is conclusive evidence that dad is abusive. Another argues that her grade school son’s bandaged knees should be reported to Child Protective Services. A third sees his teenage daughter’s interest in dating as a reflection of his mother’s promiscuity and confirmation of the estranged wife’s infidelity. These and countless similar allegations require thorough evaluation, but they are most parsimoniously understood as the child’s age-appropriate behaviors (Garber, 1996). It is the parent’s confirmational bias and need to feel vindi- cated that risks making mountains out of molehills at tremendous cost to all involved.

CASE ILLUSTRATION

George and Martha had been married for 7 years when their simmering conflict erupted into violence. George moved out and a torturous custody battle commenced, marked by frequent ex parte motions. Temporary orders placed 4-year-old Cassie in her mother’s primary care and granted her father alternate weekend periods of care. Martha lost the battle for supervised father- daughter contact, only heightening her anxiety over the little girl’s safety in the company of a man whom she had recently come to view as impulsive and dangerous. Cassie returned from her father’s care one Sunday evening excited about the weekend just past. Martha later reported to the police that the child said, ‘‘Daddy showed me all about sex!’’ Terrified that her worst nightmares had come true, Martha contacted her lawyer. Child Protective Services were alerted. Mom’s ex parte motion was granted, temporarily suspending dad’s contact with his daughter. The little girl was subjected to confusing and painful examinations by doctors and serial interviews conducted by Child Protective Services and the area Child Advocacy Center. Many weeks and thousands of dollars and immeasurable stresses later, the full story finally came to light. In her entirely age-appropriate manner, the

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:13 17 August 2014 4-year-old had been excited by a field trip she had taken with her father to the local entomology museum. Daddy had eagerly shared his knowledge about bugs and caterpillars and butterflies. Cassie’s mother was so ready to hear that her former partner was abusive that she heard the little girl’s poorly articulated, innocent enthusiasm about ‘‘in-sects’’ as certain evidence of abuse.

EVALUATING THE CHAMELEON CHILD

The evaluator tasked to determine the causes of a child’s alliance with Parent A and rejection of Parent B faces a tremendously complex challenge. Drozd and 32 B. D. Garber

Olesen (2004) and Meier (2010) have, among others, recommended decision trees shaped by their respective views of the frequency, significance, and interaction of alienation, estrangement, enmeshment, and domestic violence. The evaluator who seeks to understand the chameleon child’s words and actions as evidence of alienation in the belief that Parent A has scripted the child’s words, as estrangement in the belief that the child’s resistance to Parent B is justified and perhaps a response to experiences of violence in the home, or as enmeshment in the belief that the fault lies in the breakdown of healthy parent-child boundaries risks throwing gasoline on the family fire. Any one or more of these more familiar pressures may be at work, but none singly or in combination adequately captures the chameleon child’s impact on the conflicted system. What is clear is that none of these dynamics can be adequately identified in the child or in the parent, per se. The relationship pressures which bear on the child’s position in the conflicted and changing family system can only be observed in the relationships themselves and as functioning at multiple levels within the family system (Bancroft & Silverman, 2004; Drozd & Olesen, 2004; Garber, 1996, 2004a; Johnston, 2003; Johnston, Walters, & Olesen, 2005; Lee & Olesen, 2001; Ludolph & Bow, 2012; Waldron & Joanis, 1996). Thus, while interview and assessment of each individual member of the system provides critical history and perspective, the evaluator must seek to understand each dyad (Parent A-Parent B, Parent A-child, Parent B-child) and the entire system (Parent A-child-Parent B) as critical components of the overall analysis. Recognizing that some children adapt, chameleon-like, to the proximal caregiving environment, the evaluator must control this factor across observations in the same manner that science dictates control of any independent variable. At the very least, this means interviewing the child once while in each parent’s care with special attention to whether and how the child’s presentation changes as a function of social context. Balanced interviews across caregiving contexts (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, 2006) and standardized child interview methods (e.g., Garber, 2007) are necessary and will sometimes be sufficient to consider the extent to which the child’s responses are specific to the two distinct caregiver contexts. Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:13 17 August 2014

THE CHAMELEON CHILD: A PROCESS-BASED OBSERVATIONAL PARADIGM

Within the scope of a comprehensive family systems evaluation, this author has found that one particular sequence of procedures can be both time efficient and quite revealing of the child’s chameleon-like qualities. This procedure provides the evaluator the opportunity to observe both the quality of the child’s relationship with each parent and how the child copes with the stresses of transition between parents. The Chameleon Child 33

Inferences About the Child as a Function of Caregiving Context A single day is set aside such that Parent A delivers the child for individual interview. Parent A then joins the child for a semi-structured parent-child observation. At a prearranged time, Parent B arrives and the parents transition care in the examiner’s presence, culminating in Parent A’s departure. The child and Parent B then participate in a parallel, semi-structured, parent-child observation before Parent B is excused and the child completes a follow-up individual interview with the examiner. By observing the child’s behavior across a sequence of events mimick- ing the routine transitional process, the evaluator gleans not only the data available within each component part (e.g., child interview, parent A-child observation, parent B-child observation), but has the opportunity to gauge how the child copes with the transition between caregivers. The extent to which the child’s presentation shifts as a function of which parent is present will inform questions about how the child is coping with family stresses and will yield hypotheses about the developmental costs of those choices. The child’s anxious-ambivalent, withdrawn, silly-distracting, or angry acting out when the parents stand face-to-face can be as revealing as it is heart- wrenching. Later, debriefing alone with the child after the sequence of observations is complete, the evaluator has the unique opportunity to probe the child’s perspective on the similarities and differences between the two parent-child dyads, the child’s experience of the co-parent relationship, and the child’s means of coping with associated stresses.

Distinguishing Chameleon-Like Responses From the Pressures Associated With Alienation, Estrangement, and Enmeshment The child’s word choice in the interview can provide important clues relevant to the distinction between alienation and chameleon-like adaptation. The child whose presentation has been scripted or coached and the child who is echoing a selfish parent’s thoughts about another is likely to use rote phrases and uncharacteristic language, which the child may not even under- Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:13 17 August 2014 stand (Drozd & Olesen, 2004; Johnston et al., 2005). The child’s words, draw- ings, and play may be incongruent with affective presentation. By contrast, the child who is resonating with the proximal parent’s affect may struggle to put emotions into words and, when the child succeeds, will do so in words that are more clearly the child’s own. This child’s affect is an echo, unscripted, and in need of words. While in the company of Parent A, the chameleon child’s verbal and non-verbal presentation about Parent B may be congruent and therefore mistaken as a genuine reflection of the experience of Parent B (e.g., estrangement). However, unlike the child whose rejection of Parent B is objectively warranted and whose anger and fear are real, the chameleon child will 34 B. D. Garber

engage Parent B warmly and may express negatives about Parent A, resonant with Parent B’s position. In each case, the chameleon child’s presentation about the absent parent may ring true. It is only over time and with the benefit of sequential observations that the child’s adaptive strategy can be recognized as distinct from the effects of other, concurrent dynamics. Debriefing with the parents individually (or together as safety concerns and court orders permit) subsequent to these observations can expose important differences in their expectations, interpretations, and attributions about the child’s behavior. A parent’s readiness to see a child’s behavior as vindicating may be a clue to the enmeshed nature of the dyad, the general psychological functioning of the adult and a contraindication for any future co-parenting intervention.

Limitations of This Model A sequential observation protocol offers the evaluator the unique opportunity to learn how the child manages the stressful transition between conflicted caregiving environments even while it suffers from at least two downfalls. First, the artificial nature of the process and the evaluator’s presence invite questions about the Hawthorne effect (Adair, 1984) and raises paradoxical questions. In short, if the chameleon child is a master of adaptation, how might that child adapt to the context of the evaluation and thereby invalidate the process? Second, there is as yet no way to know whether and how sequence effects may affect the validity of the series of back-to-back-to-back observations such that the child’s experience during the earlier dyadic observation impacts behavior in the latter dyadic observation. One partial solution with the benefit of resources would be to conduct the procedure twice, reversing the sequence. Of course, neither of these concerns is unique to the protocol proposed here. They are among the numerous reasons why some argue that custody evaluators must be extremely cautious to draw inferences and conclusions (Tippins & Wittman, 2005). Finally, the evaluator who is alert to a child’s vulnerability to caregiver

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:13 17 August 2014 context may often find that interviewing or observing the child in a neutral environment provides a unique perspective. Borrowing the principles of in situ observation from ethology, it may be wise to visit the child at school or during summer camp or in the company of a trusted therapist, taking care never to corrupt the child’s opportunity to enjoy each as a ‘‘port in the storm’’ (Garber, 2010).

CONCLUSIONS

Custody evaluation and associated judicial decisions require a comprehensive analysis of all levels of the family system. Toward this goal, the evaluator The Chameleon Child 35

and the court must be closely attuned to the pressures which can distort and even sever parent-child relationships. This includes careful consideration of dynamics known individually as alienation, estrangement, and enmeshment, and together as constituting the hybrid model. The present article highlights yet another consideration, the extent to which the child’s efforts to adapt to disparate caregiving environments in a chameleon-like manner can be misinterpreted by warring co-parents in a manner that exacerbates the adult conflict. Like alienation, estrangement, enmeshment, and domestic violence, the child’s chameleon-like adaptation is a systemic dynamic that can only be observed in the family’s interactions. An observational protocol is described as one part of a larger evaluative process for the purpose of better distinguishing among these various dynamics and thereby serves the needs of the child. What is the developmental cost of the child’s chameleon-like adaptation? As one 16-year-old put it, ‘‘[Y]ou sort of change, depending what house you’re at. I don’t know about other people, but I find that I’m a different person at a different house. ‘Cause the different environment and ...my parents react differently to different things’’ (Smart, 2002, p. 312). The short-term benefits of changing one’s colors so as to assure parental protection, nurturance, and affection are self-evident, but the long-term costs await longitudinal study.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is grateful to the many children encountered in psychotherapy and in court-ordered evaluations whose experience continues to be the best teacher. The case illustrations provided herein are anonymous recreations of their real experiences.

NOTES

1. ‘‘ ...legal and mental health practitioners have noted that pure or ‘clean’ cases of child alienation Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:13 17 August 2014 and realistic estrangement (those that only include alienating behavior on the part of the favored parent or abuse=neglect on the part of the rejected parent, respectively) are less common than the mixed or ‘hybrid’ cases, which have varying degrees of enmeshment and boundary diffusion between the aligned parent and the child and some degree of ineptness by the rejected parent ....’’ (Fidler & Bala, 2010, p. 15). 2. Meier (2010, p. 243) does recognize alienation as it exists as part of an abusive parent’s mistreatment of the child, ‘‘ ...often intentionally destroy[ing] the child’s relationship with his or her protective and caring mother.’’ 3. The child’s capacity for adaptation is both a recurrent popular theme and illustrated by extremes in literature. The Tarzan story (Burroughs, 1914) of a boy who adapts to life among apes may be most well-known. Cannon’s (1993) eloquent contemporary children’s story, ‘‘Stellaluna’’ about a bat who must adapt to being raised among birds may be the current generation’s prototype of the same. 4. ‘‘If one parent has primary contact with the child, the child can be forced to dissociate his or her awareness of the good aspects of the other parent in order to maintain the bond with the primary caregiver. If both parents are involved in the child’s life, the child may continue to switch between the two 36 B. D. Garber

points of view, each time dissociating awareness of the good qualities of the other parent’’ (Miller, 2001, abstract). 5. ‘‘Dissociative symptoms may include a child entering trance-like states, showing forgetfulness for past or current behavior, having fluctuating behavior including rapid regressions, rage reactions, beliefs in vivid imaginary friends or divided identities, and symptoms of depersonalization and derealiza- tion ...dissociative symptoms are complex adaptations that evolve into learned habits that are then reinforced in environments in which parent-child interaction patterns continue to promote and reinforce maladaptive functioning’’ (Silberg, 2004, p. 487). 6. ‘‘Q: If you had a wish for yourself and your family, what would your wish be?’’ Frances (12): ‘‘[That] there was two of me, then I could be with mum and I could be with dad at the same time and I could see my friends’’ (Smart, 2002, p. 316). 7. ‘‘Rashomon’’ is a 1950s Japanese movie in which four witnesses provide very different accounts of the identical crime (Kurosawa & Akutagawa, 1950). The ‘‘Rashomon Effect’’ refers to a divergence of perspectives, highlighting differences due to observer needs and motives.

REFERENCES

Adair, J. G. (1984). The Hawthorne effect: A reconsideration of the methodological artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 334–345. Retrieved from http:// www.apa.org/pubs/journals/apl/ Aktar, E., Majdandzˇic´, M., de Vente, W., & Bo¨gels, S. M. (2013). The interplay between expressed parental anxiety and infant behavioural inhibition predicts infant avoidance in a social referencing paradigm. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(2), 144–156. doi:10.1111=j.1469-7610.2012.02601.x Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC). (2006). Model standards of practice for child custody evaluation. Family Review, 45(1), 70–91. doi:10.1111=j.1744-1617.2007.129_3.x Bancroft, L. R., & Silverman, J. G. (2004). Assessing risk to children from batterers. In P. Jaffe, L. Baker & A. Cunningham (Eds.), Protecting children from domestic violence: strategies for community intervention (pp. 101–119). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Ben Shakhar, G., Bar Hillel, M., Bilu, Y., & Shefler, G. (1998). Seek and ye shall find: Test results are what you hypothesize they are. Journal of Behavior and Decision Making, 11(4), 235–249. doi:10.1002=(SICI)1099-0771(1998120)11: 4<235::AID-BDM299>3.0.CO;2-X Bornovalova, M. A., Blazei, R., Malone, S. H., McGue, M., & Iacono, W. G. (2013). Disentangling the relative contribution of parental antisociality and family dis-

Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:13 17 August 2014 cord to child disruptive disorders. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4(3), 239–246. doi:10.1037=a0028607 Bowlby, J. (1969=1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. I. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books. Brown, G. L., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., & Neff, C. (2010). Observed and reported supportive co-parenting as predictors of infant-mother and infant-father attachment security. Early Child Development and Care, 1–2, 121–137. doi:10.1080=03004430903415015 Burroughs, E. R. (1914). Tarzan of the apes. Chicago, IL: A.C. McClurg. Caldera, Y., & Lindsey, E. (2006). Co-parenting, mother-infant interaction, and infant-parent attachment relationships in two-parent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(2), 275–283. doi:10.1037=0893-3200.20.2.275 The Chameleon Child 37

Cannon, J. (1993). Stellaluna. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Cigala, A., & Venturelli, E. (2011). The social referencing phenomenon. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 38(2), 385–411. doi:10.1421=35170 Cornew, L., Dobkins, K. R., Akshoomoff, N., McCleery, J. P., & Carver, L. J. (2012). Atypical social referencing in infant siblings of children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(12), 2611–2621. doi:10.1007=s10803-012-1518-8. Davenport, C. (2010). The Rashomon effect, observation, and data generation. In Media bias, perspective, and state repression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. De Rosnay, M., Cooper, P. J., Tsigaras, N., & Murray, L. (2006). Transmission of social anxiety from mother to infant: An experimental study using a social referencing paradigm. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1165–1175. doi:10.1016=j.brat. 2005.09.003 Dickstein, S., Thompson, R. A., Estes, D., Malkin, C., & Lamb, M. E. (1984). Social referencing and the security of attachment. Infant Behavior and Development, 7, 507–516. doi:10.1016=S0163-6383(84)80009-0 Drozd, L., & Olesen, N. (2004). Is it abuse, alienation, and=or estrangement?: A Decision Tree. Journal of Child Custody, 1(3), 65–106. doi:10.1300= J190v01n03_05 Dunne, G., & Askew, C. (2013). Vicarious learning and unlearning of fear in childhood via mother and stranger models. Emotion, 13(5), 974–980. doi:10.1037= a0032994 Fidler, B. J., & Bala, N. (2010). Children resisting post-separation contact with a parent: Concepts, controversies, and conundrums. Family Court Review, 48, 10–47. doi:10.1111=j.1744-1617.2009.01287.x Freeman, H., Newland, L. A., & Coyl, D. C. (2010). New directions in father attachment. Early Child Development and Care, 180(1–2), 1–8. doi:10.1080= 03004430903414646 Friedlander, S., & Walters, M. G. (2010). When a child rejects a parent: Tailoring the intervention to fit the problem. Family Court Review, 48(1), 98–111. doi:10.1111=j.1744-1617.2009.01291.x Fusaro, M., & Harris, P. L. (2013). Dax gets the nod: Toddlers detect and use social cues to evaluate testimony. Developmental Psychology, 49, 514–522. doi:10.1037=a0030580 Garber, B. D. (1996, March). Alternatives to parental alienation: Acknowledging the Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:13 17 August 2014 broader scope of children’s emotional difficulties during parental separation and divorce. New Hampshire Bar Journal, 51–54. Retrieved from http://www. nhbar.org/publications/display-latest-journal.asp Garber, B. D. (2004a). Parental alienation in light of attachment theory: Consider- ation of the broader implications for child development, clinical practice, and forensic process. Journal of Child Custody, 1(4), 49–76. doi:10.1300= J190v01n04_04 10.1300=J190v01n04_04 Garber, B. D. (2004b). Directed co-parenting intervention: Conducting child centered interventions in parallel with highly conflicted co-parents. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(1), 55–64. doi:10.1037=0735-7028. 35.1.55 38 B. D. Garber

Garber, B. D. (2007). Developing a structured forensic interview tool for children: The query grid. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 7, 1–18. doi:10.1300= J158v07n01_01 Garber, B. D. (2010). Developmental psychology for family law professionals: Theory, application and the best interests of the child. New York, NY: Springer. Garber, B. D. (2011). Parental alienation and the dynamics of the enmeshed dyad: Adultification, parentification and infantilization. Family Court Review, 49(2), 322–335. doi:10.1111=j.1744-1617.2011.01374.x Gardner, R. A. (2004). Commentary on Kelly and Johnston’s ‘‘The alienated child: A reformulation of Parental Alienation Syndrome.’’ Family Court Review, 42, 611–621. doi:10.1177=1531244504268711 Garrity, C., & Baris, M. (1994). Caught in the middle: Protecting the children of high-conflict divorce. New York, NY: Lexington Books. Gould, J. W., & Martindale, D. A. (2007). The art and science of child custody evaluations. New York, NY: Wiley. Hardesty, J. L., Haselschwerdt, M. L., & Johnson, M. P. (2012). Domestic violence and child custody. In K. Kuehnle & L. Drozd (Eds.), Parenting plan evaluations: Applied research for the family court (pp. 442–478). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Harley, E. M., Carlsen, K. A., & Loftus, G. R. (2004). The ‘‘saw-it-all-along’’ effect: Demonstrations of visual hindsight bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 960–968. doi:10.1037=0278-7393.30. 5.960 Helm, H., Snow, M., Triplett, V., Morgan, M., & Lambert, S. (2007). ‘‘Don’t talk!’’: Trauma and dissociation in play therapy. In S. Dugger & L. Carlson (Eds.), Critical incident in counseling children (pp. 121–129). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Hoppe, C. F. (1997). Perpetually battling parents. In B. S. Mark & J. A. Incorvaia (Eds.), The handbook of infant, child, & adolescent psychotherapy: New directions in integrative treatment (pp. 485–501). New York, NY: Jason Aronson. Jaffe, P. G., Crooks, C. V., & Bala, N. (2009). A framework for addressing allegations of domestic violence in child custody disputes. Journal of Child Custody, 6(3–4), 169–188. doi:10.1080=15379410903084517 Johnston, J., & Campbell, L. (1988). Impasses of divorce: The dynamics and resolution of family conflict. New York, NY: Free Press. Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:13 17 August 2014 Johnston, J., Roseby, V., & Kuehnle, K. (2009). In the name of the child. New York, NY: Springer. Johnston, J. R. (2003). Parental alignments and rejection: An empirical study of alienation in children of divorce. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31, 158–170. Retrieved from http://www.jaapl.org/ Johnston, J. R., Walters, M. G., & Olesen, N. W. (2005). Is it alienating parenting, role reversal or child abuse? An empirical study of children’s rejection of a parent in child custody disputes. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5(4), 191–218. doi:10.1300= J135v05n04_02 Kasari, C., Freeman, S., Mundy, P., & Sigman, M. D. (1995). Attention regulation by children with Down syndrome: Coordinated joint attention and social The Chameleon Child 39

referencing looks. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 100, 128–136. Retrieved from http://aaidd.org/publications/journals#.Utl-Ic8o44k Kassin, S. M., Dror, I., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problem, perspective, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 42–52. doi:10.1016=j.jarmac.2013.01.001 Kelly, J. B., & Johnston, J. R. (2001). The alienated child: A reformulation of parental alienation syndrome. Family Court Review, 39, 249–266. doi:10.1111=j.174- 1617.2001.tb00609.x Kurosawa, A. (Director), & Akutagawa, R. (Writer). (1950). Rashomon [Motion picture]. Japan: Daiei Film Co., Ltd. Lee, S. M., & Olesen, N. (2001). Assessing for alienation in child custody=access evaluations. Family Court Review, 39(3), 282–298. doi:10.1111=j.174-1617.2001. tb00611.x Ludolph, P. S., &, Bow, J. N. (2012). Complex alienation dynamics and very young children. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues, and Practices, 9(3), 153– 178. doi:10.1080=15379418.2012.715545 Main, M., & Weston, D. R. (1981). The quality of the toddler’s relationship to mother and to father: Related to conflict behavior and the readiness to establish new relationships. Child Development, 52, 932–940. doi:10.2307= 1129097 Meier, J. S. (2010). Getting real about abuse and alienation: A critique of Drozd and Olesen’s decision tree. Journal of Child Custody, 7(4), 219–252. doi:10.1080=15379418.2010.521032 Miller, A. (2001). Dissociation in children ‘‘caught in the middle’’ between warring parents. Presentation to the 18th International Society for the Study of Dissociation Fall Conference, December 2–4, 2001, New Orleans, LA: The Context of Dissociation: Family, Society, Culture. Mo¨ller, E. L., Majdandzˇic´, M., Vriends, N., & Bo¨gels, S. M. (2013). Social referencing and child anxiety: The evolutionary based role of fathers’ versus mothers’ signals. Journal of Child and Family Studies, June, 1–10. doi:10.1007= s10826-013-9716-3. Mumme, D. L., & Fernald, A. (1996). Infants’ responses to facial and vocal emotional signals in a social referencing paradigm. Child Development, 67(6), 3219–3237. doi:10.2307=1131775 Parkinson, B., Phiri, N., & Simons, G. (2012). Bursting with anxiety: Adult social referencing in an interpersonal Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Emotion, Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:13 17 August 2014 12(4), 817–826. doi:10.1037=a0026434 Remmerswaal, D., Huijding, J., Bouwmeester, S., Brouwer, M., & Muris, P. (2014). Cognitive bias in action: Evidence for a reciprocal relation between confirmation bias and fear in children. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 45(1), 26–32. doi:10.1016=j.jbtep.2013.07.005 Saposnek, D. T., & Rose, C. (1990). The psychology of divorce. In D. L. Crumbley & N. G. Apostolou (Eds.), Handbook of financial planning for divorce and separation (pp. 28–48). New York, NY: Wiley Law. Silberg, J. L. (2004). The treatment of dissociation in sexually abused children from a family attachment perspective. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 41, 487–495. doi:10.1037=0033-3204.41.4.487 40 B. D. Garber

Silberg, J. L. (2013). The child survivor: Healing developmental trauma and dissociation. New York, NY: Routledge. Smart, C. (2002). From children’s shoes to children’s voices. Family Court Review, 40(3), 307–319. Stroud, C. B., Durbin, C. E., Wilson, S., & Mendelsohn, K. A. (2011). Spillover to triadic and dyadic systems in families with young children. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 919–930. doi:10.1037=a0025443 Tippins, T. M., & Wittman, J. P. (2005). Empirical and ethical problems with custody recommendations: A call for clinical humility and judicial vigilance. Family Court Review, 43(2), 193–222. doi:10.1111=j.1744-1617.2005.00019.x Waldron, K. H., & Joanis, D. E. (1996). Understanding and collaboratively treating parental alienation syndrome. American Journal of Family Law, 10, 121–133. Retrieved from http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/waldron.htm Wright-McDougal, J. J., & Toriello, P. J. (2013). Ethical implications of confirmation bias in the rehabilitation counseling relationship. Journal of Applied Rehabili- tation Counseling, 44(2), 3–10. Retrieved from http://nrca-net.org/jarc.html Young, M. J., Tiedens, L. Z., Jung, H., & Tsai, M. H. (2011). Mad enough to see the other side: The effect of anger on hypothesis disconfirmation. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 10–21. doi:10.1080=02699930903534105 Downloaded by [Northcentral University] at 13:13 17 August 2014 PROBLEMS OF EDUCATION IN THE 21* CENTURY Volume 59, 201') THE IMPACT OF THE ANIMALS ON 77 CHILDREN'S LEARNING AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT - A STUDY OF WHAT CHILDREN LEARN FROM AND WITH PETS: THE EXAMPLE OF DOG AND CAT

Agneta Simeonsdotter Svensson University of Gothenburg, Sweden E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Tlie purpose of this study is to produce knowledge about the impact of pets on preschool children's desire to learn and their development. The research question asked is: Wlwt do children learn from and with pets: The example of dog and cat? Socio-ciiltural theories and dex'ehpmenfal pedagog)' are used in order to study children's learning in the preschool. The socio-cultural theories are based on a model describing interactions between people presented by Vygotskij (1978) and further developed by Säljö (2011). This study employed a qualitative exploratory research method with the aim of gaining knowledge concerning a group of 24 children, aged 4-5 years. Individual interviews were used as the method of data collection. The re.sults are presented as two main categories: 1) The pet supports the child in their learning and development process 2) The child is the teacher of the pet. Each main categoiy compri.'ied two subcategories: la) Developing empathy and emotions, Ib) Being good at school-related tasks, 2a) Teaching the pet playful exercises, 2b) Teaching the pet to obey. The results show that pets provide children with positive experiences and a sense of feeling good. Tire children said that the}' could talk to all the animals and that the animals are listening. Wlien a child is doing activities with an animal or tries to teach an animal some exercises, the child receives a response from the animal. This leads on to new experiences andan increased knowledge regarding social behavior. Using pets for educational purposes in the home, preschool and school, might stimulate an interest in animal care and a commitment to the world's wildlife and fauna in general. Key words: animal, children, development, preschool learning.

Introduction

This study aims to promote learning and development in young children. It is based on a collaborative project with an animal protection organization in Sweden (Animal Welfare Swe- den, www.djurskyddet.se). International research into relations between humans and animals is mainly about adult's and older people's experiences of life with pets in healthcare and elderly care. The research shows that closeness to animals has good effects on quality of life. Contact with animals produces more positive outlook on life and a meaning in life, which contributes to a better quality of life (McCabe, Braun, Speich & Agrawal, 2002; Collis & McNicholas, 2004). In countries such as U.K, France, the USA and Japan, interaction with an animal is a voluntary activity either in the form of having an animal of one's own in institutions or homes or for example, having home visits by health workers together with animal. Such activities are officially supported, but this is not generally the situation in Sweden (Fine, 2000). A positive effect on learning, communication skills, physical health, behavior and emotional well-being characterizes therapy inter\ entions involving animals, regardless of the different characteristics

ISSN 1822-7864 Agneta SIMEONSDOTTER SVENSSON. The Impact of the Animals on Children's Learning and Their Development - A Study of What Children Learn From and Vi/ith Pets: The Example of Dog and Cat PROBLEMS OF EDUCATION

Volume 59, 2014 78 of the target groups' (Nimer & Lundahl, 2007). For dog ouners the dog itself is often a source of motivation, companionship and social support for physical activity (Cutt, Giles-Corti & Knuiman 2008a). As regards children, there are many reasons for using animals in educational work. From school research, we know that animals stimulate children's empathy in general and empathy with other people's situations in particular (Daly & Suggs, 2010). Wlien teachers use animals as a basis for teaching, they find it easier to eater into close collaboration and personal eontaet with the children: the animals become a shared project and an interest to talk about. There are many reasons for considering the use of animals in educational work with children. In a study by Tissen, Hergovich & Spiel (2007) 230 children in grade three in elementary school on ten occasions over ten weeks either received social training and without dogs, or hade a dog present but had no social training. The students showed an improvement in social behavior and empathy in all three programs. In addition, those children showed less who eompleted the program "social training with dogs" open aggression and aggression towards other people if than the children who followed the other two programs. Animals often have a decisive impact on a child, sometimes ever be greater than the influence of parents and other people (Melson, 2001). Animals can provide comfort, support, protection, love, friendship and security or act as conductors or intermediaries, based on the child's immediate needs. When animals are an important part of a child's life they contribute development, significant cognitive, emotional and moral processes in the child. Children who have animals around them learn to read the animal's body language and understand what they know and like. Research shows that sharing feelings with an animal ean develop empathy, self- confidence, self-esteem and a belief in their own ability in a child. This is a valuable lesson that children can benefit fi-om in their relationships with humans (Simeonsdotter Svensson, 2013; Melson, 2001).

Problem of Research

International school studies show that children who have a close relationship with an animal in the home or eome into contact with animals in a sympathetic way in school develop greater empathy for both animals and people (Myers, 1998; Poresky, 1990; Vizek-Vidovic et al., 1999). Dadds (2002) noted that a training programme focusing on the child's relationship to animals had an effect on their ability to empathize with both animals and people. Other studies (Tissen, Hergovich & Spiel, 2007) show that children, who read to a dog, develop speed and an interest in reading and younger children look forward to learning to read. These studies show that contact with animals ean lead to better self-esteem, which can lead in turn to better results in school. This study focuses on animals in pre-school children's immediate vicinity, home environment and school. The term animals refer mainly to pets which usually have multiple functions, providing psychological, social and physical stimulation, as well as security and happiness. Most children are interested in animals, making the topic to an appropriate starting point for educational work both in the home environment and in early childhood education. Children relate to the experiences of everyday life, usually the home, which the school may use in pursuing educational activities.

Theoretical Background

Socio-cultural theories and developmental pedagogy are used in order to study children's learning in the preschool ages. The socio-cultural theories are based on a model describing interaetions between people introduced by Vygotskij (1978) and further developed by Säljö (2011). These theories could be apphed to a program combining learning with communication and active participation. In socio-cultural theory participation is a social interaction and culturally organized activities play an important role in affeeting the psychological means for development (Vygotskij, 1978). A learning / communication situation can be an interaction between

ISSN 1822-7864 Agneta SIMEONSDOTTER SVENSSON. The Impact of the Animals on Children's Learning and Their Development - A Study of What Children Learn From and With Pets: The Example of Dog and Cat

PROBLEMS OF EDUCATION IN THE 21'^ CENTURY Volume 59, 2014 children and pets. In this study the project sets the frame for communication. The sociocultural 79 perspective integrates the culture of hutiian beliefs of which they are a part; Children are part of a social practice, where learning takes place in the interaction between the cliild and its environment. In this stiidy, children are taught in interactions with pets. A learning interaction can also be related to a developing pedagogical perspective. De- velopmental pedagogy emerged from empirical studies where there was a dynamic interplay and close cooperation betvv^een children, teachers and researchers (Pramling Saimielsson & Johansson, 2006; Pramling Samuelsson & Asplund Carlsson, 2008). Developmental pedagogical theorj' has its roots in the phenomenographic approach, where the learner's perspective is central. Phenomenography is a qualitatively oriented empirical approach, which was developed at the Department of Education, Gothenburg University (Marton, 1981). Its starting point is an interest in describing phenomena in the world as others see them and uncovering and describing variations in this respect, primarily in a pedagogical context (Marton &Yan Pong, 2005). In this study younger children's learning and development are related to a learning interaction between children and animals in a given context. The purpose of this study is to produce biOM'l- edge about the impací of pets on preschool children's desire to learn and development, ffliat do children learn from and with pets: the example of dog and cat?

Methodology of Research

Children and animals are easily able to enter into a close and trusting relationships which can have positive effects on child development, including the strengthening of self-esteem, a greater ability to take responsibility and a feeling of better self-control. Animals stimulate presence in the moment and provide love and sectirity without words which can be misimderstood. Animal do not laugh at the children when they do something wrong comfort them instead. They are ser\'ing as a listen as best they can. The child always feels important, loved and needed, which builds reinforces and self-confidence. If the child finds social contact with others difficult, animals can be an easier option for a relationship. Children do not always feel that they want to open up to adults and make use of them because they may feel that it is precisely those adults who have failed them in various situations (Tissen, Hergovich & Spiel, 2007). This study presents a group of children at a preschool who wants to talk about pets and share their thoughts. A sociocultural perspective on the relationship, child- pet is a starting point. It is in the interaction between cliildren and pets as learning occurs.

Sample of Research

The study involved 24 children fiom the metropolitan region of Gothenburg, 12 boys and 12 girls. A preschool near the University of Gothenburg was contacted via mail. The teachers were interested participating in a study conducted at their preschool. Ethical considerations were dealt with at an early stage in the contact with children and their families. The children and their families were informed that they could withdraw their participation at any time and that confidentiality was guaranteed. Thus, all those who participants in the study remain anonjtnous and have been assigned fictitious names (Research Council, 2007).

Instruments and Procedures

A qualitative research method was used in this study, with the aim of gaining knowledge about a group of preschool children aged 4-5 years. Interviews, with an emphasis on conversation, were used as a method of data collection and a socio-culttu^al perspective was applied to the material (Vygotskij, 1978; Säljö, 2011). In all pedagogical approaches inter\'iewing children the children's own perspectives and expressions becomes important to take into consideration

ISSN 1822-7864 Agneta SIMEONSDOTTER SVENSSON. The Impact of the Animals on Children's Learning and Their Development - A Study of What Children Learn From and With Pets: The Example of Dog and Cat PROBLEMS OF EDUCATION IN THE 21" CENTURY Volume 59, 2014 8Ö (Sommer, Pramling Samuelsson & Hundeide, 2010, 2013). The interviews lasted from 30- 60 minutes and were conducted by the author into the role of researcher. The children were interviewed one by one at the preschool. The interviews were recorded and later transcribed verbatim. Introductory questions were asked about whether the children had pets at home, if the}' had pets before or perhaps wanted a pet. Tlie talks that followed included questions about what tlie pets did for children and what they usually did together with the animal. Other questions were whether the children were able to learn anything about the pets and whether the pets could teach them ainthing, and if so, what. Various communication patterns were identified and related to the purpose of the study and the issues. During the interv iews revealed that all 24 children have or had had the dog or cat. Seven of the children have or had also had other animals. These animals were bird, hamster, fish and rat. Dog and cat was mentioned, however, when the children told me what they learn from and with pets. Therefore, in the selection of interviews, pets are represented by dog or cat in the citations of the children.

Analysis of Data

The qualitative acceptability of the method was investigated by analyzing the conversations between the children and the researcher and their talk about pets. The recording conversations relevant content and learning was investigated the recorded conversation. Measurable items and patterns were identified, with reference is learning associated with animals.The method chosen for the analysis was phenomenography (Marton & Pong, 2005). The transcribed text from the conversations was read careftilly by the author. The interpretation from the entiret}' to the parts was conducted in order to increase understanding of the text. The interpretation process in a phenomenographic analysis can be seen as a chain of interpretations based on the whole and the parts and the whole (Marton, Beaty & Dall'Alba, 1993; Marton & Pong, 2005). Interpretation of the whole and the parts is linked mostly by hemieneutics and the hermeneutic spiral (Gadamer, 1999). Part and whole must be related to each other in a reasonable manner in order to be credible, which is how phenomenographic inspired analysis is used in this study. In- terpretation and understanding of the process involves an understanding of the context; understanding or the whole increases, which also changes the understanding of the individual parts. Throughout the process, the parts of the text were first analyzed independently by the author and then to increase the trustworthiness of the analysis, the categories were checked for content. The cliildren's statements were identified and categorized. The entirety' and the parts come together and the dependency between them was seen to answer the aim of the study. Categories were created for the outcomes describing the responder's different ways of appre- hending/experiencing the phenomenon. Similarities in understanding constituted one category. According to the method the criteria for the categories were: being related to the phenomenon; the presence of a logical relation among the categories; as few categories as possible to cover the critical variations in the data (Marton & Pong, 2005). Representative quotes of statements by the children supported the meaning of the categories and increased trustworthiness of the analysis.

Resulte of Research

The purpose of this study is to produce knowledge about the impact of pets on preschool children's desire to learn and development. What do children learn from and with pets: example dog and cat? The results produce two main categories: 1) Pets support the child in the learning and development process 2) The child is the teacher of the pet. Each main categor>' consisted of two subcategories: la) Developing empathy and emotions, Ib) Being good at school-related tasks, 2a) Teaching the pet playful exercises, 2b) Teaching the pet to obey. The pets represented

ISSN 1822-7864 Agrieta SÎMEONSDOTTER SVENSSON. The Impact of the Animals on Children's Learning and Their Development - A Study of What Children Learn From and V\/ith Pets: The Example of Dog and Cat

PROBLEMS OF EDUCATION IN THE 21" CENTURY Volume 59, 2014 in the study are dogs and cats. The quotations below are examples showing how pets support 81 the child in the learning and development process as well as how the child is the teacher of the pet: the example of dog and cat. This can be done in a variety of ways, but should start from the children's interest in a learning situation (Marton & Pong, 2005; Pramling Satiiuelsson & Johansson, 2006; Pramling Samuelsson & Asplund Carlsson, 2008).

1) Pets support the child in the learning and development process

la) De\'eloping empathy and emotions

The category describes how animals help to develop children's empathy and emotions. The children put into words the emotions tliey feel in relation to the pet. Support in this category concerns emotional support which, in turn, is important for learning and development. Four children: Peter, Anna, Birgitta and Johan represent this category.

1. My dog will come and cuddle with me in bed every night. He is so nice. I'll give him candy. He likes it and I do too. I feel a little better, when I do that (Peter). 2. Kirre (cat) settles on my lap and purrs. I will be happy then. I feel it all through my body (Anna). 3. Have held her (dog) in my arms. She wants me to cany her. She jumps on me and wants to get up. Then she won't hurt her feet if I cairy her. She kisses me all the time and then I feel calm (Birgitta). 4. Misse (cat) is so funny! He lies on my stomach when I am asleep and is so cute. I love him. I fall asleep, then (Johan).

In the first sub-category, developing empathy and emotions the animal is for the children. The dog or cat comes to them and wants to cuddle which is perceived as positive and fun. They think it feels good to cuddle a pet. The children express how much they like the animal and feel for the animal. Empathy and learning go hand in hand for the kids. They learn to develop empathy and to put words to feelings, which is part of the development process. According to Vygotskij (1978) all can develop in any way. It is therefore important that adults see children's potentials in order to serve as the mainstay for them in their development and learning process.

lb) Being good at school-related tasks

This category highlights children's reflections on that their ability to become skilled at learning school-related tasks. The school-related tasks that children describe are drawing, painting or reading and counting. They may have received infomiation from the teacher at the preschool that they will then use at home or they play school at home and want to try writing and aritlimetic. Carl, Susanne, Roger and Boris represent tliis category.

1. Do you know, I have learned to read? Did it all by myself. Read to Blixten (dog) the story of the Little Uncle. He was really happy when I read. Probably thought it was flmny (Carl). 2. I read a bedtime story to my cat. Lisa. She can listen, but she says nothing, just Meow and that is probably good, I think (Susanne). 3. My cat can paint with his tail and then I show her how to do it, with a bit of paint on the paper. Then I do her a nice drawing. It looks like she wants me to (Roger)! 4. Teacher said we could borrow books. I borrowed a book about dogs that I showed to my dog. I had the same picture as on my book. He was happy and barked when he saw it. Then I showed him all the pictures (Boris).

ISSN 1822-7864 Agneta SIMEONSDOTTER SVENSSON. The Impact of the Animals on Children's Learning and Their Development - A Study of What Children Learn From and With Pets: The Example of Dog and Cat PROBLEMS OF EDUCATION INTHE21«CENTLTRY Volume 59, 2014 82" Tlie second sub-category being good at school-related tasks show the children experiencing that the animal listens without judging what is right or wrong. Both the dog and the cat support them, the children. Thing it is safe when the pet listens when they read the storj' or draw and paint. The cliildren experience genuine pleasure, and have a feeling that the animal is also experiencing joy, a shared joy. Feeling that an animal is listening only you to and giving you their full attention, gives children a satisfaction and a desire to learn more.

2) The child is the teacher of the pet

2a) Teaching pet playful exercises

This category covers children teaching the pet playñil exercises, to tlieir mutual involving common joy. Exercises the children talk about are jumping over obstacles, crawling in the "ümnel", agilit>' exercises (dog), playing with a small ball of string and teaching the animal to catch it, balancing on a railing and "sneaking nicely" (cat). The cliildren are: Anette, Patrick, Christina and Jonna.

1. Guess, I have taught my dog a lot of fiin things. I taught him to go into the tunnel. He's good; I've taught him all summer. First, we practiced at slowly, then miming fast (Anette). 2. Oh, what fiin we have. Lilian (cat) can chase the mouse now. But it is not a real mouse; it is a toy mouse, for cats. I've trained her. Now she does it, you see! But I had to show her lots of times what to (Patrick). 3. My dog has learned to jump over the crossbar. It is high, the crossbar. He could not do it at first, but then I showed him, and then he was great. It is fun (Christina). 4. I have two cats and they are mischievous. And I found fimny things to them to do at home. They may not go out by themselves. I usually show how to climb a tree for cats that we have at home (Jonna).

The playful e.xercises create a common activity for the children and animals to do together. Both children and animals enjoy the activity and develop by working at it. The exercises are led by the child who feel that they are teaches the animal what to leam. The child acts as a teacher and the pet as a pupil. Being the teacher helps to strengthen self-confidence of the child. When children are involved in pleasurable acti\ities with pets, they grow with the task and their imagination develops.

2b) Teaching the pet to obey

Children think it is important for dogs and cats to be obedient. The child wants the animal to obey in a special situation. It such as coming on command, sitting on command, walking nicely, lying still and quiet. Learning to obey is different from having "fun sessions", it is serious, not playing. Sara, Tor, Matilda and Sally represent this category.

1. Worked with my dog, you know. Have taught him to obey. I have taught him to sit nicely. Just me, not mom or dad and I am very strict (Sara). 2. My Alva (cat) is not very good at obeying and a bit bothersome; doesn't do as I say a little weird and silly. WTien I say "sleep" I want her to be still so we can cuddle (Tor). 3. Sarah (dog) is good. She runs away from me out there and I call her "come, come, come,"and she comes to me. She obeys me because we practice it a lot (Matilda). 4. I tr}' to teach my cat to lie still. It is a bit hard to teach her. I have trick that Anita (sister) cannot do. I say "boo" and he lies down. But then he sneaks out again almost immediately. Mom says you can't teach a cat to obey but I want to so I can caress her (Sally).'

ISSN 1822-7864 Agneta SIMEONSDOTTER SVENSSON. The Impact of the Animals on Children's Learning and Their Development - A Study of What Children Learn From and With Pets: The Example of Dog and Cat

PROBLEMS OF EDUCATION IN THE 2 r-CENTURY Volume 59, 2014 The children see it as an important task to teach the pet obey. Dogs are perceived as be- 83 ing easier to teach obedience while eats are thought to be more difficult. In this subcategory the children express the idea that there is a difference between dogs and cats regarding obedience. Children who have a cat believe that cats do not obey like dogs. They are convinced, however, that cats should obey so that they can be cuddled.

Discussion

Learning From and With Pets

The purpose of this study was to produce knowledge about tlie impact of pets on preschool children's desire to learn and their development. Inter\iewing young children requires not only knowledge about how children think and speak and use body language according, to age but also the skill to pick up and interpret what the ehild is tr>ing to express (Sommer, Pramling Samuelsson & Hundeide, 2010). It is actually more difficult to interview young children than adults. Younger children usually use body language when they communicate, which complements and clarifies their spoken language. What do children leam from and with pets? The answer can formulate in two main categories: 1) a pet supports the child in the learning and development process 2) the child is the teacher of the pet. Each main category comprises t\vo subcategories: la) developing empathy and emotions; lb) being good at school-related tasks; 2a) teaching the pet playful exercises; 2b) teaching the pet to obey. Nine girls cUid seven boys represent the categories. The 16 children talking about the pets in ways that categories shows. Not any category more represented. No category is distinguished from the other. The eight children who are not examples (8 of 24) varied across categories. No overweight there either. 'The study shows that pets, example dog and cat, contribute to children's leaming and development in several ways. They support the child in the leaming and development process by helping them to develop the empathie ability and making the child feel with the animal. It is fun to play with the pet and to leam from and with it, especially dog and eat. Maybe the dogs and cats are more accessible than rodents and birds. They are seen as someone to "cuddle" and enjoy. Pets in general and dogs and cats in particular, give children positive experiences and a sense of feeling good. They create a relationship with the animal, feel safe with it. This later leads to their creating relationships with other people; through sharing a common interest, for example communication between children and aduhs develops as Daly & Suggs (2010) also point out in their a study. The relationship between animals and people has special qualities that distinguish it from human relations. It is based on a non-verbal communicating betw'een two beings who do not share a language other than through movement and touch. In contact with animals given the children opportimities to communicate their thoughts in words. The speech and language of preschool children are stimulated and develops in interaction with the animal. The urge to use speech and language is stimulated when the child reads or tells a story to the animal. The child may then feel they are good at school-related tasks. The children are more inspirited to absorb knowledge and the knowledge becomes more lasting through concrete experiences. In this study, we see the children's spontaneous joy and happiness when they communicate with animals. As the child reads, narrates or any other activity with the animal, the animal is there as a good listener. When the child tries to teach the animal exercises or reads to it, the child receives the response from the animal, this leads to new experiences and an increase of knowledge regarding social behavior (cf. Tissen, et al., 2007).

ISSN 1822-7864 Agneta SIMEONSDOTTER SVENSSON. The Impact of the Animals on Children's Learning and Their Development - A Study of What Chiidren Learn From and With Pets: The Example of Dog and Cat PROBLEMS OF EDUCATION IN THE 2¡"CENTURY Volume 59, 2014 8? Conclusions

Animals are important to children. They possess many qualities and contribute to the child's learning and development. Using pets for educational purposes in homes, preschools and schools may arouse an interest in animal care and commitment to the natural world and its fauna. It's way also fomis the basis for the choice of training for interested cliildren and young people, expressed as the "use of animals for training purposes." Sweden and many other countries, however, animals are not present in preschools and schools. One reason cited for this is that many children are allergic, especially to dogs and cats. Studying the impact of the preschool children's desire to learn and their development, and what children learn from and with pets, is opposed if live animals are to be present. Alternative tjpes of schools where animals play a natural part in the education may be one way to go. When animals become the basis of conversations between children and adults makes close collaboration and personal contact with the children easier, the animals become a shared project and interest to be talked about. It creates empathy, wliich means helpfulness, caring and a sense of responsibility. It also encourages an ethical attitude towards people, animals and nature. It might be interesting to follow the children in a larger longitudinal study and examine the effects of using animals for learning and development purposes. Sttidies based on a quantitative methodology rnay be appropriate for comparing approaches in different countries

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Richard Ingemannsen for valuable technical support. Also, tliaiiks children and teachers who participated.

References

Collis, G. M., & McNicholas, J. (2004). Pets and the health of older people. Department of psychology'. University of Warwick. Cutt, H., Giles-Corti, B., & Knuiman, M. (2008a). Encouraging physical activity through dog working: W-Tiy don't some owner's worker walk with their dog? Preventive Medicine, 46,120-126. Dadds, M. R. (2002). Developmental links between cruelty to animals and human violence. Jlie Austra- lian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology', 35 (3), 363-382. Daly, B., & Suggs, S. (2010). Teacher's experiences with humane education and animals in the elementary classroom: implications for empathy development. Journal of Moral Education, 39 (1), 101- 112. Djurskyddet Sverige (Animal Welfare Sweden) (2012). Retrieved from http://www.djurskyddet.se Fine, A. Ed. (2000). Handbook on animal assisted therapy. Academic Press. Gadamer, H. G. (1999). Henneneutics, religion, and ethics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography - describing conceptions of the world around us. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific publishing Company. Marton, F., & Pong, W Y (2005). On the unit of description in phenomenography. Higher Education Research & Development, 24 (4), 335-348. DOI: 10.1080/07294360500284706. Marton, F., Beaty, E., & DalFAlba, G. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educa- tional Research, 19 (3), 277-300. McCabe, B. W., Braun, M. M., Spiecli., D., & Agiawal, S. (2002). Resident dog in the Alzheimer's special care unit. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 54-65. Melson, G. F. (2001 ). Viliy the wild things are: animals in the lives of children. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London. Myers, G. ( 1998). Children and animals: Social development and our connections to other species. Boul- der, CO: Westview Press. Nimer, J., & Lundahl. B. (2007). Animal-assisted therapy: A meta-analvsis. Anthrozoos, 20 (5), 225- 238.

ISSN 1822-7854 Agneta SIMEONSDOTTER SVENSSON. The Impact of the Animals on Children's Learning and Their Development - A Study of What Children Learn From and With Pets: The Example of Dog and Cat

PROBLEMS OF EDUCATION IN THE 21" CENTURY Volume 59, 2014 Poresky, R. H. (1990). The young childien s empathy measure: Reliability, validity and effects of c o m p a n - 85 ion animal bonding. Psychological Reports, áá(3), 931-936. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1990.66.3.931. Pramling Samuelsson, I., & Asplund Carlsson, M. (2008). Tlie playing leaniing child: Towards pedagogy of early childhood. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52 (6), 623-641. Pramling Samuelsson, I., & Johansson, E. (2006). Play and learning - inseparable dimensions in preschool practice. Early ChildDe\'elopment and Care, 176 {\), 47-65. Research Council (2007). Research Ethical principles in human science research. Retrieved April 4,2013, from http://w'ww.vT.se Simeonsdotter Svensson, A. (2013). Pre-school childien development empathy tluough individualized materials. Problems of Education in the 21st Century.', 52, 115-124. Sommer, D., Pramling Samuelsson, I., & Hundeide, K. (2010). Child perspectives atid children's perspectives in theor)' and practice. New York: Springer. Sommer, D., Pramling Samuelsson, I., & Hundeide, K. (2013). Early childhood care and education - a child perspective paradigm. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21 (4), 459- 475. Säljö, R. (2011). Learning in a sociocultural perspective. V. Grover Auh-ust Learning and Cognition in Education, 59-63. Tissen, I., Hergovich, A., & Spiel, C. (2007). School-based social training with and without dogs: Evalu- ation of their effectiveness. Antrozoos, 20 (3), 365-373. Vizek-Vidovic, V., Stetic, V. V., & Bratko, D. (1999). Pet ownership, type of pet and socioemotional development of school children. Anthrozoos, 12 (4), 211-217. \^gotskij, L. S. (1978). Mind ofSociet)>: The development of higher psychological processes. Li V. Cole, S. Jolm-Steiner, E. Scribner & E. Sauberman (Eds). Cambridge, Ma: Harvard, University Press.

Advised by Anita Franke, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

Received: January 29, 2014 Accepted: March 28, 2014

Agneta Sitneonsdotter PhD, Senior Lecturer, Department of Education, Communication and Learning, Svensson University of Gothenburg, Box 300,405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.ipkLgu.se/om-ipkl/personal

ISSN 1822-7864 Copyright of Problems of Education in the 21st Century is the property of Scientific Methodical Center Scientia Educologica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.