- Email: [email protected]
Infant day care facilitates preschool social behavior
Early
Childhood
Research
Quarterly,
3, 341-359
(1988)
Infant Day Care Facilitates Preschool Social Behavior Tiffany Mailman
Center
for
Field
Child Development, University of Miami
Wendy Masi Mailman
Family
Center,
Nova
University
Sheri Goldstein Susdn Perry University
of Miami
Silke Par1 Nova
University
Seventy-one preschool-age children entering infant day care at varying times and receiving varying amounts of infant day care were compared on their reunion-with-parent behavior, teacher and parent ratings of their behavior, and playground play interactions. Age of entry into day care (56 months vs. > 6 months) had no significant effect on attachment to mother as measured by reunion behaviors or on play and socialization skills as measured by observation and behavior rating scalesin a full-time day-care setting. Furthermore, children with more hours and months of day care engaged in lesswatching, solitary play, and teacher comfort-seeking behavior, and they showed more cooperative play, positive affect, peer interaction, and positive verbal interaction. Thus continuous infant day care in quality centers appears to facilitate preschool social behavior and does not negatively affect attachment behavior.
Until recently, reviews of the literature on the effects of day care have found little, if any, evidence of detrimental effects on infant development (Belsky This researchwaspartially supported by NIMH ResearchScientistAward (#MHOO331) to Tiffany Field. We wish to thank the children, parents, and teacherswho participatedin this study and Laura Pavon, Carol Lynn Adams, Ana Lila Abello, Ahroana Surowitz, Lance Charlott, and Sandra Vaden-Krautfor their researchassistance. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Tiffany Field, University of Miami Medical School, Mailman Center for Child Development, P.O. Box 016820, Miami, FL 33101. 341
342
Field,
Musi,
Goldstein.
Perry,
und
Pnrl
& Steinberg, 1978; Belsky, Steinberg, & Walker, 1982). In reconsidering the literature, Belsky (1986) has come to a different conclusion. He states that “entry into care in the first year of life is a ‘risk factor’ for the development of insecure-avoidant attachments in infancy and heightened aggressiveness, non-compliance and withdrawal in the preschool and early years” (p. 7). Thus, in two significant areas, attachment to mother and preschool social adjustment, Belsky is suggesting that infant day care may produce significant negative effects. Belsky’s concern with the influence of day care on the infant’s attachment to the mother is based both on his interpretation of recent studies and on the notion that methodologies used in previous studies may have been inadequate. Belsky suggests that the positive conclusions of earlier reviews were based largely on the separation episode of the Ainsworth Strange Situation paradigm, in which the focus was on whether the infant became distressed upon separation and whether she or he approached and interacted with the strange adult. In contrast, the studies upon which Belsky bases his more negative recent review (Belsky, 1986) focused on the infant’s behavior during the reunion phase of the Strange Situation. According to Belsky: It became abundantly clear that the most revealing and developmentally meaningful aspect of the infant’s behavior in the Strange Situation was his or her
orientation to mother upon reunion following separation, something which simply had not been considered in the early studies. Indeed, attachment researchers now distinguish between three types. Infants who positively greet their mothers (with a smile or by showing a toy) and/or who approach mother to seek comfort if distressed are characterized as having secure attachments. Those who fail to greet mother (by averting gaze) or who start to approach
mother but then turn away are considered to be anxious/avoidant in their attachments; and those who seek contact yet cannot be comforted by mother and who cry in an angry, petulant manner or hit away toys offered by mother are considered anxious-resistant in their attachment relationship. (p. 3)
Belsky considers these patterns of secure and insecure attachment relationships as critical to understanding the developmental correlates of infant day care inasmuch as they reputedly predict individual differences in later development (Belsky, 1986). In his most recent review of the infant day-care literature, Beisky (1986) cites studies in which infants who have received supplementary child care initiated during the first year show patterns of avoidance upon reunion during the Strange Situation paradigm. For example, the study by Vaughn, Deane, and Waters (1985) documents patterns of avoidance shown by infants who had been cared for in low quality centers. Similarly, middle-class infants, experiencing a variety of day-care arrangements during the first
Infant
Day Care
and Social
Behavior
343
year of life, also displayed greater avoidance of their mothers in the Strange Situation procedure (Schwartz, 1983). Finally, Barglow (1985) also found higher rates of avoidance among middle-class infants as opposed to homereared infants cared for in good quality, stable day-care arrangements. On the surface, these data appear to be consistent. However, the data, for example, from the Schwartz study (1983) need to be qualified inasmuch as only those infants who began full-time care, as opposed to those who began part-time care, as young infants showed greater avoidance of their mothers. Those in part-time care did not differ from infants not in child care. As Belsky himself notes (Belsky, 1986), other investigators have interpreted the same data in a different manner. Avoidance of the mother upon reunion is not interpreted as a deficit or a disturbance, but rather as an adaptive and possibly even a precocious behavior. Clarke-Steward and Fein (1983), for example, reason that, because day-care infants experience many separations, it is reasonable for them not to orient toward the mother. Because infants tend to remain more distant from their mothers as they get older, the avoidance of the mother is seen as evidence of earlier maturity. According to Clarke-Stewart and Fein (1983): In children receiving care exclusively from mother, avoidance may be a pathological response reflecting an interactive history with the rejecting mother, while for children in daycare greater distance from, or ignoring of, mother at reunion may be an adaptive response reflecting an habitual reaction to repeated daily separations and reunions. In these latter children, greater physical distance from mother and apparent avoidance may, in fact, signal a precocious independence (p. 949)
Others (Field, 1987; Rutter, 1981) have raised serious objections to the Strange Situation paradigm itself and its almost exclusive use as an index of infant attachment. For example, Rutter (1981) has expressed concern about drawing conclusions from “curious procedures involving mother, caretakers, and strangers not only going in and out of rooms every minute for reasons quite obscure to the child, but also not initiating interactions in the way they might usually do” (p. 160). As Chess (1987) has suggested, “Is it not possible that in a child who is confident that his or her mother will return after a brief absence, the mother’s return does not call for any special recognition of this event?” (p. 25). Belsky’s (1986) suggestion that infants experiencing day care in the first year are affected deleteriously in the area of early interactions with peers and adults is based on the negative effects found in a limited number of studies. Belsky notes, for example, that in the study by Schwarz, Strickland, and Krolick (1974), preschool children who had participated in infant day care were more physically and verbally aggressive with adults and peers, less cooperative with grown-ups and less tolerant of frustration. Similarly, al-
344
Field,
Masi,
Goldstein,
Perry,
and
Par1
though Farber and Egeland (1982) noted that the effects were not persistent beyond two years, they suggested that there was less compliance, less resistance in dealing with difficult problems, and more negative affect in day-care infants who had participated in the Minnesota longitudinal studies. Decreased compliance and temper tantrums were also noted by Rubenstein, Howes, and Boyle (1981) in infants who had been in supplementary care in their first year. Finally, maladjustment, as manifested by caregiver ratings of children’s anxiety levels, was noted in Bermudan preschoolers who were cared for in family day-care homes (McCartney, Starr, Phillips, Grajek, & Schwarz, 1982). Higher levels of misbehavior and greater social withdrawal were also noted in the same study population by Barton and Schwarz (1981). However, a number of studies provide data on more positive outcomes for infants experiencing day care during the first year of life (see Phillips, McCartney, Starr, 8c Howes, 1987, reply to Belsky). For example, a study by Howes and Stewart (1986) suggests that children, particularly boys, who entered child care as younger infants and had few child care changes were more likely to engage in high levels of play with objects. In another study by Haskins (1985), the children with extensive experience in licensed child care centers showed a lower incidence of hitting, kicking, and pushing than did children with less day-care experience. Others reported that children who entered day care at a very early age (between 2 and 20 months) had higher frequencies of touching and laughing (Howes dc Rubenstein, 1985), exhibited more positive affect upon entering their peer group, showed less tension upon entering the group, and had higher social interaction scores than did children who had entered day care at the preschool period (Schwarz, Krolick, & Strickland, 1973). Thus the data on Strange Situation reunion behaviors and on later social behavior of infants who had early day-care experience appear to be mixed. One obvious reason for the inconsistent data is that they are confounded by the differences between those families who select and those who do not select early day care, differences in family stress, child’s age of entry into care, length of time in care, and stability and quality of care. As Belsky (1986) suggests, Families that use daycare and those that do not may differ from each other in a myriad of ways, as families that use one type of care may differ from families using another type. Thus, the very concept of “effects of daycare” appears misplaced, as between-group comparisons are plagued with a host of confounds that cannot be teased apart by most statistical or design controls. (p. 1)
The optimal design, comparing infants who received day care in a given setting with those who were denied day care in that setting but who remained on the waiting list, is typically not possible since mothers who are returning to work are often forced to look for alternative places of care. Virtually any
Infant
Day Care
and Social
Behavior
345
design for addressing this question may be confounded by a host of variables that vary in their seriousness. Nonetheless, it is conceivable that the primary question being addressed in recent reviews, that is, the relative effects of early versus later day care, could be investigated in situations that at least control for variables known to affect outcomes, primarily quality of day care. Comparisons of early versus later day care in the same center or in a center of similar quality would alleviate that most serious confound. Infants on a waiting list who remained at home during the early months could be compared with those who had registered earlier. Similarly, part-time and full-time early infant care could be assessed in the same or similar quality centers. The purpose of this study was to compare early versus later infant care in groups who started at different times but in the same high quality infant care center. In addition, comparisons were made between infants who started part-time care at early ages and those who started at later ages in a family cooperative infant nursery of the same quality as the full-time infant care center. In both centers the environment and curriculum had been designed by the same individuals, the centers were proximal to each other, and they served individuals from the same educational and socioeconomic (middleclass) background. Infants in the family cooperative center attended parentchild classes with their mothers for an hour and a half per week. Children did not begin center care without a parent until they were 2 years old. The presence of the mother and part-time versus full-time infant care are partly confounded in the latter center. Nevertheless, the. data from both centers were expected to partly address the question of early versus later infant day care and part-time versus full-time day care.
METHODS Samples The sample for the full-time infant day-care group was 36 preschool children ranging in age from 24 months to 65 months (M=44.4). At the time they were attending a full-time center program. Seventeen of these children had entered day care during their first 6 months of infancy (M= 3.4 months, R = 1 to 6 months), and 19 had entered day care after 6 months of age (M= 10.4 months, R = 7 to 26 months). See Table 1 for these data. Parents were of middle socioeconomic status (SES), college-educated, and working full time. The children who were members of the late entry infant care group had remained in home care with their mothers because of a long waiting list. The parents remained on this waiting list, as opposed to seeking alternative forms of care, presumably because the infant nursery was located at their place of work and was considered the only model infant program in the immediate area.
346
Field,
Mesi,
Goldstein,
Perry,
and
Pnrl
The sample for the part-time program was 35 preschool children ranging in age from 23 months to 68 months @4=48.3). At the time they were attending a part-time program. Children in the early entry group (n = 10) were between 2 and 6 months when they entered the parent-child program; children in the late entry group (n = 25) were between 7 and 18 months. All children in the sample began attending preschool without their mothers between the ages of 2 years 3 months and 3 years 11 months. At the time of observation, children in the sample had been enrolled in the program from 5 to 18 months. Because of program options, children attended from 5 to 18 hours per week. Parents were of middle SES and were college educated. Programs and Settings The full-time program offered year-round day care from the age of 4 weeks. The part-time program offered parent-child classes from the age of 6 weeks and part-time preschool on a g-month schedule from 2 years. Both programs were university-affiliated model programs designed for training, research, and service and were administered by Ph.D. developmental psychologists (Tiffany Field and Wendy Masi). The programs were similar in philosophy, curriculum, teacher training, teacher-child ratios, and environmental organization. In both settings the development of language, creativity, imaginative play, problem solving, and social skills was encouraged through a variety of open-ended learning opportunities. Classrooms were set up in learning centers, with a large proportion of space devoted to imaginative play and creative activities. Both centers had playgrounds that offered similar play opportunities; the equipment encouraged sensory, constructive, and fantasy play, as well as gross motor play. Full-Time Program. The infant nursery, which served 16 infants, provided free play and stimulation in a large room (14m x 16m) with a folding door dividing sleep and play areas. The play area (7m x 8m) included a large, soft, carpeted, multilevel structure featuring a sunken waterbed, slopes, stairs for crawling and climbing practice, and “busy board” manipulative objects installed in the walls of the structure. The teacher-child ratio was 1:4. The toddler nursery, which served 16 toddlers, provided free play and a preschool readiness curriculum. This room (9m x 6m) featured a block area, doll area, and puzzle-art area on the first level, and an elevated level that included a circular staircase leading to a reading loft and a catwalk terminating in a slide and landing pad. The teacher-child ratio was 1:5. The preschool class of 24 preschoolers was oriented towards free play, creative arts, and a school readiness curriculum. This classroom (9m x 8m) was divided by child-height partitions into a number of learning centers and special play areas for reading, art-science and math-learning centers, a block area, a store, a kitchen, and a manipulative play area contained in a
Infant
Day Care
and Social
Behavior
347
large, multilevel structure. The teacher-child ratio was 1:8. The classroom environments were designed and the teachers were supervised by the same person (Tiffany Field). Part-Time Program. Before being admitted to the part-time program, all children in the sample attended parent-child classes at the same setting. These classes met once a week for an hour and a half and provided activities for parents and children, as well as opportunities for parent discussion. Parents and children shared developmentally sequenced experiences that promoted healthy social-emotional, physical, and cognitive development. Parents and children participated together in the following types of experiences: circle time, creative movement, music, sensory activities, arts and crafts, developmental games, story time, language activities, and problemsolving activities. Classes were sequenced in 3- to 6-month intervals. Twelve parents and twelve children participated in each class. Classrooms were organized into learning centers and were similar to the environments in the full-time center. Procedures
In order to determine the effects that the length of time in quality child care has on attachment and peer socialization behavior, three types of assessments were made when the children were 2 to 5 years of age: an assessment of attachment behavior to mother, an observational assessment of play and social behaviors, and an assessment of adjustment from teacher-parent rating scales. Reunion Behaviors. Because of questions about ecological validity of the Strange Situation procedure for infants older than 18 months and because our infants were accustomed to longer separations than the brief ones used in the Strange Situation procedure, reunion behavior was observed following daily day-care separations. To do so, we used the Field et al. procedure (Field, Gewirtz, Cohen, Garcia, Greenberg, & Collins, 1984), which effectively differentiated children with ambivalent versus children with nonambivalent attachment styles. For example, Field et al. noted that children who showed leave-taking distress upon being dropped at preschool also showed ambivalent behavior at reunion following the school day. For these observations, behaviors were coded on a simple behavior checklist from the time the parent entered the playground until the parent and child left. Because striking parallels in the child’s and the parent’s reunion behaviors were noted in the Field et al. study, both child and parent behaviors were coded. Parent behaviors included: calls child, moves toward child, smiles, kisseshugs, and talks to child. Child behaviors included: calls parent, moves toward parent, smiles, reaches to parent, hugs-kisses, talks to parent, con-
348
Field,
Mosi,
Goldstein,
Perry,
and
Par1
tinues play, moves away, and leads departure. These behaviors were selected because they were most frequently observed during 100 after-school reunions and because they approximate behaviors observed in the Strange Situation reunions of younger children. Interobserver reliability coefficients as assessed by Kappa, a chance corrected statistic, ranged from .78 to .99 and averaged .92 (Field et al., 1984). Thus the same observation procedure and the same behaviors were coded in the present study. In addition, the child was assigned an attachment rating based on the child’s general reunion behavior. For this rating the three descriptors cited in Belsky (1986) were used: (a) anxious-avoidant-failing to greet mother (by averting gaze) or starting to approach but turning away; (b) secure attached-positive greeting of mother (with a smile or by showing a toy) or approaching mother to seek comfort if distressed; and (c) anxious-resistant -seeking contact yet unable to be comforted by mother (crying or refusinghitting toys offered by mother). The reunion observations were conducted only in the full-time nursery school program to compare early and late entry day-care children. These observations were not conducted in the part-time program because dismissal procedures were not conducive to this type of observation. Peer Interactions. To assess the effects of day care on peer interaction behavior, freeplay playgound observations were conducted for two to four 15-min periods for each child across a one-month period. The observer used a time sample unit coding procedure with lo-second periods of observation followed by 5-second coding intervals to yield 10 minutes of observation. The behaviors were selected to tap those differences that had been previously highlighted in the literature, namely, withdrawal behavior, different levels of play, affect, and aggression. The behaviors were as follows: aimless wandering; watching; solitary, parallel, and cooperative play; constructive and fantasy play; smiling-laughing; fussing-crying; gross motor activity; positive and negative verbal interaction; positive and negative physical interaction; interaction directed towards another child or an adult; and seeking comfort from an adult. The observations were conducted in both the fulltime and the part-time nursery school programs. Interobserver reliabilities were assessed on approximately 30% of the observations. They were calculated by the number of agreements divided by the number of agreements plus disagreements. Interobserver reliability ranged from .78 to .96 (M= .86). The reliability coefficients for the individual behaviors appear in Table 4. Child Behavior Questionnaires. Two behavior rating scales previously used for day-care and non-day-care comparisons were administered to the parents (mothers) and teachers (head teacher) of the children. The two scales were the Preschool Behavior Rating Scale (Behar & Stringfield, 1974) and the Preschool Behavior Questionnaire (Schwarz et al., 1974). The Pre-
Infant
Day Care and Social
Behavior
349
school Behavior Rating Scale (PBR) is a 30-item questionnaire adapted from Rutter’s Children’s Behavior Questionnaire (Ruttner, 1967). The items are rated on a 3-point scale, with 0 representing “does not apply,” 1 “sometimes applies,” and 2 “frequently applies.” The scale has been found to possess criterion validity and high interrater and test-retest reliabilities. In a factor analysis by Behar and Stringfield (1974), three factors were extracted and labeled aggressive, anxious, and hyperactive. The Preschool Behavior Questionnaire (PBQ) is comprised of nine items rated on a 7-point scale from low to high. This scale yielded three factors labeled (a) social compatibility, represented by tolerance for frustration, cooperativeness with adults, and compatibility with peers; (b) social assertiveness, represented by spontaneity, physical and verbal aggression, and motor activity; and (c) intellectual competency, represented by competency at problem solving, ability to plan, and ability to abstract. Finally, on the same 7-point scale the mother and head teacher were asked to rate the child’s adjustment to the day-care experience.
RESULTS A large number of comparisons were made in this data set, and the acceptable 10 to 1 subjects to variables ratio could not be met for multivariate analyses. Therefore, the Bonferroni procedure-experimentwise error rate (EW) + # comparisons (k) = acceptable p level-was used to determine the acceptable p level. The p level was accordingly set at .OOl. In addition, because no sex differences were noted in the data, sexes were combined for all analyses. Demographic Data Analyses of variance were conducted with school (full-time vs. part-time) and onset day care (early vs. late) as between-groups factors and demographic variables as dependent measures. In the full-time sample (see Table l), the only significant difference between the early entry and the late entry children was the age of entry. Early and late entry children were similar in sex, mean age, and months in school, making it possible to compare both groups. In the part-time sample, the early entry children were significantly younger than the late entry children; therefore, between-group comparisons based on age of entry in the program could not be made. The confound of age at entry and time in school makes it difficult to know whether any observed behavioral differences were attributable to age of entry or to amount of time in that program. The fact that the children in the part-time program, regardless of age of entry into the program, spent significantly less time in a child care setting without their parent than did the children in the full-time program made it possible to use the two samples to investigate the effect of amount of time in day care, using age as a covariate.
35.7 3.4 32.4 32.4 40.0
a/9 (23-57) (l-6) (19-S) (19-55) (4040)
Early (n = 17)
* p< .OOl for adjacent groups.
Females/males Current age (mo.) Entry age (mo.) Months school Months school without mother Hours/week
Variables
*
i9.0 10.4 28.1 28.1 40.0
(22-63) (7-26) (12-57) (12-57) (40-40)
Ii/a
Late (n = 19)
Data of Full-time
Full-time
Table 1. Means (and Ranges) for Demographic and Late (>6 Months) Entries to Day Care
38.7 4.1 35.9 9.9 7.8
l/3 (23-62) (2-6) (32-56) (9-18) (6-15)
Early (n = 10) * *
12/13 52.1 (34-68) 13.2 (7-18) 38.7 (21-51) 13.3 (5-18) 13.8 (5-18)
Late (n = 25)
19/17 37.4 (22-63) 7.1 (l-26) 30.1 (12-57) 30.1 (12-57) 40.0 (40-40)
Full-time (A’ = 36)
* * *
l
Totals
19116 48.3 (23-68) 11.3 (2-18) 37.9 (21-56) 11.6 (5-18) 10.8 (5-18)
Part-time (N = 35)
Day Care Samples with Early (5 6 Months)
Part-time
and Part-time
Infant Day Care and Social Behavior
351
Reunion Data Since these data were collected only on the full-time program, Bonferroni f-tests were conducted on the parent and child reunion behavior with early versus late entry as the group variable. As can be seen in Table 2, the early versus the late entry groups did not differ on any of the parent or child reunion behaviors; the distribution of attachment ratings (only one A rating in each group with the rest being Bs) did not differ across the early versus late entry samples. Child Behavior Questionnaires Because both full-time and part-time samples were rated on these questionnaires and because the late entry children of the part-time program were older, analyses of covariance were conducted on these data with current age as a covariate. As in the previous analyses, the between-groups measures were full-time versus part-time day care and early versus late entry to day care. As can be seen in Table 3, no differences were noted between children who entered day care early (I 6 months) versus later (> 6 months) in either the full-time or the part-time programs on any of the teacher ratings. However, when the total samples of full-time versus part-time day care were compared, the ratings on aggression and assertiveness were higher for children in the full-time program. This finding suggests that the head teachers Table 2. Mean Proportion Reunions That Behaviors Occurred in Full-time Day Care Samples With Early (5 6 Months) and Late (> 6 Months) Entries to Day Care Behaviors
Early
Late
35.8 58.2 89.0 41.5 80.5
57.7 81.2 51.3 82.4
Parent Calling child Moving toward child Smiling Kissing-hugging child Talking to child
39.4
Child Calling parent Moving toward parent Smiling Kissing-hugging parent Talking to parent Continuing to play Moving away from parent Leading departure Attachment rating Note. No significant differences noted at p< 301.
19.1 71.5 89.0 38.0 51.2 24.5 3.4 11.8
26.3 82.4 81.2 53.9 69.4 18.4 2.6 23.1
l6-Bs I-A
18-Bs 1-A
i
11.5 13.2 13.0 5.6 43.9
4.5 3.6 2.6 12.7
15.1 13.6 16.3 5.7 48.8
Factors PBR Compatibility Assertiveness Intellectual Competence Adjustment Total
Mother ratings Factors PBQ Aggression Anxiety Hyperactivity Total
Factors PBR Compatibility Assertiveness Intellectual Competence Adjustment Total
* p< .OOl for adjacent groups. a Adjusted cell means resulting from ANCOVA
5.2 4.5 3.1 14.7
Teacher ratings Factors PBQ Aggression Anxiety Hyperactivity Total
Early
3.8 4.4 2.3 12.6
13.9 13.4 14.1 5.9 47.4
5.6 4.5 3.4 15.4
Late
on current age.
15.1 12.8 16.0 6.5 50.4
Full-time
15.1 13.0 17.0 6.5 51.6
3.6 3.6 1.3 9.6
16.4 12.0 17.1 6.3 50.8
3.1 1.9 9.5
2.9
Early
Part-time
15.4 13.8 18.9 6.1 51.0
5.0 3.5 1.7 12.0
16.1 12.3 17.1 6.2 51.8
2.3 1.8 1.8 7.1
Late
15.5 12.8 16.4 6.2 50.8
4.3 4.1 2.5 12.7
13.4 14.1 14.8 5.9 48.5
5.7 4.4 3.4 15.5
Full-time
*
*
*
Totalsa
15.0 14.0 16.5 6.2 51.0
4.5 3.5 I.5 11.1
15.6 II.4 15.8 6.1 48.3
2.2 2.3 1.7 7.4
Part-time
Table 3. Means for Teacher and Mother Ratings of Children in Full-time and Part-time Day Care Samples With Early (16 Months) and Late (> 6 Months) Entries to Day Carea
Infant
Day Care and Social
Behavior
353
of the full-time program perceived children who had more experience in day care as more aggressive and assertive than did the head teachers of the parttime program. For the parent ratings, however, no differences emerged either for the early versus late entry or the full-time versus part-time samples. Peer Interaction Data Data for playground peer play interactions were also submitted to analyses of covariance (for the reason mentioned above for questionnaire data) with current age as a covariate. Again the acceptable p level was set at .OOl. As can be seen in Table 4, no differences emerged between the early versus the late entry children on any of the play behaviors. This finding suggests that age of entry to day care did not affect the children’s playground peer play interaction behavior. However, several differences were noted between the early entry full-time versus the early entry part-time samples. As noted in Table 1, these samples were equivalent on current age (35.7 vs. 38.7 months), age of entry (3.4 vs. 4.1 months), and months of school (32.4 vs. 35.9 months). However, the part-time early entry sample had significantly fewer months of school without their mothers (9.9 vs. 37.4) and significantly fewer hours per week (7.8 vs. 40) than did the full-time early entry sample. Thus the part-time early entry group had significantly less day-care experience. For that reason, it is perhaps not surprising that the children engaged in significantly more watching, solitary play, and teacher comfort-seeking behavior while engaging in significantly less cooperative play and positive affect behavior (smiling-laughing) than did their more experienced peers. Similarly, the comparison between the total full-time and part-time samples yielded the same behavior differences, with the less experienced part-time children showing more watching, solitary play, and teacher comfort-seeking behavior, along with less cooperative play and positive affect behavior. Although the late entry part-time group also showed more of these behaviors than did the late entry full-time group, the differences failed to reach the conservative level of significance, perhaps because these two groups were not as discrepant on the amount of day-care experience as were the early entry groups. Thus the differences between the total full-time versus the part-time samples apparently derived primarily from the early entry group differences. These comparisons suggest, then, that the amount of day-care experience is the critical variable in facilitating social behavior. Since the previous analyses revealed that children in full-time day care were engaging in more social behavior and suggested that the amount of day-care experience without the mother was a critical variable, a further comparison was made in the part-time program to explore this variable. Children in the part-time program were divided according to the number of months they had participated in day care without their mothers (I 9 months and > 9 months). This yielded one group (n = 21) that averaged 9 months
E
.6 26.2 25.3 1.9 .8 .6 32.1 5.4 .3
.8 35.8 17.9 1.9
1.2 .9 28.2 5.5 l.lC
Fussing-crying (.87) Gross motor activity (.89) Positive verbal interaction (.81) Negative verbal interaction (.89)
Positive physical interaction (.82) Negative physical interaction (.83) Interaction child (.92) Interaction adult (.96) Teacher comfort-seeking (.80)
Occurred
1.0 .9 15.9 6.1 2.7’
.7 38.9 22.4 1.0
10.3c 15.6 8.9 3.2c
8.8 40.4c 46.7c 14.6
Part-lime
1.0 .8 33.2 5.5 .5
1.2 30.7 27.5 2.0
.4 26.0 32.8 1.5 1.8 1.6 38.8 5.2 2.0
41.2 32.7 18.2 10.8
5.8 15.4 15.6 12.7
Full-timeb
*
*
l
* *
Totals
1.6 1.4 24.3 5.4 2.4
1.0 29.7 24.0 1.2
17.7 22.0 13.0 4.6
8.4 39.8 34.6 14.8
Part-timeb
Day Care Samples With Early (I 6 Months)
28.5 27.6 18.8 6.4
7.2 38.1 23.8 13.7
Late
and Part-time
Early
in Full-time
* p< .OOl for adjacent groups. ’ Interobserver reliabilities are in parentheses. b Adjusted call means resulting from ANCOVA on current age. ’ Differences between early full-time and early part-time groups at p< .OOl.
40.7 34.5 17.9 11.8
3O.lC 26.2 12.4 7.9
Cooperative play (.94) Constructive play (85) Fantasy play (.89) Smiling-laughing (JO)
5.9 15.8 16.8 12.9
Late
7.3 17.oc 23.1c 14.0
Early
Wandering (.78) Watching (79) Solitary play (.84) Parallel play (.85)
Play behaviors’
Full-time
Table 4. Mean Proportion of Time That Play Behaviors and Late (>6 Months) Entries to Day Care
Infant
Day Care
and Social
355
Behavior
of day care and 10 hours per week without their mothers and a second group (n = 14) that averaged 18 months of day care and I5 hours per week without their mothers. Because the groups differed on current age and age of entry, these variables were entered as covariates in an analysis of covariance. Favoring the children with more experience, this analysis yielded differences (pc .OOl) that were similar to the advantages noted for the children in the full-time versus the part-time programs (Table 5). After current and entry age differences were controlled for, the children with significantly more months and hours of day care were rated by their teachers as being more assertive, engaging in less watching and solitary play, and displaying more cooperative play, positive affect, positive verbal interaction, and more interaction in general with their peers.
DISCUSSION
As previously mentioned, Belsky (1986) concluded his recent review by saying that “entry into care in the first year of life is a ‘risk factor’ for the development of insecure-avoidant attachments in infancy and heightened aggressiveness, noncompliance, and withdrawal in the preschool and early school years” (p. 7). Elsewhere, Belsky (1987) cited an additional risk factor as spending “more than 20 hours a week in non-maternal care during the first year of life” (p. 63). The data of this study do not support either of these conclusions. In terms of attachment (reunion) behavior and sociability, no differences were noted between preschool children who had started day Table 5. Means for Variables on Which Part-lime Program Children With 59 Months’ Schooling Without Mother (M= 10 Hours/Week) Significantly Differed (p< .OOl) From Those With >9 Months’ Schooling Without Mother (M= 15 Hours/Week) After Covarying Current Age and Entry Age s 9 months Current age Entry age Months school Months school without mother Hours/week T assertiveness Watching Solitary play Cooperative play Smiling-laughing Positive verbal interaction Interaction
child
(n = 21)
> 9 months
40.8 8.4 32.4 8.6
60.1
10.1
15.0 13.6 31.0 21.6
9.3 41.3 36.1 15.3 4.6 21.3 21.2
13.8
46.0 17.9
35.4 6.9 42.7 48.9
(n = 14)
356
Field,
Masi,
Goldstein,
Perry,
and
Par1
care in the first 6 months of life versus those who started day care between 6 and 26 months in the same program. Furthermore, children who had received 40 hours of day care per week versus those who attended day care with their mothers a couple of hours per week were more, not less, sociable at the preschool stage. The amount of time spent in day care was related to positive social behaviors regardless of the age of entry into child care. More specifically, with respect to age of entry, analyses of these data suggested that early entry children (I 6 months) did not differ from late entry children (> 6 months) on any variables, including reunion behavior, attachment ratings, teacher and parent ratings of children’s behavior, or play interaction variables. Because the children of the full-time program attended the same program and were equivalent on other critical variables (current age, months of schooling), age of entry was not confounded as it typically has been in the literature. In other studies, comparisons have been made between samples of children from different programs, and later enrolling families have been characteristically different from earlier enrolling families. In this sample, the late enrolled children were from the same types of families (parents who were medical faculty and staff) who had simply moved to the area later and were lower on the waiting list for the same center. Thus, within-center comparisons of children from similarly motivated families yielded no differences between early and later entry to day care, unlike the many between-group comparisons cited in Belsky’s (1986) review of the literature. This study highlights the importance of Belsky’s caution that within-group comparisons are critical to addressing the significance of day care variables such as age of entry. If similar groups of children are compared, there is no reason to expect that day care experience would contribute to “heightened aggressiveness, noncompliance and withdrawal in the preschool years,” as Belsky has claimed on the basis of his review of the literature. That review included reports of greater physical and verbal aggression (Schwarz et al., 1974), more negative affect (Farber & Egeland, 1982), greater maladjustment (anxiety) (McCartney et al., 1982), and greater social withdrawal (Barton & Schwarz, 1981) in children who experienced infant day care. Instead, because day care involves extensive experience with other children and adults, it is typically considered a socializing experience and one that would be expected to contribute to the more positive behaviors cited in the review by Phillips et al. (1987). In their review, Phillips et al. refer to literature reporting more positive effects such as more positive affect and higher social interaction scores in children who attended infant day care (Haskins, 1985; Howes & Rubenstein, 1985; Howes & Stewart, 1986). The data from the present study are consistent with the conclusions of Phillips et al. Children who had experienced more high quality day care were more sociable.
Infant
Day Care
and Social
Behavior
357
The three separate comparisons of this study suggest that children with more day-care experience were more socially interactive. The two betweenprograms comparisons (early entry full-time vs. part-time programs and the total full-time vs. part-time samples) suggest differences in favor of the fulltime day-care children for the same variables. Children with more experience showed less watching, solitary play, and teacher comfort-seeking behavior, as well as more cooperative play and positive affect. Additionally, in the within-program (part-time program) comparison, again the children with more day-care experience showed less watching and solitary play and more cooperative play and positive affect. They also spent more time interacting with their peers and had more frequent positive verbal interactions. The only difference that could be construed as negative for the children who had experienced more day care is the teachers’ ratings of them as more assertive-aggressive. However, the very low incidence of observed aggression (both verbal and physical) and the identical amounts of aggression coded for full-time and part-time children on the playground suggest that careful observation in a playground situation where aggression might be expected yielded no differences between these groups of children. While these findings are provocative, the present study had some sampling limitations. First, the decision to use 6 months as a cut-off between early and late entry was based on sample size. It could be argued that this cut-off point is not ideal, as children who are placed in child care at the height of attachment formation (between 6 and 18 months) may be more disrupted by the placement than are children placed in child care at either an earlier or a later point in time. A second limitation of the study was the confound of age of entry and length of time in the part-time program sample, which limited the between-group comparisons that could be made. A third limitation was that assessments were made at a single point in time rather than multiple assessments across time. Nonetheless, the data suggest that “entry into care in the first year of life” and “more than 20 hours a week in non-maternal care during the first year of life” are not necessarily risk factors, contrary to the claims made by Belsky (1986, 1987). Instead, in these well-controlled within-group comparisons, age of entry (either early in the first year or later) did not appear to affect children’s later social behavior. And children who experienced fulltime care (twice the “20 hours per week”) as well as children who had experienced more months of day care (twice the number of months) were more sociable at the preschool stage, as might be expected inasmuch as stable, quality day care would be considered a socializing experience. Thus, stability and quality of care appear to be important variables in this study. These children continuously attended infant day care in the same high quality model programs, which, as Phillips et al. (1976) pointed out, will invariably prove to be the critical variables for optimal outcomes.
358
Field,
Masi,
Goldstein,
Perry,
and
Part
REFERENCES Barglow, P. (1985). Other-than-mother, in-home care, and the quality of the mother-child relationship. Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto. Barton, M., & Schwarz, J. (1981, August). Day care in the middle class: Effects in elementary school. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association’s annual convention, Los Angeles. Behar, L., & Stringfield, S.A. (1974). A behavior rating scale for the preschool child. Developmental Psychology, IO, 601-610. Belsky, J. (1986). Infant daycare: A cause for concern? Zero to Three, 6, 1-7. Belsky, J. (1987, June 22). The child-care dilemma. Time magazine, p. 63. Belsky, J., &Steinberg, L.D. (1978). The effects of day care: A critical review. C/ii/d Development, 49, 929-949. Belsky, J., Steinberg, L.D., &Walker, A. (1982). The ecology of day care. In M. Lamb (Ed.), Childrearing in nontraditional families (pp. 71-l 16). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Chess, S. (1987). Comments. Infant daycare: A cause for concern, Zero to Three, 7, 24-25. Clarke-Stewart, K.A., & Fein, G. (1983). Early childhood programs. In M.M. Haith & J.J. Campos (Eds.), P.H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Infancy and development psychobiology. New York: Wiley. Farber, E.A., & Egeland, B. (1982). Developmental consequences of out-of-home care for infants in a low income population. In E. Zigler & E. Gordon (Eds.), Dav care (pp. 102125). Boston: Auburn. Field, T. (1987). Interaction and attachment in normal and atypical infants. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, l-7. Field, T.. Gewirtz, J.L., Cohen, D., Garcia, R.. Greenberg, R., & Collins, K. (1984). Leavetakings and reunions of infants, toddlers, preschoolers and their parents. Child Development, 55, 628-635. Haskins, R. (1985). Public school aggression among children with varying day-care experience. Child Development, 56, 689-703. Howes, C., & Rubenstein, J. (1985). Determinants of toddlers’ experience in day care: Age of entry and quality of setting. Child Care Quarter/y, 14, 140-151. Howes, C., &Stewart, P. (1986). Child’splay hpith adults, peersand toys. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Los Angeles. McCartney, K., Starr, S., Phillips, D., Grajek, S., & Schwarz, J.C. (1982). Environmental differences among day care centers and their effects on children’s development. In E. Zigler & E. Gordon (Eds.), Day care: Scientific and social policy issues. Boston: Auburn. Phillips, D., McCartney, K., Starr, S., & Howes, C. (1987). Selective review of infant daycare research: A cause for concern! Zero to Three, 7, 18-21. Rubenstein, J., Howes, C., &Boyle, P. (1981). A two year follow-up of infants in communitybased day care. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 22, 209-218. Rutter, M. (1967). A children’s behavior questionnaire for completion by teachers: Preliminary findings. Journal of Child Psychology und Psychiatry, 8, 1-l 1. Rutter, M. (1981). Maternal deprivation reassessed (2nd ed.). Middlesex, England. Penguin Books. Schwartz, P. (1983). Length of day-care attendance and attachment behavior in eighteenmonth-old infants. Child Development, 54, 1073-1078. Schwarz, J.C., Krolick, G., &Strickland, R.G. (1973). Effects of early day care experience on adjustment to a new environment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 43, 340-348. Schwarz, J.C., Strickland, R.G., & Krolick, G. (1974). Infant day care: Behavioral effects at preschool age. Developmental Psychology, 10, 502-506.
Infant
Vaughn,
Day Care
and Social
B., Deane,
Behavior
K., & Waters,
359
E. (1985).
The
attachment quality: Another look at some Waters (Eds.), Growi~ pain/s 01 arraclwrenr Society for Research in Child Development.
impact
of out-of-home
enduring questions. t/zeorJJ n&research. Chicago: University
care on child-mother In 1. Bretherton & E. Monographs for the of Chicago Press.
Childhood
Research
Quarterly,
3, 341-359
(1988)
Infant Day Care Facilitates Preschool Social Behavior Tiffany Mailman
Center
for
Field
Child Development, University of Miami
Wendy Masi Mailman
Family
Center,
Nova
University
Sheri Goldstein Susdn Perry University
of Miami
Silke Par1 Nova
University
Seventy-one preschool-age children entering infant day care at varying times and receiving varying amounts of infant day care were compared on their reunion-with-parent behavior, teacher and parent ratings of their behavior, and playground play interactions. Age of entry into day care (56 months vs. > 6 months) had no significant effect on attachment to mother as measured by reunion behaviors or on play and socialization skills as measured by observation and behavior rating scalesin a full-time day-care setting. Furthermore, children with more hours and months of day care engaged in lesswatching, solitary play, and teacher comfort-seeking behavior, and they showed more cooperative play, positive affect, peer interaction, and positive verbal interaction. Thus continuous infant day care in quality centers appears to facilitate preschool social behavior and does not negatively affect attachment behavior.
Until recently, reviews of the literature on the effects of day care have found little, if any, evidence of detrimental effects on infant development (Belsky This researchwaspartially supported by NIMH ResearchScientistAward (#MHOO331) to Tiffany Field. We wish to thank the children, parents, and teacherswho participatedin this study and Laura Pavon, Carol Lynn Adams, Ana Lila Abello, Ahroana Surowitz, Lance Charlott, and Sandra Vaden-Krautfor their researchassistance. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Tiffany Field, University of Miami Medical School, Mailman Center for Child Development, P.O. Box 016820, Miami, FL 33101. 341
342
Field,
Musi,
Goldstein.
Perry,
und
Pnrl
& Steinberg, 1978; Belsky, Steinberg, & Walker, 1982). In reconsidering the literature, Belsky (1986) has come to a different conclusion. He states that “entry into care in the first year of life is a ‘risk factor’ for the development of insecure-avoidant attachments in infancy and heightened aggressiveness, non-compliance and withdrawal in the preschool and early years” (p. 7). Thus, in two significant areas, attachment to mother and preschool social adjustment, Belsky is suggesting that infant day care may produce significant negative effects. Belsky’s concern with the influence of day care on the infant’s attachment to the mother is based both on his interpretation of recent studies and on the notion that methodologies used in previous studies may have been inadequate. Belsky suggests that the positive conclusions of earlier reviews were based largely on the separation episode of the Ainsworth Strange Situation paradigm, in which the focus was on whether the infant became distressed upon separation and whether she or he approached and interacted with the strange adult. In contrast, the studies upon which Belsky bases his more negative recent review (Belsky, 1986) focused on the infant’s behavior during the reunion phase of the Strange Situation. According to Belsky: It became abundantly clear that the most revealing and developmentally meaningful aspect of the infant’s behavior in the Strange Situation was his or her
orientation to mother upon reunion following separation, something which simply had not been considered in the early studies. Indeed, attachment researchers now distinguish between three types. Infants who positively greet their mothers (with a smile or by showing a toy) and/or who approach mother to seek comfort if distressed are characterized as having secure attachments. Those who fail to greet mother (by averting gaze) or who start to approach
mother but then turn away are considered to be anxious/avoidant in their attachments; and those who seek contact yet cannot be comforted by mother and who cry in an angry, petulant manner or hit away toys offered by mother are considered anxious-resistant in their attachment relationship. (p. 3)
Belsky considers these patterns of secure and insecure attachment relationships as critical to understanding the developmental correlates of infant day care inasmuch as they reputedly predict individual differences in later development (Belsky, 1986). In his most recent review of the infant day-care literature, Beisky (1986) cites studies in which infants who have received supplementary child care initiated during the first year show patterns of avoidance upon reunion during the Strange Situation paradigm. For example, the study by Vaughn, Deane, and Waters (1985) documents patterns of avoidance shown by infants who had been cared for in low quality centers. Similarly, middle-class infants, experiencing a variety of day-care arrangements during the first
Infant
Day Care
and Social
Behavior
343
year of life, also displayed greater avoidance of their mothers in the Strange Situation procedure (Schwartz, 1983). Finally, Barglow (1985) also found higher rates of avoidance among middle-class infants as opposed to homereared infants cared for in good quality, stable day-care arrangements. On the surface, these data appear to be consistent. However, the data, for example, from the Schwartz study (1983) need to be qualified inasmuch as only those infants who began full-time care, as opposed to those who began part-time care, as young infants showed greater avoidance of their mothers. Those in part-time care did not differ from infants not in child care. As Belsky himself notes (Belsky, 1986), other investigators have interpreted the same data in a different manner. Avoidance of the mother upon reunion is not interpreted as a deficit or a disturbance, but rather as an adaptive and possibly even a precocious behavior. Clarke-Steward and Fein (1983), for example, reason that, because day-care infants experience many separations, it is reasonable for them not to orient toward the mother. Because infants tend to remain more distant from their mothers as they get older, the avoidance of the mother is seen as evidence of earlier maturity. According to Clarke-Stewart and Fein (1983): In children receiving care exclusively from mother, avoidance may be a pathological response reflecting an interactive history with the rejecting mother, while for children in daycare greater distance from, or ignoring of, mother at reunion may be an adaptive response reflecting an habitual reaction to repeated daily separations and reunions. In these latter children, greater physical distance from mother and apparent avoidance may, in fact, signal a precocious independence (p. 949)
Others (Field, 1987; Rutter, 1981) have raised serious objections to the Strange Situation paradigm itself and its almost exclusive use as an index of infant attachment. For example, Rutter (1981) has expressed concern about drawing conclusions from “curious procedures involving mother, caretakers, and strangers not only going in and out of rooms every minute for reasons quite obscure to the child, but also not initiating interactions in the way they might usually do” (p. 160). As Chess (1987) has suggested, “Is it not possible that in a child who is confident that his or her mother will return after a brief absence, the mother’s return does not call for any special recognition of this event?” (p. 25). Belsky’s (1986) suggestion that infants experiencing day care in the first year are affected deleteriously in the area of early interactions with peers and adults is based on the negative effects found in a limited number of studies. Belsky notes, for example, that in the study by Schwarz, Strickland, and Krolick (1974), preschool children who had participated in infant day care were more physically and verbally aggressive with adults and peers, less cooperative with grown-ups and less tolerant of frustration. Similarly, al-
344
Field,
Masi,
Goldstein,
Perry,
and
Par1
though Farber and Egeland (1982) noted that the effects were not persistent beyond two years, they suggested that there was less compliance, less resistance in dealing with difficult problems, and more negative affect in day-care infants who had participated in the Minnesota longitudinal studies. Decreased compliance and temper tantrums were also noted by Rubenstein, Howes, and Boyle (1981) in infants who had been in supplementary care in their first year. Finally, maladjustment, as manifested by caregiver ratings of children’s anxiety levels, was noted in Bermudan preschoolers who were cared for in family day-care homes (McCartney, Starr, Phillips, Grajek, & Schwarz, 1982). Higher levels of misbehavior and greater social withdrawal were also noted in the same study population by Barton and Schwarz (1981). However, a number of studies provide data on more positive outcomes for infants experiencing day care during the first year of life (see Phillips, McCartney, Starr, 8c Howes, 1987, reply to Belsky). For example, a study by Howes and Stewart (1986) suggests that children, particularly boys, who entered child care as younger infants and had few child care changes were more likely to engage in high levels of play with objects. In another study by Haskins (1985), the children with extensive experience in licensed child care centers showed a lower incidence of hitting, kicking, and pushing than did children with less day-care experience. Others reported that children who entered day care at a very early age (between 2 and 20 months) had higher frequencies of touching and laughing (Howes dc Rubenstein, 1985), exhibited more positive affect upon entering their peer group, showed less tension upon entering the group, and had higher social interaction scores than did children who had entered day care at the preschool period (Schwarz, Krolick, & Strickland, 1973). Thus the data on Strange Situation reunion behaviors and on later social behavior of infants who had early day-care experience appear to be mixed. One obvious reason for the inconsistent data is that they are confounded by the differences between those families who select and those who do not select early day care, differences in family stress, child’s age of entry into care, length of time in care, and stability and quality of care. As Belsky (1986) suggests, Families that use daycare and those that do not may differ from each other in a myriad of ways, as families that use one type of care may differ from families using another type. Thus, the very concept of “effects of daycare” appears misplaced, as between-group comparisons are plagued with a host of confounds that cannot be teased apart by most statistical or design controls. (p. 1)
The optimal design, comparing infants who received day care in a given setting with those who were denied day care in that setting but who remained on the waiting list, is typically not possible since mothers who are returning to work are often forced to look for alternative places of care. Virtually any
Infant
Day Care
and Social
Behavior
345
design for addressing this question may be confounded by a host of variables that vary in their seriousness. Nonetheless, it is conceivable that the primary question being addressed in recent reviews, that is, the relative effects of early versus later day care, could be investigated in situations that at least control for variables known to affect outcomes, primarily quality of day care. Comparisons of early versus later day care in the same center or in a center of similar quality would alleviate that most serious confound. Infants on a waiting list who remained at home during the early months could be compared with those who had registered earlier. Similarly, part-time and full-time early infant care could be assessed in the same or similar quality centers. The purpose of this study was to compare early versus later infant care in groups who started at different times but in the same high quality infant care center. In addition, comparisons were made between infants who started part-time care at early ages and those who started at later ages in a family cooperative infant nursery of the same quality as the full-time infant care center. In both centers the environment and curriculum had been designed by the same individuals, the centers were proximal to each other, and they served individuals from the same educational and socioeconomic (middleclass) background. Infants in the family cooperative center attended parentchild classes with their mothers for an hour and a half per week. Children did not begin center care without a parent until they were 2 years old. The presence of the mother and part-time versus full-time infant care are partly confounded in the latter center. Nevertheless, the. data from both centers were expected to partly address the question of early versus later infant day care and part-time versus full-time day care.
METHODS Samples The sample for the full-time infant day-care group was 36 preschool children ranging in age from 24 months to 65 months (M=44.4). At the time they were attending a full-time center program. Seventeen of these children had entered day care during their first 6 months of infancy (M= 3.4 months, R = 1 to 6 months), and 19 had entered day care after 6 months of age (M= 10.4 months, R = 7 to 26 months). See Table 1 for these data. Parents were of middle socioeconomic status (SES), college-educated, and working full time. The children who were members of the late entry infant care group had remained in home care with their mothers because of a long waiting list. The parents remained on this waiting list, as opposed to seeking alternative forms of care, presumably because the infant nursery was located at their place of work and was considered the only model infant program in the immediate area.
346
Field,
Mesi,
Goldstein,
Perry,
and
Pnrl
The sample for the part-time program was 35 preschool children ranging in age from 23 months to 68 months @4=48.3). At the time they were attending a part-time program. Children in the early entry group (n = 10) were between 2 and 6 months when they entered the parent-child program; children in the late entry group (n = 25) were between 7 and 18 months. All children in the sample began attending preschool without their mothers between the ages of 2 years 3 months and 3 years 11 months. At the time of observation, children in the sample had been enrolled in the program from 5 to 18 months. Because of program options, children attended from 5 to 18 hours per week. Parents were of middle SES and were college educated. Programs and Settings The full-time program offered year-round day care from the age of 4 weeks. The part-time program offered parent-child classes from the age of 6 weeks and part-time preschool on a g-month schedule from 2 years. Both programs were university-affiliated model programs designed for training, research, and service and were administered by Ph.D. developmental psychologists (Tiffany Field and Wendy Masi). The programs were similar in philosophy, curriculum, teacher training, teacher-child ratios, and environmental organization. In both settings the development of language, creativity, imaginative play, problem solving, and social skills was encouraged through a variety of open-ended learning opportunities. Classrooms were set up in learning centers, with a large proportion of space devoted to imaginative play and creative activities. Both centers had playgrounds that offered similar play opportunities; the equipment encouraged sensory, constructive, and fantasy play, as well as gross motor play. Full-Time Program. The infant nursery, which served 16 infants, provided free play and stimulation in a large room (14m x 16m) with a folding door dividing sleep and play areas. The play area (7m x 8m) included a large, soft, carpeted, multilevel structure featuring a sunken waterbed, slopes, stairs for crawling and climbing practice, and “busy board” manipulative objects installed in the walls of the structure. The teacher-child ratio was 1:4. The toddler nursery, which served 16 toddlers, provided free play and a preschool readiness curriculum. This room (9m x 6m) featured a block area, doll area, and puzzle-art area on the first level, and an elevated level that included a circular staircase leading to a reading loft and a catwalk terminating in a slide and landing pad. The teacher-child ratio was 1:5. The preschool class of 24 preschoolers was oriented towards free play, creative arts, and a school readiness curriculum. This classroom (9m x 8m) was divided by child-height partitions into a number of learning centers and special play areas for reading, art-science and math-learning centers, a block area, a store, a kitchen, and a manipulative play area contained in a
Infant
Day Care
and Social
Behavior
347
large, multilevel structure. The teacher-child ratio was 1:8. The classroom environments were designed and the teachers were supervised by the same person (Tiffany Field). Part-Time Program. Before being admitted to the part-time program, all children in the sample attended parent-child classes at the same setting. These classes met once a week for an hour and a half and provided activities for parents and children, as well as opportunities for parent discussion. Parents and children shared developmentally sequenced experiences that promoted healthy social-emotional, physical, and cognitive development. Parents and children participated together in the following types of experiences: circle time, creative movement, music, sensory activities, arts and crafts, developmental games, story time, language activities, and problemsolving activities. Classes were sequenced in 3- to 6-month intervals. Twelve parents and twelve children participated in each class. Classrooms were organized into learning centers and were similar to the environments in the full-time center. Procedures
In order to determine the effects that the length of time in quality child care has on attachment and peer socialization behavior, three types of assessments were made when the children were 2 to 5 years of age: an assessment of attachment behavior to mother, an observational assessment of play and social behaviors, and an assessment of adjustment from teacher-parent rating scales. Reunion Behaviors. Because of questions about ecological validity of the Strange Situation procedure for infants older than 18 months and because our infants were accustomed to longer separations than the brief ones used in the Strange Situation procedure, reunion behavior was observed following daily day-care separations. To do so, we used the Field et al. procedure (Field, Gewirtz, Cohen, Garcia, Greenberg, & Collins, 1984), which effectively differentiated children with ambivalent versus children with nonambivalent attachment styles. For example, Field et al. noted that children who showed leave-taking distress upon being dropped at preschool also showed ambivalent behavior at reunion following the school day. For these observations, behaviors were coded on a simple behavior checklist from the time the parent entered the playground until the parent and child left. Because striking parallels in the child’s and the parent’s reunion behaviors were noted in the Field et al. study, both child and parent behaviors were coded. Parent behaviors included: calls child, moves toward child, smiles, kisseshugs, and talks to child. Child behaviors included: calls parent, moves toward parent, smiles, reaches to parent, hugs-kisses, talks to parent, con-
348
Field,
Mosi,
Goldstein,
Perry,
and
Par1
tinues play, moves away, and leads departure. These behaviors were selected because they were most frequently observed during 100 after-school reunions and because they approximate behaviors observed in the Strange Situation reunions of younger children. Interobserver reliability coefficients as assessed by Kappa, a chance corrected statistic, ranged from .78 to .99 and averaged .92 (Field et al., 1984). Thus the same observation procedure and the same behaviors were coded in the present study. In addition, the child was assigned an attachment rating based on the child’s general reunion behavior. For this rating the three descriptors cited in Belsky (1986) were used: (a) anxious-avoidant-failing to greet mother (by averting gaze) or starting to approach but turning away; (b) secure attached-positive greeting of mother (with a smile or by showing a toy) or approaching mother to seek comfort if distressed; and (c) anxious-resistant -seeking contact yet unable to be comforted by mother (crying or refusinghitting toys offered by mother). The reunion observations were conducted only in the full-time nursery school program to compare early and late entry day-care children. These observations were not conducted in the part-time program because dismissal procedures were not conducive to this type of observation. Peer Interactions. To assess the effects of day care on peer interaction behavior, freeplay playgound observations were conducted for two to four 15-min periods for each child across a one-month period. The observer used a time sample unit coding procedure with lo-second periods of observation followed by 5-second coding intervals to yield 10 minutes of observation. The behaviors were selected to tap those differences that had been previously highlighted in the literature, namely, withdrawal behavior, different levels of play, affect, and aggression. The behaviors were as follows: aimless wandering; watching; solitary, parallel, and cooperative play; constructive and fantasy play; smiling-laughing; fussing-crying; gross motor activity; positive and negative verbal interaction; positive and negative physical interaction; interaction directed towards another child or an adult; and seeking comfort from an adult. The observations were conducted in both the fulltime and the part-time nursery school programs. Interobserver reliabilities were assessed on approximately 30% of the observations. They were calculated by the number of agreements divided by the number of agreements plus disagreements. Interobserver reliability ranged from .78 to .96 (M= .86). The reliability coefficients for the individual behaviors appear in Table 4. Child Behavior Questionnaires. Two behavior rating scales previously used for day-care and non-day-care comparisons were administered to the parents (mothers) and teachers (head teacher) of the children. The two scales were the Preschool Behavior Rating Scale (Behar & Stringfield, 1974) and the Preschool Behavior Questionnaire (Schwarz et al., 1974). The Pre-
Infant
Day Care and Social
Behavior
349
school Behavior Rating Scale (PBR) is a 30-item questionnaire adapted from Rutter’s Children’s Behavior Questionnaire (Ruttner, 1967). The items are rated on a 3-point scale, with 0 representing “does not apply,” 1 “sometimes applies,” and 2 “frequently applies.” The scale has been found to possess criterion validity and high interrater and test-retest reliabilities. In a factor analysis by Behar and Stringfield (1974), three factors were extracted and labeled aggressive, anxious, and hyperactive. The Preschool Behavior Questionnaire (PBQ) is comprised of nine items rated on a 7-point scale from low to high. This scale yielded three factors labeled (a) social compatibility, represented by tolerance for frustration, cooperativeness with adults, and compatibility with peers; (b) social assertiveness, represented by spontaneity, physical and verbal aggression, and motor activity; and (c) intellectual competency, represented by competency at problem solving, ability to plan, and ability to abstract. Finally, on the same 7-point scale the mother and head teacher were asked to rate the child’s adjustment to the day-care experience.
RESULTS A large number of comparisons were made in this data set, and the acceptable 10 to 1 subjects to variables ratio could not be met for multivariate analyses. Therefore, the Bonferroni procedure-experimentwise error rate (EW) + # comparisons (k) = acceptable p level-was used to determine the acceptable p level. The p level was accordingly set at .OOl. In addition, because no sex differences were noted in the data, sexes were combined for all analyses. Demographic Data Analyses of variance were conducted with school (full-time vs. part-time) and onset day care (early vs. late) as between-groups factors and demographic variables as dependent measures. In the full-time sample (see Table l), the only significant difference between the early entry and the late entry children was the age of entry. Early and late entry children were similar in sex, mean age, and months in school, making it possible to compare both groups. In the part-time sample, the early entry children were significantly younger than the late entry children; therefore, between-group comparisons based on age of entry in the program could not be made. The confound of age at entry and time in school makes it difficult to know whether any observed behavioral differences were attributable to age of entry or to amount of time in that program. The fact that the children in the part-time program, regardless of age of entry into the program, spent significantly less time in a child care setting without their parent than did the children in the full-time program made it possible to use the two samples to investigate the effect of amount of time in day care, using age as a covariate.
35.7 3.4 32.4 32.4 40.0
a/9 (23-57) (l-6) (19-S) (19-55) (4040)
Early (n = 17)
* p< .OOl for adjacent groups.
Females/males Current age (mo.) Entry age (mo.) Months school Months school without mother Hours/week
Variables
*
i9.0 10.4 28.1 28.1 40.0
(22-63) (7-26) (12-57) (12-57) (40-40)
Ii/a
Late (n = 19)
Data of Full-time
Full-time
Table 1. Means (and Ranges) for Demographic and Late (>6 Months) Entries to Day Care
38.7 4.1 35.9 9.9 7.8
l/3 (23-62) (2-6) (32-56) (9-18) (6-15)
Early (n = 10) * *
12/13 52.1 (34-68) 13.2 (7-18) 38.7 (21-51) 13.3 (5-18) 13.8 (5-18)
Late (n = 25)
19/17 37.4 (22-63) 7.1 (l-26) 30.1 (12-57) 30.1 (12-57) 40.0 (40-40)
Full-time (A’ = 36)
* * *
l
Totals
19116 48.3 (23-68) 11.3 (2-18) 37.9 (21-56) 11.6 (5-18) 10.8 (5-18)
Part-time (N = 35)
Day Care Samples with Early (5 6 Months)
Part-time
and Part-time
Infant Day Care and Social Behavior
351
Reunion Data Since these data were collected only on the full-time program, Bonferroni f-tests were conducted on the parent and child reunion behavior with early versus late entry as the group variable. As can be seen in Table 2, the early versus the late entry groups did not differ on any of the parent or child reunion behaviors; the distribution of attachment ratings (only one A rating in each group with the rest being Bs) did not differ across the early versus late entry samples. Child Behavior Questionnaires Because both full-time and part-time samples were rated on these questionnaires and because the late entry children of the part-time program were older, analyses of covariance were conducted on these data with current age as a covariate. As in the previous analyses, the between-groups measures were full-time versus part-time day care and early versus late entry to day care. As can be seen in Table 3, no differences were noted between children who entered day care early (I 6 months) versus later (> 6 months) in either the full-time or the part-time programs on any of the teacher ratings. However, when the total samples of full-time versus part-time day care were compared, the ratings on aggression and assertiveness were higher for children in the full-time program. This finding suggests that the head teachers Table 2. Mean Proportion Reunions That Behaviors Occurred in Full-time Day Care Samples With Early (5 6 Months) and Late (> 6 Months) Entries to Day Care Behaviors
Early
Late
35.8 58.2 89.0 41.5 80.5
57.7 81.2 51.3 82.4
Parent Calling child Moving toward child Smiling Kissing-hugging child Talking to child
39.4
Child Calling parent Moving toward parent Smiling Kissing-hugging parent Talking to parent Continuing to play Moving away from parent Leading departure Attachment rating Note. No significant differences noted at p< 301.
19.1 71.5 89.0 38.0 51.2 24.5 3.4 11.8
26.3 82.4 81.2 53.9 69.4 18.4 2.6 23.1
l6-Bs I-A
18-Bs 1-A
i
11.5 13.2 13.0 5.6 43.9
4.5 3.6 2.6 12.7
15.1 13.6 16.3 5.7 48.8
Factors PBR Compatibility Assertiveness Intellectual Competence Adjustment Total
Mother ratings Factors PBQ Aggression Anxiety Hyperactivity Total
Factors PBR Compatibility Assertiveness Intellectual Competence Adjustment Total
* p< .OOl for adjacent groups. a Adjusted cell means resulting from ANCOVA
5.2 4.5 3.1 14.7
Teacher ratings Factors PBQ Aggression Anxiety Hyperactivity Total
Early
3.8 4.4 2.3 12.6
13.9 13.4 14.1 5.9 47.4
5.6 4.5 3.4 15.4
Late
on current age.
15.1 12.8 16.0 6.5 50.4
Full-time
15.1 13.0 17.0 6.5 51.6
3.6 3.6 1.3 9.6
16.4 12.0 17.1 6.3 50.8
3.1 1.9 9.5
2.9
Early
Part-time
15.4 13.8 18.9 6.1 51.0
5.0 3.5 1.7 12.0
16.1 12.3 17.1 6.2 51.8
2.3 1.8 1.8 7.1
Late
15.5 12.8 16.4 6.2 50.8
4.3 4.1 2.5 12.7
13.4 14.1 14.8 5.9 48.5
5.7 4.4 3.4 15.5
Full-time
*
*
*
Totalsa
15.0 14.0 16.5 6.2 51.0
4.5 3.5 I.5 11.1
15.6 II.4 15.8 6.1 48.3
2.2 2.3 1.7 7.4
Part-time
Table 3. Means for Teacher and Mother Ratings of Children in Full-time and Part-time Day Care Samples With Early (16 Months) and Late (> 6 Months) Entries to Day Carea
Infant
Day Care and Social
Behavior
353
of the full-time program perceived children who had more experience in day care as more aggressive and assertive than did the head teachers of the parttime program. For the parent ratings, however, no differences emerged either for the early versus late entry or the full-time versus part-time samples. Peer Interaction Data Data for playground peer play interactions were also submitted to analyses of covariance (for the reason mentioned above for questionnaire data) with current age as a covariate. Again the acceptable p level was set at .OOl. As can be seen in Table 4, no differences emerged between the early versus the late entry children on any of the play behaviors. This finding suggests that age of entry to day care did not affect the children’s playground peer play interaction behavior. However, several differences were noted between the early entry full-time versus the early entry part-time samples. As noted in Table 1, these samples were equivalent on current age (35.7 vs. 38.7 months), age of entry (3.4 vs. 4.1 months), and months of school (32.4 vs. 35.9 months). However, the part-time early entry sample had significantly fewer months of school without their mothers (9.9 vs. 37.4) and significantly fewer hours per week (7.8 vs. 40) than did the full-time early entry sample. Thus the part-time early entry group had significantly less day-care experience. For that reason, it is perhaps not surprising that the children engaged in significantly more watching, solitary play, and teacher comfort-seeking behavior while engaging in significantly less cooperative play and positive affect behavior (smiling-laughing) than did their more experienced peers. Similarly, the comparison between the total full-time and part-time samples yielded the same behavior differences, with the less experienced part-time children showing more watching, solitary play, and teacher comfort-seeking behavior, along with less cooperative play and positive affect behavior. Although the late entry part-time group also showed more of these behaviors than did the late entry full-time group, the differences failed to reach the conservative level of significance, perhaps because these two groups were not as discrepant on the amount of day-care experience as were the early entry groups. Thus the differences between the total full-time versus the part-time samples apparently derived primarily from the early entry group differences. These comparisons suggest, then, that the amount of day-care experience is the critical variable in facilitating social behavior. Since the previous analyses revealed that children in full-time day care were engaging in more social behavior and suggested that the amount of day-care experience without the mother was a critical variable, a further comparison was made in the part-time program to explore this variable. Children in the part-time program were divided according to the number of months they had participated in day care without their mothers (I 9 months and > 9 months). This yielded one group (n = 21) that averaged 9 months
E
.6 26.2 25.3 1.9 .8 .6 32.1 5.4 .3
.8 35.8 17.9 1.9
1.2 .9 28.2 5.5 l.lC
Fussing-crying (.87) Gross motor activity (.89) Positive verbal interaction (.81) Negative verbal interaction (.89)
Positive physical interaction (.82) Negative physical interaction (.83) Interaction child (.92) Interaction adult (.96) Teacher comfort-seeking (.80)
Occurred
1.0 .9 15.9 6.1 2.7’
.7 38.9 22.4 1.0
10.3c 15.6 8.9 3.2c
8.8 40.4c 46.7c 14.6
Part-lime
1.0 .8 33.2 5.5 .5
1.2 30.7 27.5 2.0
.4 26.0 32.8 1.5 1.8 1.6 38.8 5.2 2.0
41.2 32.7 18.2 10.8
5.8 15.4 15.6 12.7
Full-timeb
*
*
l
* *
Totals
1.6 1.4 24.3 5.4 2.4
1.0 29.7 24.0 1.2
17.7 22.0 13.0 4.6
8.4 39.8 34.6 14.8
Part-timeb
Day Care Samples With Early (I 6 Months)
28.5 27.6 18.8 6.4
7.2 38.1 23.8 13.7
Late
and Part-time
Early
in Full-time
* p< .OOl for adjacent groups. ’ Interobserver reliabilities are in parentheses. b Adjusted call means resulting from ANCOVA on current age. ’ Differences between early full-time and early part-time groups at p< .OOl.
40.7 34.5 17.9 11.8
3O.lC 26.2 12.4 7.9
Cooperative play (.94) Constructive play (85) Fantasy play (.89) Smiling-laughing (JO)
5.9 15.8 16.8 12.9
Late
7.3 17.oc 23.1c 14.0
Early
Wandering (.78) Watching (79) Solitary play (.84) Parallel play (.85)
Play behaviors’
Full-time
Table 4. Mean Proportion of Time That Play Behaviors and Late (>6 Months) Entries to Day Care
Infant
Day Care
and Social
355
Behavior
of day care and 10 hours per week without their mothers and a second group (n = 14) that averaged 18 months of day care and I5 hours per week without their mothers. Because the groups differed on current age and age of entry, these variables were entered as covariates in an analysis of covariance. Favoring the children with more experience, this analysis yielded differences (pc .OOl) that were similar to the advantages noted for the children in the full-time versus the part-time programs (Table 5). After current and entry age differences were controlled for, the children with significantly more months and hours of day care were rated by their teachers as being more assertive, engaging in less watching and solitary play, and displaying more cooperative play, positive affect, positive verbal interaction, and more interaction in general with their peers.
DISCUSSION
As previously mentioned, Belsky (1986) concluded his recent review by saying that “entry into care in the first year of life is a ‘risk factor’ for the development of insecure-avoidant attachments in infancy and heightened aggressiveness, noncompliance, and withdrawal in the preschool and early school years” (p. 7). Elsewhere, Belsky (1987) cited an additional risk factor as spending “more than 20 hours a week in non-maternal care during the first year of life” (p. 63). The data of this study do not support either of these conclusions. In terms of attachment (reunion) behavior and sociability, no differences were noted between preschool children who had started day Table 5. Means for Variables on Which Part-lime Program Children With 59 Months’ Schooling Without Mother (M= 10 Hours/Week) Significantly Differed (p< .OOl) From Those With >9 Months’ Schooling Without Mother (M= 15 Hours/Week) After Covarying Current Age and Entry Age s 9 months Current age Entry age Months school Months school without mother Hours/week T assertiveness Watching Solitary play Cooperative play Smiling-laughing Positive verbal interaction Interaction
child
(n = 21)
> 9 months
40.8 8.4 32.4 8.6
60.1
10.1
15.0 13.6 31.0 21.6
9.3 41.3 36.1 15.3 4.6 21.3 21.2
13.8
46.0 17.9
35.4 6.9 42.7 48.9
(n = 14)
356
Field,
Masi,
Goldstein,
Perry,
and
Par1
care in the first 6 months of life versus those who started day care between 6 and 26 months in the same program. Furthermore, children who had received 40 hours of day care per week versus those who attended day care with their mothers a couple of hours per week were more, not less, sociable at the preschool stage. The amount of time spent in day care was related to positive social behaviors regardless of the age of entry into child care. More specifically, with respect to age of entry, analyses of these data suggested that early entry children (I 6 months) did not differ from late entry children (> 6 months) on any variables, including reunion behavior, attachment ratings, teacher and parent ratings of children’s behavior, or play interaction variables. Because the children of the full-time program attended the same program and were equivalent on other critical variables (current age, months of schooling), age of entry was not confounded as it typically has been in the literature. In other studies, comparisons have been made between samples of children from different programs, and later enrolling families have been characteristically different from earlier enrolling families. In this sample, the late enrolled children were from the same types of families (parents who were medical faculty and staff) who had simply moved to the area later and were lower on the waiting list for the same center. Thus, within-center comparisons of children from similarly motivated families yielded no differences between early and later entry to day care, unlike the many between-group comparisons cited in Belsky’s (1986) review of the literature. This study highlights the importance of Belsky’s caution that within-group comparisons are critical to addressing the significance of day care variables such as age of entry. If similar groups of children are compared, there is no reason to expect that day care experience would contribute to “heightened aggressiveness, noncompliance and withdrawal in the preschool years,” as Belsky has claimed on the basis of his review of the literature. That review included reports of greater physical and verbal aggression (Schwarz et al., 1974), more negative affect (Farber & Egeland, 1982), greater maladjustment (anxiety) (McCartney et al., 1982), and greater social withdrawal (Barton & Schwarz, 1981) in children who experienced infant day care. Instead, because day care involves extensive experience with other children and adults, it is typically considered a socializing experience and one that would be expected to contribute to the more positive behaviors cited in the review by Phillips et al. (1987). In their review, Phillips et al. refer to literature reporting more positive effects such as more positive affect and higher social interaction scores in children who attended infant day care (Haskins, 1985; Howes & Rubenstein, 1985; Howes & Stewart, 1986). The data from the present study are consistent with the conclusions of Phillips et al. Children who had experienced more high quality day care were more sociable.
Infant
Day Care
and Social
Behavior
357
The three separate comparisons of this study suggest that children with more day-care experience were more socially interactive. The two betweenprograms comparisons (early entry full-time vs. part-time programs and the total full-time vs. part-time samples) suggest differences in favor of the fulltime day-care children for the same variables. Children with more experience showed less watching, solitary play, and teacher comfort-seeking behavior, as well as more cooperative play and positive affect. Additionally, in the within-program (part-time program) comparison, again the children with more day-care experience showed less watching and solitary play and more cooperative play and positive affect. They also spent more time interacting with their peers and had more frequent positive verbal interactions. The only difference that could be construed as negative for the children who had experienced more day care is the teachers’ ratings of them as more assertive-aggressive. However, the very low incidence of observed aggression (both verbal and physical) and the identical amounts of aggression coded for full-time and part-time children on the playground suggest that careful observation in a playground situation where aggression might be expected yielded no differences between these groups of children. While these findings are provocative, the present study had some sampling limitations. First, the decision to use 6 months as a cut-off between early and late entry was based on sample size. It could be argued that this cut-off point is not ideal, as children who are placed in child care at the height of attachment formation (between 6 and 18 months) may be more disrupted by the placement than are children placed in child care at either an earlier or a later point in time. A second limitation of the study was the confound of age of entry and length of time in the part-time program sample, which limited the between-group comparisons that could be made. A third limitation was that assessments were made at a single point in time rather than multiple assessments across time. Nonetheless, the data suggest that “entry into care in the first year of life” and “more than 20 hours a week in non-maternal care during the first year of life” are not necessarily risk factors, contrary to the claims made by Belsky (1986, 1987). Instead, in these well-controlled within-group comparisons, age of entry (either early in the first year or later) did not appear to affect children’s later social behavior. And children who experienced fulltime care (twice the “20 hours per week”) as well as children who had experienced more months of day care (twice the number of months) were more sociable at the preschool stage, as might be expected inasmuch as stable, quality day care would be considered a socializing experience. Thus, stability and quality of care appear to be important variables in this study. These children continuously attended infant day care in the same high quality model programs, which, as Phillips et al. (1976) pointed out, will invariably prove to be the critical variables for optimal outcomes.
358
Field,
Masi,
Goldstein,
Perry,
and
Part
REFERENCES Barglow, P. (1985). Other-than-mother, in-home care, and the quality of the mother-child relationship. Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto. Barton, M., & Schwarz, J. (1981, August). Day care in the middle class: Effects in elementary school. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association’s annual convention, Los Angeles. Behar, L., & Stringfield, S.A. (1974). A behavior rating scale for the preschool child. Developmental Psychology, IO, 601-610. Belsky, J. (1986). Infant daycare: A cause for concern? Zero to Three, 6, 1-7. Belsky, J. (1987, June 22). The child-care dilemma. Time magazine, p. 63. Belsky, J., &Steinberg, L.D. (1978). The effects of day care: A critical review. C/ii/d Development, 49, 929-949. Belsky, J., Steinberg, L.D., &Walker, A. (1982). The ecology of day care. In M. Lamb (Ed.), Childrearing in nontraditional families (pp. 71-l 16). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Chess, S. (1987). Comments. Infant daycare: A cause for concern, Zero to Three, 7, 24-25. Clarke-Stewart, K.A., & Fein, G. (1983). Early childhood programs. In M.M. Haith & J.J. Campos (Eds.), P.H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Infancy and development psychobiology. New York: Wiley. Farber, E.A., & Egeland, B. (1982). Developmental consequences of out-of-home care for infants in a low income population. In E. Zigler & E. Gordon (Eds.), Dav care (pp. 102125). Boston: Auburn. Field, T. (1987). Interaction and attachment in normal and atypical infants. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, l-7. Field, T.. Gewirtz, J.L., Cohen, D., Garcia, R.. Greenberg, R., & Collins, K. (1984). Leavetakings and reunions of infants, toddlers, preschoolers and their parents. Child Development, 55, 628-635. Haskins, R. (1985). Public school aggression among children with varying day-care experience. Child Development, 56, 689-703. Howes, C., & Rubenstein, J. (1985). Determinants of toddlers’ experience in day care: Age of entry and quality of setting. Child Care Quarter/y, 14, 140-151. Howes, C., &Stewart, P. (1986). Child’splay hpith adults, peersand toys. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Los Angeles. McCartney, K., Starr, S., Phillips, D., Grajek, S., & Schwarz, J.C. (1982). Environmental differences among day care centers and their effects on children’s development. In E. Zigler & E. Gordon (Eds.), Day care: Scientific and social policy issues. Boston: Auburn. Phillips, D., McCartney, K., Starr, S., & Howes, C. (1987). Selective review of infant daycare research: A cause for concern! Zero to Three, 7, 18-21. Rubenstein, J., Howes, C., &Boyle, P. (1981). A two year follow-up of infants in communitybased day care. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 22, 209-218. Rutter, M. (1967). A children’s behavior questionnaire for completion by teachers: Preliminary findings. Journal of Child Psychology und Psychiatry, 8, 1-l 1. Rutter, M. (1981). Maternal deprivation reassessed (2nd ed.). Middlesex, England. Penguin Books. Schwartz, P. (1983). Length of day-care attendance and attachment behavior in eighteenmonth-old infants. Child Development, 54, 1073-1078. Schwarz, J.C., Krolick, G., &Strickland, R.G. (1973). Effects of early day care experience on adjustment to a new environment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 43, 340-348. Schwarz, J.C., Strickland, R.G., & Krolick, G. (1974). Infant day care: Behavioral effects at preschool age. Developmental Psychology, 10, 502-506.
Infant
Vaughn,
Day Care
and Social
B., Deane,
Behavior
K., & Waters,
359
E. (1985).
The
attachment quality: Another look at some Waters (Eds.), Growi~ pain/s 01 arraclwrenr Society for Research in Child Development.
impact
of out-of-home
enduring questions. t/zeorJJ n&research. Chicago: University
care on child-mother In 1. Bretherton & E. Monographs for the of Chicago Press.