- Email: [email protected]
Victimization Among Preschoolers: Role of Attachment Relationship History
Victimization Among Preschoolers: Role of Attachment Relationship History MICHAEL TROY. B.A..
AND
L. ALAN SROUFE, PH.D.
Abstract. The association between preschool children's attachment history and a relational pattern labeled "victimization" was examined. The sample consisted of 38 children 4 to 5 years of age. These children were assigned to pairs and observedduring a seriesoffree play interactions. The pairingsincluded various combinations of secure and anxious attachment histories. These dyads were rated for the presence or absence of victimization. Resultsshowed that victimization could be reliably identified and was clearly associated with attachment history. Furthermore. the presence of a child with an "avoidant" attachment history wasassociatedwith victimization and the presence of a child with a "secure" attachment history was associated with nonvictimization, J. Amer. Acad. Child Adol. Psychiat.. 1987.26.2: 166-172. Key Words: victimization.infant attachment. aggression. peer relations. The concept that early experiences are somehow internalized and influence later experience has always been fundamental to psychodynamic thinking (e.g.. Fairbairn, 1946: Freud. 1952: Klein. 1948). According to the psychodynamic perspective. both personality organization and development can be understood in terms of the internalization of psychosocial experiences. Recently. researchers and theorists interested in attachment have attempted to define more precisely the way in which early critical relationships affect later developmental outcomes (Main et al., 1985). An important construct that is emerging is that of an "internal working model" (Bowlby, 1973). This concept refers to prototypes of relationships harbored within an individual, developed from that individual's experiences and influencing perceptions, expectations. attitudes, and other aspects of all ongoing and future relationships. This model is "working" or fluid in the sense that there is not a simple one-to-one correspondence between the early relationships and later relationships. but the influence of the relationship history does persist over time in active, identifiable ways. Attachment theory focuses on the nature and quality of attachment between the infant and the caretaker. The critical issue concerns dyadic regulation of affect. The attachment relationship serves the infant's exploration of the environment by representing a source of security in the face of novelty and a source of comforting when the infant is threatened or distressed (e.g.. Ainsworth et al., 1971: Bowlby, 1969; Sroufe. 1979; 1985). An assessment procedure. the Ainsworth Strange Situation, has been used extensively to assess the attachment relationship. It is a laboratory procedure in which the infant is observed across a series of increasingly stressful episodes. The infant's behavioral adjustments during these episodes. especially in relation to the caregiver. are assessed. The dyad is then classified according to the flexibility and effectiveness of behavioral organization between infant and caregiver. Three major types of attachment relationships have been documented: secure (type B), anxious-avoidant (type A). and anxious-resistant (type C) (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Received Mar. 14. ICNitJ: accepted June 3. fli8tJ. From the l nstitutc otChild Development. University ofMinnesota. 51 East River Rd., Minneapolis. MN 55455. Reprint requests 10 Dr. Srollk This research I\'as supported in part bv a program grant from the Nationul Institute o( Child Health and Human Development (5POI liD 050:!7). hv a grantfrom tlu: us. Department oiEducation (tJOO 83 OOO:!'J). and h.r a grantfrom the H 'illiam 1'. Grant Foundation (83 0871 OOj
0890-8567/87/2602-0 I66$02.00/0cc) 1987 by the American Acad-
emy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
Our report will incorporate this perspective on relationship history and also draw on fundamental principles of relationship theory as discussed by Hinde (1979) and others. The critical features of this integration have been summarized by Sroufe and Fleeson ( 1986) in the form of four basic principles regarding the developmental function of salient relationships: I. Relationships are wholes: i.e.. they are more than simple com-
hinations of the individuals' particular characteristics (consequently. properties that are descriptive at the relationship level are propertiesof the dyad and not of one or the other individuals involved). 2. There is continuity and coherence in close relationships over time. 3. The whole relationship is internalized by each individual. 4. Previous relationship patterns are carried forward to later close relationships. One consequence of such relationship patterns being carried forward should be the ability to predict later developmental outcome from the assessment of the initial (and hence. critical) attachment relationship. In addition, particular qualities of later relationships should be predictable. Applying these perspectives to more clinical concerns, we suggest that all relationships between peers (adults or children), including those that are dysfunctional. represent the confluence of two relationship histories. Although the resultant relationship will have many unique characteristics. it will simultaneously reflect coherence and continuity with the earlier experiences of the two individuals involved. Our primary focus for this paper will be on a specific relational pattern labeled "victimization," defined here as a relationship characterized by a sustained pattern of exploitation and manipulation. We propose to test whether or not the existence of such a relationship is in fact dependent upon the relationship histories of both individuals. Some evidence for this proposition is provided by Olweus (1978; 1980) in his study of 12- to 16-year-old boys. Olweus found a number of characteristics that defined both a group of inappropriately aggressive boys ("bullies") and a group who were typically the target of that aggression ("whipping boys"). Of particular interest were his findings that (a) both bully and whipping boy status remained stable over time. (b) some children were neither bullies nor whipping boys, and (c) there were parental correlates to all three groups. For example. parents of bullies were distant and hostile: mothers of whipping boys were "anxiously overinvolved." Although Olweus' data provide a useful starting point. this study was not prospective and his predictions were not specified in advance. In contrast. the present study is prospective and entails a
167
VICTIMIZATION AND ATTACHMENT HISTORY
quasi-experimental design . We obtained data on early infantparent relationships and then 3 to 4 years later assigned children with varying relationship histories to dyads for the purpose of examining their play and interactions. These dyads will be referred to as "play pairs." Four main hypotheses were considered: I. Children with an anxious-avoidant attachment history (As) will be victimizers because of their history of rebufT and rejection . 2. Children with a secure attachment history (Bs) will not be victimi zers because they have internalized an empathic, responsive relationship. 3. Children with a secure attachment history will not be victims, having also developed a model of themselves as worthy and potent. 4. Victimization will more likely occur in pairs in which a child with a history of avoidant attachment is paired with another anxiously attached child (two insecurely attached children) than in pairs having even one securel y attached child.
Method The subjects in this study are part of a larger prospective study of an urban poor population (e.g., Erickson et al., 1985). For all 38 children (20 boys . 18 girls) in the study. motherchild attachment classification was assessed using the Ainsworth Strange Situation procedure (Ainsworth et al., 1978) at 12 and 18 months ofage (see Table I for classification criteria). As part of the ongoing Mother-Child interaction project, these 38 children attended one of two consecutive sessions of the University of Minnesota preschool. During these preschool sessions the children were assigned to same-gender play pairs so that all possible combinations of attachment history (anxious-avoidant (A), secure (B), anxious-resistant (e)) were represented (A-A. A-B. A-C, B-C, B-B. c-ci A total of 14 of these dyads was used in the present study. Seven of these dyads involved at least one member with a history of avoidant attachment. and in five of these seven cases the partner also was anxiously attached (either avoidant or resistant). TABLE I . Pattern A: Anxious/Avoidant Attachment -- _ . ._- -_.--- - -- Exploration independent of caregiver Readil y separates to explore during preseparation Little affective sharing Affiliative to stranger, even when caregiver absent (little preference) Active avoidance upon reunion Turning away. looking away, moving away . ignoring Ma y mix avoidance with proximity Avoidance more extreme on second reunion No avoidance of stranger -
a
Pa/lem.~
Seuing After at least 6 weeks of nursery school, each dyad interacted in a designated playroom for IS-minute sessions for at least seven sessions. These sessions were videotaped for later coding purposes. The children were brought to the playroom for each session and told to play with the toys in the room. Available play material changed after every two sessions and included, for example. a wardrobe with a variety of clothes for pla ying dress-up, a doll house with dolls and furniture, a play hospital and play medical instruments. balls. and a toy train set. An adult aide was present in the room at all times but interacted with the subjects only to stop potentially dangerous or destructive physical aggression as well as attempts to leave the room or interfere with the camera. which protruded through a blind in the adjoining wall. Procedure Two clinical judges viewed play sessions involving all 19 dyads and nominated victimization cases. In all. five cases were nominated (three in common and one additional case by each rater). The existence of such relationships was not initially sought out by the judges but rather became apparent in the course of coding the play pairs for other studies. At first. then. victimization was generally defined by the particular pattern of dominance and exploitation seen repeatedly in the interactions of these five play pairs. In order to further validate the distinctive nature of these relationships and further refine a working definition of victimization. a third judge was used. He was first asked to derive a set of criteria to judge victimization by generating rationally derived descriptors and drawing on Olweus' description of a similar pattern of interactions (Olweus, 1978; 1980). This process yielded a set of guidelines (sec Appendix I) which the third judge used in determining whether or not a victimization relationship existed . He viewed between six and eight IS-minute play sessions for each of 14 dyads. Unknown to this judge. these 14 pairs included the five dyads originally identified as showing a pattern of victimization along with nine randomly selected pairs. The third judge then nominated those pairs that he felt ofAttachment"
- - - -- - --
-
-
- - --
-
-
-
-----
Pattern B: Infants Secure in Their Attachment
Pattern C: Anxious/Resistant Attachment
Caregiver as secure base for exploration Readily separates to explore to ys Affective sharing of play Affiliative to stranger in mother's presence Readily comforted when distressed (promoting a return to play) Active in seeking contact or interaction upon reunion If distressed Immediately seeks and maintains contact Contact is effective in terminating distress If not distressed Active greeting behavior (happy to see caregiver) Strong initiative of interaction
Poverty of exploration Difficulty separating to explore; may need contact even before separation Wary of novel situations and people Difficulty settling upon reunion May mix contact seeking with contact resistance (hitting. kicking, squirming. rejecting toys) May simply continue to cry and fuss May show striking passivity
~
Adapted from Ainsworth et al., 1978.
168
TROY AND SROUFE
showed a clear and unambiguous pattern of victimization . For this judgment to be made, all the victimization criteria noted in Appendix I had to be evident in a consistent and ongoing pattern of interaction . The third judge had no prior knowledge of either the gender or the number of pairs originally identified and was blind to the attachment history of all subjects. Results
Quantitative Datil Results show that the concept of victimization can be identified with a high degree of both sensitivity and specificity. There was agreement between the third judge and the first two judges regarding the presence or absence of victimization on 13 of the 14 play dyads rated (92% agreement). Of the 14 pairs viewed, the third judge correctly identified four of five pairs originally nominated as showing a distinctive pattern of victimization (Table 2). The one case in which clear agreement was not reached was rated as a borderline case by the third judge (the only case so judged). Evidence for the association between type of attachment history and victimization was determined by using the adapted analogue of Fisher's exact test. This anal ysis revealed that the presence of a child with an avoidant attachment history is significantly associated with victimization . Five of seven pairs in which at least one child had an avoidant attachment history showed victimization, whereas zero of seven pairs without a child with an avoidant history showed victimization (p < 0.0 I). In contrast. the presence of a child with a secure attachment history is clearly associated with a nonvictimization relationship, None of eight pairs, including a child with a secure attachment history, showed victimization , whereas victimization was found in five of the six pairs without a child with a secure history ( fJ < 0.0(5). More specifically, the pairing of a child with an avoidant attachment history with a child with an insecure attachment history (avoidant or resistants is strongly associated with victimization. Five of five pairs in which a child with an TABLE 2. Play Dyads. lndividuul Attuchmcnt Il istorv, Will Victimization Rating Dyads RJ·RA MJ-BH OS-ET CN·RE 2J-DA EI.-I.P IB-RV AC-RC NJ-CT U -NT SJ-HS KS-AS KA-OJ GC-IJ
Attachment History
Judge I
Judge 2
Judge J
A-A" B-C A-A B-C CoB
V
V
V
V
V
V
A-C
V
A-A A-B B-B A-C
V
(borderline)
V
V
V
V
C-('
CoB B-B B-A
" A, avoidant attachment history: B. secure attachment history: C. resistant attachment history: V. rating of victimization.
avoidant attachment history was paired with a child having either an avoidant or resistant history showed victimization, whereas zero of the remaining nine pairs showed victimization (p < 0.00(5) (Table 3). If we reframe these findings in terms of individuals and consider all 38 children originally paired we find that all victimizers have an avoidant attachment history (5 of 10 As versus 0 of28 non-As). Also. all victims are anxiously attached (5 of 18 non-Bs versus 0 of 10 Bs), and all children with an anxious resistant attachment history were either not in a victimization relationship or were the victims in a victimization relationship. Most striking, in every case in which one member of the dyad had a history of avoidant attachment and the other member also had been anxiously attached (either avoidant or resistance), victimization occurred.
Qualitative Data Although quantitative data are required to answer questions regarding the existence and structure of the victimization relationship. a more qualitative analysis is necessary to fully describe process features of these relationships, In general. those pla y pairs showing a pattern of victimization closely matched the hypothesized set of attributes originally derived (Appendix I). In each case, one child actively exploited and manipulated the other child . This clearly went beyond simple control of resources (dominance) and included verbal hostility or ph ysical aggression or both . For example, in one of the female pairs (L. J. victimizing N . T.) L. J. often verbally a ntago n ized N. T. by saying " no " to every comment N . T . made. At other times she was cold and aloof in the face of N. T. 's continuing bids for interaction . More dramatically, during one interaction L. J. hit N. T . in the stomach immediately after N . T . indicated that her stomach was sore. and when N. T. cried out in pain. L. J.. with a smile on her face, poked N. T . again . The example below in which E. T. victimizes O. S. (both boys) further illustrates clements of the victimization relationship as it involves physical aggression: E. T. and O. S. pretend they are at the doctor's office. E. T. takes the role of doctor and O. S. takes the role of patient. E. T. wants to give O. S. a shot with a play hypodermic needle. O. S. docs not want a shot but E. T. reassures him, promising "it won't hurt ." He then gradually presses harder and harder with the plastic needle until O. S. is finally in pain and cries out "ouch! " E. T. then smiles and says. " It don't hurt!", gives O. S. the needle. and walks away.
Even in this hrief episode, manipulation, aggression with till' sole purpose of inflicting pain, and apparent (or seeming) pleasure in the face of that pain are all demonstrated by E. T .. the victimizer. Concurrentl y. O . S.. the victim. was fairly gullible (this was not the first time E. T . had hurt O. S.) and basically passive in the face of E. 'L's aggression. This basic pattern was repeated over and over again in this pair. sometimes in the form of verbal hostilit y rather than physical aggression . The following example illustrates this type of victimization : In an early session. E. T. begins calling O. S. names and whispering "naughty" words: "bugger nose, bugger face, hey poop," and so forth. After 4 minutes of this, E. T. suddenly becomes more hostile. alternating between ignoring O. S. and provoking him by taking
169
VICTIMIZATION AND ATTACHMENT HISTORY TABLE 3. Association between A/lachmenl Historyand Victimization in Play Dyads
Dyads Dyads with an "A" child" Dyads without an "A" child
Victimization
No victimization
5
2
o
7
Dyads with a "B" child Dyads without a "B" child
o
8
5
I
Dyads with an "A" child & an anxious (A or C) child All remaining dyads _ ._ -- -. _ - -- _._--
5
o
o 9 _ ._- - - " A. avoidant attachment history; B. secure attachment history: C. resistant attachment history. _
..
O. S.'s toys and either throwing them or saying they belong to him. Finally. O. S. hesitantly calls E. T. a liar. In response. E. T. acts shocked saying. "Oh, you said a naughty word. I'm telling my momma. you said bad words. I'm telling the teacher. I'm gonna tell everyone!" while O. S. becomes confused and upset.
Other aspects of these victimization relationships clearly illustrate some of the ways in which the victims facilitated and often sought out the continuation of these exploitive relationships. For example. after a pattern of victimization between two boys (R. J. victimizing R. A.) had been clearly established. R . J. began a session by playing independently of R. A. After less than 1 minute of this, R. A. went over to R. J. and in a pleading voice said. "Why don't you tease me, R. J.? I won't get mad." This observation that the victim has an active role in sustaining a pattern of victimization. often despite repeated rejection by the victimizer. was further supported by the results of a detailed analysis of verbatim transcripts from four play sessions involving one of the victimization dyads (Weber. (984). This analysis showed that the child identified as the victimizer made two attempts to initiate a positive interaction, both of which were favorably responded to by the child identified as the victim . During the same period of time, the victim made 119 attempts to initiate a friendly activity, of which only 19 were responded to favorably. This stands in contrast with an identical analysis of a nonvictimizing dyad in which these initiations and responses were essentially balanced. Although not as dramatic as overt aggression . this pattern of rejection is an important part of the victimization relationship. Finally. one interesting variation of the victimization pattern was found in the play pair involving L B. and R. V. (both girls) in which the direction of victimization switched several times during the course of their relationship. At times LB. could be clearly seen in the role of victimizer and R. V. as victim , whereas at other times these roles would be reversed (both had histories of avoidant attachment). Discussion This study demonstrates that victimization can be defined and reliably identified as a distinctive maladaptive relationship pattern. When this phenomenon is examined from a relationship systems perspective, it becomes clear that it is not the result of individual characteristics or either the victimizer or the victim. It is. rather, the expression of the confluence of two particular relationship histories. Clear predictions in this study resulted when attachment histories of both partners were considered .
Fisher's Exact Test p
p< 0.005
p< 0.0005
As previously noted, each of the three major categories used to classify attachment history in the Ainsworth Strange Situation (secure, anxious-avoidant, anxious-resistant) represents a distinctive relationship pattern. Briefly, the interactive history underlying a secure attachment relationship is characterized by the provision of responsive and consistent care by the caregiver. Consequently, in the Strange Situation these children feel confident that the caretaker is available and easily accessible, which allows them to explore the environment in a confident and competent manner. Expectations of caregiver availability also underlie the efficient and effective contact seeking of these infants when distressed. An anxiousavoidant attachment relationship. in contrast, is characterized by a pattern of rebuff by the caregiver in the face of expressed emotional or physical needs of the child, resulting in avoidant behavior by the child. The most striking behavior of these infants is that. when moderately stressed. they ignore, turn away. or move away from their caregivers. Finally, an anxious-resistant attachment relationship is generally characterized by insensitivity and inconsistent availability of the caregiver resulting in ambivalent contact seeking by the child. When distressed, they mix angry behavior with comfortseeking behavior and continue to fuss or pout rather than settle (Table I). As Bowlby points out (1973), repeated interactions within the attachment relationship lead to the construction of internal working models of self and others. As the child's sphere of social interaction expands. these working models will be continually invoked as new relationships are negotiated, leading to some measure ofcontinuity and predictability regarding the quality of those relationships. Previous studies have demonstrated that attachment classification can be related to developmental outcomes in the social domain. for example, in interpersonal competence (Waters et al ., 1979) and in toddlers' initial sociability with peers (Pastor. 1981). Our findings also document the impact of early relationships on later social functioning. Of particular significance in this study is the finding that each victimization dyad was composed of a victimizer with an avoidant attachment history and a victim also with an anxious attachment history of one form or another. Indeed, not only were all victimization pairs so comprised, every dyad in the study with such a pairing showed a pattern of victimization. That children with an avoidant attachment history were found to be victimizers is consistent with previous findings regarding their peer functioning. These children arc often hostile. antisocial. and socially and emotionally isolated from others (Erickson et al ., 1985: Sroufe. 1983) . With peers, they
170
TROY AND SROUFE
have been shown to be negative in their interactions, even when paired with securely attached children (Pastor, 1981). Similarly, the fact that children with a resistant attachment history were found to be victims in the play pairs is also consistent with previous findings. These children have been shown to be highly stressed by social situations, least active in a play setting (Pastor, 1981), and seen by preschool teachers as more helpless, inept, and dependent than secure children (Sroufe, 1983). Consequently, the more socially inept anxiousresistant children would appear to be the perfect foil for the more aggressive and hostile anxious-avoidant children. Of even greater significance, however, from the perspective of the relationship system is the fact that, when there was a play pair with two anxious-avoidant children, victimization still occurred. Children with an avoidant attachment history could assume either role-that of victimizer or victim (the latter actually being more congruent with their role in the infant-caregiver relationship). We interpret this finding to be an example of the way in which the roles and expectations of both individuals in the early attachment relationship are represented in the internalized working model that is carried forward by the child. Past relationships are brought to bear on the formation of new ones, resulting in an overall pattern of continuity and coherence in the nature and quality of relationships over time (Sroufe and Fleeson, 1986). In a more general sense, this same proposition has been an implicit part of the child abuse and child sexual abuse literature, which has repeatedly pointed out that abusing adults have often been abused as children (e.g., Egeland et al., in press; Kempe and Kempe, 1978; Parke and Coli mer, 1975), although, of course, such patterns are open to change (Egeland et al., in press). Indisputably, as children, such individuals learned both the role of abused and abuser. They later recreate that relationship by taking up the role of the latter. The present study, however, suggests that the capacity to fill both the role of victimizer and victim does not necessarily wait to develop in adulthood. Rather, the internalized relationship is an ongoing influence on the construction of each new relationship throughout development. In this manner, individuals are constantly seeking to define a role for both themselves and their partners that is familiar. When viewed in this light, the fact that children with an anxious-avoidant attachment history were found to be victims as well as victimizers can be seen as a consistent and supportive finding. The initial relationship these children experienced with their caregiver was likely to have been marked by physical abuse, rejection, or emotional unavailability (Egeland and Sroufe, 1981; George and Main, 1979; Sroufe, 1983). They were, in some form, victims and carried that role forward. At the same time, although they likely never victimized their caregivers, they internalized that aspect of the relationship as well. This total representation, then, was brought to bear on an otherwise neutral setting and through the efforts of both children was reestablished in the new relationship. That each ofthe partners in the victimization pairs comprised of two anxious avoidant children did carry both roles with them was further supported by the fact that in one such pair the direction of victimization occasionally shifted. In this case, although one of the children was clearly dominant in the long run, at times roles were reversed and the victimizer became the victim. Although the
reason for a child's filling one role or another is not clear, a possible explanation may be that the children who assume the victim role may show physical weakness, limited intelligence, emotional lability, or some other type of vulnerability (relative to their partners), which makes them more likely to be the target of aggression and manipulation. The victimizer, although just as likely to have been victimized in the home, may naturally take on the more dominant role when paired with a child showing some obvious weakness. To summarize, we believe that the early attachment history of all the children involved in this study can be seen to meaningfully relate to the relationships they formed in this preschool free play situation. Specifically, because of an early relationship marked by a consistent pattern of caregiver insensitivity, rejection, and abuse, children with an avoidant attachment history have clearly internalized models of both exploiter and exploited. Depending on the role they assume, they may organize their behavior around the expression of their anger and hostility in the role of victimizer or around their sense of unworthiness and poor self-image in the role of victim. Children with an anxious-resistant attachment history, on the other hand, are drawing on early relationships marked by disorganization and inconsistency, resulting in the caregiver being unable to meet the child's needs. Consequently, these children are motivated to make contact but are themselves disorganized and unskilled at meeting the developmental tasks involved in the formation of smooth peer relationships. Like their caregivers, however, they keep trying-however ineffectively-and are consequently easily victimized. Of equal significance is the fact that, regardless of with whom children with a secure attachment history are paired, they tend to fill neither the role of victimizer nor victim. Because their early relationship history was characterized by consistency, warmth, and respect, they carry into a new relationship a model of themselves as worthy and potent, which precludes their filling the role of victim. In general, these children simply do not make themselves vulnerable and so are not faced with the threat of victimization. They may substantively control the relationship, making it as positive an experience for themselves as possible. Alternatively, they may simply choose not to engage in the relationship at all, having the independence and confidence to recognize that there are situations in which they are better off on their own. In those rare instances when their partner does attempt to bully or intimidate them, securely attached children are generally able to counter such attempts early in the development of the relationship. They may, for example, meet aggression with just enough aggression or force to convince the potential victimizer that they will not be an easy target. Similarly, because their representation of relationships is based on positive and productive interactions, they are not motivated to victimize a less competent child. Although the productiveness of their relationships with children with anxious attachment histories may be constrained by the limitations of their partners, their own sense of competency is not challenged or compromised. It is our feeling that, as maladaptive patterns of personality development and relationship construction are identified, the clinical implications should also be clearly developed. The pattern of victimization described here points to one way in which clinically significant behaviors can be better understood
171
VICTIMIZATION AND ATTACHMENT HISTORY
from a relationship perspective. For instance, a particularly striking feature of these maladaptive interactions, as opposed to better functioning dyads (i.e., virtually any in which a child with a secure attachment history is involved), is the extraordinary amount of energy invested in the victimization relationship itself. In play dyads that involved securely attached children, relationship establishment and modulation were obviously generated with greater ease than in those involving anxiously attached children. The well-functioning relationships then served to facilitate and promote developmentally appropriate and adaptive behavior (Pancake, 1985). One consequence of this is evident in the results of a separate analysis involving all the play pairs used in this study (Rosenberg, 1984). It was found that the anxious-avoidant children used significantly fewer social fantasy play themes (except for diffuse hostility) than did children from the other two attachment groups. Consequently, the anxious-avoidant children minimized what is generally agreed to be a critical medium for adaptive development. When considered in combination with our own observations, we believe this suggests that far greater emotional and physical resources were invested in maintaining the victimization relationship itself than were devoted to growth and development in other areas. In conclusion, we suggest that all the children in these exploitive peer relationships are in fact victims of their own relationship history. The early maladaptive relationships they experienced have continuing impact on their lives. These early patterns are internalized, carried forward, and reiterated by the developing individual within the context of an ever expanding social world. Appendix I
Critcriajor Assessing Victimization I. Behavioral assvmetrv. The first judgment to be made concerns the halance of the relationship. By definition. the victimization relationship is an unhalanced (asymetrical) one at the behavioral level. This should be the most readily apparent marker. Certainly, not all asymmetrical relationships involve a victim, but when such a relationship does exist between peers the ohserver should be alerted to the possihility of victimization. 2. Victimization. Having noted an asymmetrical relationship at the behavioral level, a decision as to whether it is characterized by victimization must be made. To make this judgment, the following characteristics must be identified in the victimizer, the victim. and in the interaction. a. The victimizer. One of the two children must be actively exploiting the other. Although dominance is a necessary part of this role, it is not sufficient. The victimizer uses his or her advantage over the other child not only to control resources (dominance) hut also to somehow hurt the victim (physically or emotionally or hoth). At the very least. the victimizer has no apparent empathy for the other child's pain and may seem to enjoy the victim's distress. Aggression may seem to be a more natural mode of action for the victimizer than for the victim. The victimizer is more likely to act aggressively. is more willing to use aggression. and is less likely to be anxious when aggression is part of the interaction. h. The victim For a victimization relationship to exist. one child must hoth be more vulnerable in general. and. within the context of the relationship. make him or herself vulnerable. The first point implies that this child enters the interaction with some sort of vulnerahility that the victimizer can spot. For
instance, the victim may be physically weak, intellectually handicapped, or gullible or have some physical or behavioral abnormality. The second point implies that this child tends to "make a bad situation worse" or "bring things on himself." Children designated as victims may appear needy in the sense that they seem to long for approval and attention from the victimizer. At the same time, these children probably have poor social skills and so may not be initiating interactions appropriately or effectively. Furthermore, when rejected. victims do not have flexible strategies to call into play and. needing approval more than ever. they tend to make another awkward attempt to interact with the victimizer. For children to be identified as victims. they should evidence some sort of distress. This pain and anxiety may manifest itself in many ways (e.g., crying, inappropriate giggling, cowering. hyperactivity), but should clearly reveal that the child is uncomfortable. Despite this discomfort. however, they will seldom fight back or disengage completely in the face of antagonistic behavior. Rather, as mentioned. they will tend to reenter the cycle of victimization. e. The interaction. Ultimately. the charaeteristies of the victim and victimizer noted above are meaningful only in the context ofa social interaction and only in certain relationships. A child's behavior might suggest that he or she may fit one role or the other. but without hoth parties the victimizer won't be consistently cxploitive and the victim won't be consistently exploited. It must also be noted that two children could have an unproductivc or even unhealthy relationship without victimization occurring. They could, for example, frequently fight without either child being consistently dominant, or one child might consistently control the resources of the setting without causing significant pain or distress to the other child. 3. Form otvictimization. Finally, the specific form that victimization takes may vary from one case to another. For example, one interaction may be characterized by physical intimidation and aggression. whereas another may be in the form of verbal hostility and manipulation. References
Ainsworth, M. D. S.. Bell. S. M. & Stayton. D. J. (1971). Individual ditTerences in strange situation behavior of one-year-olds. In: The Origin or Human Social Relations, ed. H. R. SchatTer. London: Academic, pp. 17-57. - Blchar, M. C .. Waters. E. & Wall, S. (1978), Patterns ofAttachment: .-l Psychological Study or the Strange Sit uti/ion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlhaum. Bowlby, J. (1969), Attachment and Loss: Vol. I. Attachment. New York: Basic. - (1973). Attachment and Loss: 1'01. 2. Separation. New York: Basic. Egeland. B.. Jacobvitz, D. & Papatola, K. (in press). Intergenerational continuity in parental abuse. In: Biosocial Aspects ofChild Abuse, ed. J. Lancaster & R. Gelles. New York: Jossey-Bass. - Jacobvitz. D. & Sroufe. L. A. (in press). Breaking the cycle of ahuse: relationship predictions. Child Develpm. - & Sroufe, L. A. ( 1981), Attachment and early maltreatment. Child Dcvclpm.. 52:44-52. Erickson. M. F., Egeland. B. & Sroufe, L. A. (1985), The relationship hetween quality of attachment and behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. Monogr. SOl'. Res. Child Develpm., 50:147166.
Fairbairn, W. R. D. (1946), Ohject-relationship and dynamic structure. lnt. 1. Psvcho-Anal.. 27:30-37. Freud. A. (1952). The mutual influences in the development of ego and id. The Psvchoanalvtic Study ofthe Child, 6: 127-168. George, C. & Main. M. (1979), Social interactions of young abused children: approach. avoidance. and aggression. Child Devclpm .. 50:306-318.
Hinde. R. A. (1979). Towards Understanding Relationships. London: Academic. Kempe. R. S. & Kempe, H. C. (1978), Child Abuse. Cambridge.
172
TROY AND SROUFE
Mass.: Harvard University Press. Klein, M. (1948), Contributions to Psychoanalysis. London: Hogarth. Main. M.. Kaplan. N. & Cassidy. J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood. and adulthood: a move to the level of representation. A!onoKf. Soc. Res. Child Develpm.. 50:66-104. Olweus, D. ( 1978), Aggression in the Schools: Bullies and Whipping Hill's. New York: Halsted. - (1'980), Bullying among school boys. In: Children and Violence, ed. R. Barnen. Stochholm: Academic Literature. Pancake. V. (1985), Continuity between mother-infant attachment and ongoing dyadic peer relationship in preschool. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto. Parke, R. D. & Colimer, C. W. (1975). Child abuse: an interdisciplinary analysis. In: Review 01" Child Development Research. ed. E. M. Hetherington. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 509590. Pastor D. (1981). The quality of mother-infant attachment and its relationship to toddlers' initial sociability with peers. Developmental Psvchol., 17:326-335.
Rosenberg, D. N. (1984), The quality and content ofpreschool fantasy play: correlates in concurrent social-personality function and early mother-child attachment relationship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota. Sroufe, L. A. (1979), The coherence of individual development. A mer. Psvchol., 34:834-841. - (i 983), Infant-caregiver attachment and patterns of adaptation in preschool: the roots of maladaptation and competence. Minn. Symp. Child Psychol., 16:41-81. - (1985). Attachment classification from the perspective of infantcaregiver relationships and infant temperament. Child Develpm., 56:1-14. - & Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the construction of relationships. In: The Nature and Development of Relationships, ed. W. Hartup & Z. Rubin. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Waters, E.. Wippman, J. & Sroufe, L. A. (1979), Attachment, positive affect, and competence in the peer group: two studies in construct validation. Child Develpm., 50:821-829. Weber, L. (1984). Relational symmetry: a power exchange. Unpublished manuscript. University of Minnesota.
AND
L. ALAN SROUFE, PH.D.
Abstract. The association between preschool children's attachment history and a relational pattern labeled "victimization" was examined. The sample consisted of 38 children 4 to 5 years of age. These children were assigned to pairs and observedduring a seriesoffree play interactions. The pairingsincluded various combinations of secure and anxious attachment histories. These dyads were rated for the presence or absence of victimization. Resultsshowed that victimization could be reliably identified and was clearly associated with attachment history. Furthermore. the presence of a child with an "avoidant" attachment history wasassociatedwith victimization and the presence of a child with a "secure" attachment history was associated with nonvictimization, J. Amer. Acad. Child Adol. Psychiat.. 1987.26.2: 166-172. Key Words: victimization.infant attachment. aggression. peer relations. The concept that early experiences are somehow internalized and influence later experience has always been fundamental to psychodynamic thinking (e.g.. Fairbairn, 1946: Freud. 1952: Klein. 1948). According to the psychodynamic perspective. both personality organization and development can be understood in terms of the internalization of psychosocial experiences. Recently. researchers and theorists interested in attachment have attempted to define more precisely the way in which early critical relationships affect later developmental outcomes (Main et al., 1985). An important construct that is emerging is that of an "internal working model" (Bowlby, 1973). This concept refers to prototypes of relationships harbored within an individual, developed from that individual's experiences and influencing perceptions, expectations. attitudes, and other aspects of all ongoing and future relationships. This model is "working" or fluid in the sense that there is not a simple one-to-one correspondence between the early relationships and later relationships. but the influence of the relationship history does persist over time in active, identifiable ways. Attachment theory focuses on the nature and quality of attachment between the infant and the caretaker. The critical issue concerns dyadic regulation of affect. The attachment relationship serves the infant's exploration of the environment by representing a source of security in the face of novelty and a source of comforting when the infant is threatened or distressed (e.g.. Ainsworth et al., 1971: Bowlby, 1969; Sroufe. 1979; 1985). An assessment procedure. the Ainsworth Strange Situation, has been used extensively to assess the attachment relationship. It is a laboratory procedure in which the infant is observed across a series of increasingly stressful episodes. The infant's behavioral adjustments during these episodes. especially in relation to the caregiver. are assessed. The dyad is then classified according to the flexibility and effectiveness of behavioral organization between infant and caregiver. Three major types of attachment relationships have been documented: secure (type B), anxious-avoidant (type A). and anxious-resistant (type C) (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Received Mar. 14. ICNitJ: accepted June 3. fli8tJ. From the l nstitutc otChild Development. University ofMinnesota. 51 East River Rd., Minneapolis. MN 55455. Reprint requests 10 Dr. Srollk This research I\'as supported in part bv a program grant from the Nationul Institute o( Child Health and Human Development (5POI liD 050:!7). hv a grantfrom tlu: us. Department oiEducation (tJOO 83 OOO:!'J). and h.r a grantfrom the H 'illiam 1'. Grant Foundation (83 0871 OOj
0890-8567/87/2602-0 I66$02.00/0cc) 1987 by the American Acad-
emy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
Our report will incorporate this perspective on relationship history and also draw on fundamental principles of relationship theory as discussed by Hinde (1979) and others. The critical features of this integration have been summarized by Sroufe and Fleeson ( 1986) in the form of four basic principles regarding the developmental function of salient relationships: I. Relationships are wholes: i.e.. they are more than simple com-
hinations of the individuals' particular characteristics (consequently. properties that are descriptive at the relationship level are propertiesof the dyad and not of one or the other individuals involved). 2. There is continuity and coherence in close relationships over time. 3. The whole relationship is internalized by each individual. 4. Previous relationship patterns are carried forward to later close relationships. One consequence of such relationship patterns being carried forward should be the ability to predict later developmental outcome from the assessment of the initial (and hence. critical) attachment relationship. In addition, particular qualities of later relationships should be predictable. Applying these perspectives to more clinical concerns, we suggest that all relationships between peers (adults or children), including those that are dysfunctional. represent the confluence of two relationship histories. Although the resultant relationship will have many unique characteristics. it will simultaneously reflect coherence and continuity with the earlier experiences of the two individuals involved. Our primary focus for this paper will be on a specific relational pattern labeled "victimization," defined here as a relationship characterized by a sustained pattern of exploitation and manipulation. We propose to test whether or not the existence of such a relationship is in fact dependent upon the relationship histories of both individuals. Some evidence for this proposition is provided by Olweus (1978; 1980) in his study of 12- to 16-year-old boys. Olweus found a number of characteristics that defined both a group of inappropriately aggressive boys ("bullies") and a group who were typically the target of that aggression ("whipping boys"). Of particular interest were his findings that (a) both bully and whipping boy status remained stable over time. (b) some children were neither bullies nor whipping boys, and (c) there were parental correlates to all three groups. For example. parents of bullies were distant and hostile: mothers of whipping boys were "anxiously overinvolved." Although Olweus' data provide a useful starting point. this study was not prospective and his predictions were not specified in advance. In contrast. the present study is prospective and entails a
167
VICTIMIZATION AND ATTACHMENT HISTORY
quasi-experimental design . We obtained data on early infantparent relationships and then 3 to 4 years later assigned children with varying relationship histories to dyads for the purpose of examining their play and interactions. These dyads will be referred to as "play pairs." Four main hypotheses were considered: I. Children with an anxious-avoidant attachment history (As) will be victimizers because of their history of rebufT and rejection . 2. Children with a secure attachment history (Bs) will not be victimi zers because they have internalized an empathic, responsive relationship. 3. Children with a secure attachment history will not be victims, having also developed a model of themselves as worthy and potent. 4. Victimization will more likely occur in pairs in which a child with a history of avoidant attachment is paired with another anxiously attached child (two insecurely attached children) than in pairs having even one securel y attached child.
Method The subjects in this study are part of a larger prospective study of an urban poor population (e.g., Erickson et al., 1985). For all 38 children (20 boys . 18 girls) in the study. motherchild attachment classification was assessed using the Ainsworth Strange Situation procedure (Ainsworth et al., 1978) at 12 and 18 months ofage (see Table I for classification criteria). As part of the ongoing Mother-Child interaction project, these 38 children attended one of two consecutive sessions of the University of Minnesota preschool. During these preschool sessions the children were assigned to same-gender play pairs so that all possible combinations of attachment history (anxious-avoidant (A), secure (B), anxious-resistant (e)) were represented (A-A. A-B. A-C, B-C, B-B. c-ci A total of 14 of these dyads was used in the present study. Seven of these dyads involved at least one member with a history of avoidant attachment. and in five of these seven cases the partner also was anxiously attached (either avoidant or resistant). TABLE I . Pattern A: Anxious/Avoidant Attachment -- _ . ._- -_.--- - -- Exploration independent of caregiver Readil y separates to explore during preseparation Little affective sharing Affiliative to stranger, even when caregiver absent (little preference) Active avoidance upon reunion Turning away. looking away, moving away . ignoring Ma y mix avoidance with proximity Avoidance more extreme on second reunion No avoidance of stranger -
a
Pa/lem.~
Seuing After at least 6 weeks of nursery school, each dyad interacted in a designated playroom for IS-minute sessions for at least seven sessions. These sessions were videotaped for later coding purposes. The children were brought to the playroom for each session and told to play with the toys in the room. Available play material changed after every two sessions and included, for example. a wardrobe with a variety of clothes for pla ying dress-up, a doll house with dolls and furniture, a play hospital and play medical instruments. balls. and a toy train set. An adult aide was present in the room at all times but interacted with the subjects only to stop potentially dangerous or destructive physical aggression as well as attempts to leave the room or interfere with the camera. which protruded through a blind in the adjoining wall. Procedure Two clinical judges viewed play sessions involving all 19 dyads and nominated victimization cases. In all. five cases were nominated (three in common and one additional case by each rater). The existence of such relationships was not initially sought out by the judges but rather became apparent in the course of coding the play pairs for other studies. At first. then. victimization was generally defined by the particular pattern of dominance and exploitation seen repeatedly in the interactions of these five play pairs. In order to further validate the distinctive nature of these relationships and further refine a working definition of victimization. a third judge was used. He was first asked to derive a set of criteria to judge victimization by generating rationally derived descriptors and drawing on Olweus' description of a similar pattern of interactions (Olweus, 1978; 1980). This process yielded a set of guidelines (sec Appendix I) which the third judge used in determining whether or not a victimization relationship existed . He viewed between six and eight IS-minute play sessions for each of 14 dyads. Unknown to this judge. these 14 pairs included the five dyads originally identified as showing a pattern of victimization along with nine randomly selected pairs. The third judge then nominated those pairs that he felt ofAttachment"
- - - -- - --
-
-
- - --
-
-
-
-----
Pattern B: Infants Secure in Their Attachment
Pattern C: Anxious/Resistant Attachment
Caregiver as secure base for exploration Readily separates to explore to ys Affective sharing of play Affiliative to stranger in mother's presence Readily comforted when distressed (promoting a return to play) Active in seeking contact or interaction upon reunion If distressed Immediately seeks and maintains contact Contact is effective in terminating distress If not distressed Active greeting behavior (happy to see caregiver) Strong initiative of interaction
Poverty of exploration Difficulty separating to explore; may need contact even before separation Wary of novel situations and people Difficulty settling upon reunion May mix contact seeking with contact resistance (hitting. kicking, squirming. rejecting toys) May simply continue to cry and fuss May show striking passivity
~
Adapted from Ainsworth et al., 1978.
168
TROY AND SROUFE
showed a clear and unambiguous pattern of victimization . For this judgment to be made, all the victimization criteria noted in Appendix I had to be evident in a consistent and ongoing pattern of interaction . The third judge had no prior knowledge of either the gender or the number of pairs originally identified and was blind to the attachment history of all subjects. Results
Quantitative Datil Results show that the concept of victimization can be identified with a high degree of both sensitivity and specificity. There was agreement between the third judge and the first two judges regarding the presence or absence of victimization on 13 of the 14 play dyads rated (92% agreement). Of the 14 pairs viewed, the third judge correctly identified four of five pairs originally nominated as showing a distinctive pattern of victimization (Table 2). The one case in which clear agreement was not reached was rated as a borderline case by the third judge (the only case so judged). Evidence for the association between type of attachment history and victimization was determined by using the adapted analogue of Fisher's exact test. This anal ysis revealed that the presence of a child with an avoidant attachment history is significantly associated with victimization . Five of seven pairs in which at least one child had an avoidant attachment history showed victimization, whereas zero of seven pairs without a child with an avoidant history showed victimization (p < 0.0 I). In contrast. the presence of a child with a secure attachment history is clearly associated with a nonvictimization relationship, None of eight pairs, including a child with a secure attachment history, showed victimization , whereas victimization was found in five of the six pairs without a child with a secure history ( fJ < 0.0(5). More specifically, the pairing of a child with an avoidant attachment history with a child with an insecure attachment history (avoidant or resistants is strongly associated with victimization. Five of five pairs in which a child with an TABLE 2. Play Dyads. lndividuul Attuchmcnt Il istorv, Will Victimization Rating Dyads RJ·RA MJ-BH OS-ET CN·RE 2J-DA EI.-I.P IB-RV AC-RC NJ-CT U -NT SJ-HS KS-AS KA-OJ GC-IJ
Attachment History
Judge I
Judge 2
Judge J
A-A" B-C A-A B-C CoB
V
V
V
V
V
V
A-C
V
A-A A-B B-B A-C
V
(borderline)
V
V
V
V
C-('
CoB B-B B-A
" A, avoidant attachment history: B. secure attachment history: C. resistant attachment history: V. rating of victimization.
avoidant attachment history was paired with a child having either an avoidant or resistant history showed victimization, whereas zero of the remaining nine pairs showed victimization (p < 0.00(5) (Table 3). If we reframe these findings in terms of individuals and consider all 38 children originally paired we find that all victimizers have an avoidant attachment history (5 of 10 As versus 0 of28 non-As). Also. all victims are anxiously attached (5 of 18 non-Bs versus 0 of 10 Bs), and all children with an anxious resistant attachment history were either not in a victimization relationship or were the victims in a victimization relationship. Most striking, in every case in which one member of the dyad had a history of avoidant attachment and the other member also had been anxiously attached (either avoidant or resistance), victimization occurred.
Qualitative Data Although quantitative data are required to answer questions regarding the existence and structure of the victimization relationship. a more qualitative analysis is necessary to fully describe process features of these relationships, In general. those pla y pairs showing a pattern of victimization closely matched the hypothesized set of attributes originally derived (Appendix I). In each case, one child actively exploited and manipulated the other child . This clearly went beyond simple control of resources (dominance) and included verbal hostility or ph ysical aggression or both . For example, in one of the female pairs (L. J. victimizing N . T.) L. J. often verbally a ntago n ized N. T. by saying " no " to every comment N . T . made. At other times she was cold and aloof in the face of N. T. 's continuing bids for interaction . More dramatically, during one interaction L. J. hit N. T . in the stomach immediately after N . T . indicated that her stomach was sore. and when N. T. cried out in pain. L. J.. with a smile on her face, poked N. T . again . The example below in which E. T. victimizes O. S. (both boys) further illustrates clements of the victimization relationship as it involves physical aggression: E. T. and O. S. pretend they are at the doctor's office. E. T. takes the role of doctor and O. S. takes the role of patient. E. T. wants to give O. S. a shot with a play hypodermic needle. O. S. docs not want a shot but E. T. reassures him, promising "it won't hurt ." He then gradually presses harder and harder with the plastic needle until O. S. is finally in pain and cries out "ouch! " E. T. then smiles and says. " It don't hurt!", gives O. S. the needle. and walks away.
Even in this hrief episode, manipulation, aggression with till' sole purpose of inflicting pain, and apparent (or seeming) pleasure in the face of that pain are all demonstrated by E. T .. the victimizer. Concurrentl y. O . S.. the victim. was fairly gullible (this was not the first time E. T . had hurt O. S.) and basically passive in the face of E. 'L's aggression. This basic pattern was repeated over and over again in this pair. sometimes in the form of verbal hostilit y rather than physical aggression . The following example illustrates this type of victimization : In an early session. E. T. begins calling O. S. names and whispering "naughty" words: "bugger nose, bugger face, hey poop," and so forth. After 4 minutes of this, E. T. suddenly becomes more hostile. alternating between ignoring O. S. and provoking him by taking
169
VICTIMIZATION AND ATTACHMENT HISTORY TABLE 3. Association between A/lachmenl Historyand Victimization in Play Dyads
Dyads Dyads with an "A" child" Dyads without an "A" child
Victimization
No victimization
5
2
o
7
Dyads with a "B" child Dyads without a "B" child
o
8
5
I
Dyads with an "A" child & an anxious (A or C) child All remaining dyads _ ._ -- -. _ - -- _._--
5
o
o 9 _ ._- - - " A. avoidant attachment history; B. secure attachment history: C. resistant attachment history. _
..
O. S.'s toys and either throwing them or saying they belong to him. Finally. O. S. hesitantly calls E. T. a liar. In response. E. T. acts shocked saying. "Oh, you said a naughty word. I'm telling my momma. you said bad words. I'm telling the teacher. I'm gonna tell everyone!" while O. S. becomes confused and upset.
Other aspects of these victimization relationships clearly illustrate some of the ways in which the victims facilitated and often sought out the continuation of these exploitive relationships. For example. after a pattern of victimization between two boys (R. J. victimizing R. A.) had been clearly established. R . J. began a session by playing independently of R. A. After less than 1 minute of this, R. A. went over to R. J. and in a pleading voice said. "Why don't you tease me, R. J.? I won't get mad." This observation that the victim has an active role in sustaining a pattern of victimization. often despite repeated rejection by the victimizer. was further supported by the results of a detailed analysis of verbatim transcripts from four play sessions involving one of the victimization dyads (Weber. (984). This analysis showed that the child identified as the victimizer made two attempts to initiate a positive interaction, both of which were favorably responded to by the child identified as the victim . During the same period of time, the victim made 119 attempts to initiate a friendly activity, of which only 19 were responded to favorably. This stands in contrast with an identical analysis of a nonvictimizing dyad in which these initiations and responses were essentially balanced. Although not as dramatic as overt aggression . this pattern of rejection is an important part of the victimization relationship. Finally. one interesting variation of the victimization pattern was found in the play pair involving L B. and R. V. (both girls) in which the direction of victimization switched several times during the course of their relationship. At times LB. could be clearly seen in the role of victimizer and R. V. as victim , whereas at other times these roles would be reversed (both had histories of avoidant attachment). Discussion This study demonstrates that victimization can be defined and reliably identified as a distinctive maladaptive relationship pattern. When this phenomenon is examined from a relationship systems perspective, it becomes clear that it is not the result of individual characteristics or either the victimizer or the victim. It is. rather, the expression of the confluence of two particular relationship histories. Clear predictions in this study resulted when attachment histories of both partners were considered .
Fisher's Exact Test p
p< 0.005
p< 0.0005
As previously noted, each of the three major categories used to classify attachment history in the Ainsworth Strange Situation (secure, anxious-avoidant, anxious-resistant) represents a distinctive relationship pattern. Briefly, the interactive history underlying a secure attachment relationship is characterized by the provision of responsive and consistent care by the caregiver. Consequently, in the Strange Situation these children feel confident that the caretaker is available and easily accessible, which allows them to explore the environment in a confident and competent manner. Expectations of caregiver availability also underlie the efficient and effective contact seeking of these infants when distressed. An anxiousavoidant attachment relationship. in contrast, is characterized by a pattern of rebuff by the caregiver in the face of expressed emotional or physical needs of the child, resulting in avoidant behavior by the child. The most striking behavior of these infants is that. when moderately stressed. they ignore, turn away. or move away from their caregivers. Finally, an anxious-resistant attachment relationship is generally characterized by insensitivity and inconsistent availability of the caregiver resulting in ambivalent contact seeking by the child. When distressed, they mix angry behavior with comfortseeking behavior and continue to fuss or pout rather than settle (Table I). As Bowlby points out (1973), repeated interactions within the attachment relationship lead to the construction of internal working models of self and others. As the child's sphere of social interaction expands. these working models will be continually invoked as new relationships are negotiated, leading to some measure ofcontinuity and predictability regarding the quality of those relationships. Previous studies have demonstrated that attachment classification can be related to developmental outcomes in the social domain. for example, in interpersonal competence (Waters et al ., 1979) and in toddlers' initial sociability with peers (Pastor. 1981). Our findings also document the impact of early relationships on later social functioning. Of particular significance in this study is the finding that each victimization dyad was composed of a victimizer with an avoidant attachment history and a victim also with an anxious attachment history of one form or another. Indeed, not only were all victimization pairs so comprised, every dyad in the study with such a pairing showed a pattern of victimization. That children with an avoidant attachment history were found to be victimizers is consistent with previous findings regarding their peer functioning. These children arc often hostile. antisocial. and socially and emotionally isolated from others (Erickson et al ., 1985: Sroufe. 1983) . With peers, they
170
TROY AND SROUFE
have been shown to be negative in their interactions, even when paired with securely attached children (Pastor, 1981). Similarly, the fact that children with a resistant attachment history were found to be victims in the play pairs is also consistent with previous findings. These children have been shown to be highly stressed by social situations, least active in a play setting (Pastor, 1981), and seen by preschool teachers as more helpless, inept, and dependent than secure children (Sroufe, 1983). Consequently, the more socially inept anxiousresistant children would appear to be the perfect foil for the more aggressive and hostile anxious-avoidant children. Of even greater significance, however, from the perspective of the relationship system is the fact that, when there was a play pair with two anxious-avoidant children, victimization still occurred. Children with an avoidant attachment history could assume either role-that of victimizer or victim (the latter actually being more congruent with their role in the infant-caregiver relationship). We interpret this finding to be an example of the way in which the roles and expectations of both individuals in the early attachment relationship are represented in the internalized working model that is carried forward by the child. Past relationships are brought to bear on the formation of new ones, resulting in an overall pattern of continuity and coherence in the nature and quality of relationships over time (Sroufe and Fleeson, 1986). In a more general sense, this same proposition has been an implicit part of the child abuse and child sexual abuse literature, which has repeatedly pointed out that abusing adults have often been abused as children (e.g., Egeland et al., in press; Kempe and Kempe, 1978; Parke and Coli mer, 1975), although, of course, such patterns are open to change (Egeland et al., in press). Indisputably, as children, such individuals learned both the role of abused and abuser. They later recreate that relationship by taking up the role of the latter. The present study, however, suggests that the capacity to fill both the role of victimizer and victim does not necessarily wait to develop in adulthood. Rather, the internalized relationship is an ongoing influence on the construction of each new relationship throughout development. In this manner, individuals are constantly seeking to define a role for both themselves and their partners that is familiar. When viewed in this light, the fact that children with an anxious-avoidant attachment history were found to be victims as well as victimizers can be seen as a consistent and supportive finding. The initial relationship these children experienced with their caregiver was likely to have been marked by physical abuse, rejection, or emotional unavailability (Egeland and Sroufe, 1981; George and Main, 1979; Sroufe, 1983). They were, in some form, victims and carried that role forward. At the same time, although they likely never victimized their caregivers, they internalized that aspect of the relationship as well. This total representation, then, was brought to bear on an otherwise neutral setting and through the efforts of both children was reestablished in the new relationship. That each ofthe partners in the victimization pairs comprised of two anxious avoidant children did carry both roles with them was further supported by the fact that in one such pair the direction of victimization occasionally shifted. In this case, although one of the children was clearly dominant in the long run, at times roles were reversed and the victimizer became the victim. Although the
reason for a child's filling one role or another is not clear, a possible explanation may be that the children who assume the victim role may show physical weakness, limited intelligence, emotional lability, or some other type of vulnerability (relative to their partners), which makes them more likely to be the target of aggression and manipulation. The victimizer, although just as likely to have been victimized in the home, may naturally take on the more dominant role when paired with a child showing some obvious weakness. To summarize, we believe that the early attachment history of all the children involved in this study can be seen to meaningfully relate to the relationships they formed in this preschool free play situation. Specifically, because of an early relationship marked by a consistent pattern of caregiver insensitivity, rejection, and abuse, children with an avoidant attachment history have clearly internalized models of both exploiter and exploited. Depending on the role they assume, they may organize their behavior around the expression of their anger and hostility in the role of victimizer or around their sense of unworthiness and poor self-image in the role of victim. Children with an anxious-resistant attachment history, on the other hand, are drawing on early relationships marked by disorganization and inconsistency, resulting in the caregiver being unable to meet the child's needs. Consequently, these children are motivated to make contact but are themselves disorganized and unskilled at meeting the developmental tasks involved in the formation of smooth peer relationships. Like their caregivers, however, they keep trying-however ineffectively-and are consequently easily victimized. Of equal significance is the fact that, regardless of with whom children with a secure attachment history are paired, they tend to fill neither the role of victimizer nor victim. Because their early relationship history was characterized by consistency, warmth, and respect, they carry into a new relationship a model of themselves as worthy and potent, which precludes their filling the role of victim. In general, these children simply do not make themselves vulnerable and so are not faced with the threat of victimization. They may substantively control the relationship, making it as positive an experience for themselves as possible. Alternatively, they may simply choose not to engage in the relationship at all, having the independence and confidence to recognize that there are situations in which they are better off on their own. In those rare instances when their partner does attempt to bully or intimidate them, securely attached children are generally able to counter such attempts early in the development of the relationship. They may, for example, meet aggression with just enough aggression or force to convince the potential victimizer that they will not be an easy target. Similarly, because their representation of relationships is based on positive and productive interactions, they are not motivated to victimize a less competent child. Although the productiveness of their relationships with children with anxious attachment histories may be constrained by the limitations of their partners, their own sense of competency is not challenged or compromised. It is our feeling that, as maladaptive patterns of personality development and relationship construction are identified, the clinical implications should also be clearly developed. The pattern of victimization described here points to one way in which clinically significant behaviors can be better understood
171
VICTIMIZATION AND ATTACHMENT HISTORY
from a relationship perspective. For instance, a particularly striking feature of these maladaptive interactions, as opposed to better functioning dyads (i.e., virtually any in which a child with a secure attachment history is involved), is the extraordinary amount of energy invested in the victimization relationship itself. In play dyads that involved securely attached children, relationship establishment and modulation were obviously generated with greater ease than in those involving anxiously attached children. The well-functioning relationships then served to facilitate and promote developmentally appropriate and adaptive behavior (Pancake, 1985). One consequence of this is evident in the results of a separate analysis involving all the play pairs used in this study (Rosenberg, 1984). It was found that the anxious-avoidant children used significantly fewer social fantasy play themes (except for diffuse hostility) than did children from the other two attachment groups. Consequently, the anxious-avoidant children minimized what is generally agreed to be a critical medium for adaptive development. When considered in combination with our own observations, we believe this suggests that far greater emotional and physical resources were invested in maintaining the victimization relationship itself than were devoted to growth and development in other areas. In conclusion, we suggest that all the children in these exploitive peer relationships are in fact victims of their own relationship history. The early maladaptive relationships they experienced have continuing impact on their lives. These early patterns are internalized, carried forward, and reiterated by the developing individual within the context of an ever expanding social world. Appendix I
Critcriajor Assessing Victimization I. Behavioral assvmetrv. The first judgment to be made concerns the halance of the relationship. By definition. the victimization relationship is an unhalanced (asymetrical) one at the behavioral level. This should be the most readily apparent marker. Certainly, not all asymmetrical relationships involve a victim, but when such a relationship does exist between peers the ohserver should be alerted to the possihility of victimization. 2. Victimization. Having noted an asymmetrical relationship at the behavioral level, a decision as to whether it is characterized by victimization must be made. To make this judgment, the following characteristics must be identified in the victimizer, the victim. and in the interaction. a. The victimizer. One of the two children must be actively exploiting the other. Although dominance is a necessary part of this role, it is not sufficient. The victimizer uses his or her advantage over the other child not only to control resources (dominance) hut also to somehow hurt the victim (physically or emotionally or hoth). At the very least. the victimizer has no apparent empathy for the other child's pain and may seem to enjoy the victim's distress. Aggression may seem to be a more natural mode of action for the victimizer than for the victim. The victimizer is more likely to act aggressively. is more willing to use aggression. and is less likely to be anxious when aggression is part of the interaction. h. The victim For a victimization relationship to exist. one child must hoth be more vulnerable in general. and. within the context of the relationship. make him or herself vulnerable. The first point implies that this child enters the interaction with some sort of vulnerahility that the victimizer can spot. For
instance, the victim may be physically weak, intellectually handicapped, or gullible or have some physical or behavioral abnormality. The second point implies that this child tends to "make a bad situation worse" or "bring things on himself." Children designated as victims may appear needy in the sense that they seem to long for approval and attention from the victimizer. At the same time, these children probably have poor social skills and so may not be initiating interactions appropriately or effectively. Furthermore, when rejected. victims do not have flexible strategies to call into play and. needing approval more than ever. they tend to make another awkward attempt to interact with the victimizer. For children to be identified as victims. they should evidence some sort of distress. This pain and anxiety may manifest itself in many ways (e.g., crying, inappropriate giggling, cowering. hyperactivity), but should clearly reveal that the child is uncomfortable. Despite this discomfort. however, they will seldom fight back or disengage completely in the face of antagonistic behavior. Rather, as mentioned. they will tend to reenter the cycle of victimization. e. The interaction. Ultimately. the charaeteristies of the victim and victimizer noted above are meaningful only in the context ofa social interaction and only in certain relationships. A child's behavior might suggest that he or she may fit one role or the other. but without hoth parties the victimizer won't be consistently cxploitive and the victim won't be consistently exploited. It must also be noted that two children could have an unproductivc or even unhealthy relationship without victimization occurring. They could, for example, frequently fight without either child being consistently dominant, or one child might consistently control the resources of the setting without causing significant pain or distress to the other child. 3. Form otvictimization. Finally, the specific form that victimization takes may vary from one case to another. For example, one interaction may be characterized by physical intimidation and aggression. whereas another may be in the form of verbal hostility and manipulation. References
Ainsworth, M. D. S.. Bell. S. M. & Stayton. D. J. (1971). Individual ditTerences in strange situation behavior of one-year-olds. In: The Origin or Human Social Relations, ed. H. R. SchatTer. London: Academic, pp. 17-57. - Blchar, M. C .. Waters. E. & Wall, S. (1978), Patterns ofAttachment: .-l Psychological Study or the Strange Sit uti/ion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlhaum. Bowlby, J. (1969), Attachment and Loss: Vol. I. Attachment. New York: Basic. - (1973). Attachment and Loss: 1'01. 2. Separation. New York: Basic. Egeland. B.. Jacobvitz, D. & Papatola, K. (in press). Intergenerational continuity in parental abuse. In: Biosocial Aspects ofChild Abuse, ed. J. Lancaster & R. Gelles. New York: Jossey-Bass. - Jacobvitz. D. & Sroufe. L. A. (in press). Breaking the cycle of ahuse: relationship predictions. Child Develpm. - & Sroufe, L. A. ( 1981), Attachment and early maltreatment. Child Dcvclpm.. 52:44-52. Erickson. M. F., Egeland. B. & Sroufe, L. A. (1985), The relationship hetween quality of attachment and behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. Monogr. SOl'. Res. Child Develpm., 50:147166.
Fairbairn, W. R. D. (1946), Ohject-relationship and dynamic structure. lnt. 1. Psvcho-Anal.. 27:30-37. Freud. A. (1952). The mutual influences in the development of ego and id. The Psvchoanalvtic Study ofthe Child, 6: 127-168. George, C. & Main. M. (1979), Social interactions of young abused children: approach. avoidance. and aggression. Child Devclpm .. 50:306-318.
Hinde. R. A. (1979). Towards Understanding Relationships. London: Academic. Kempe. R. S. & Kempe, H. C. (1978), Child Abuse. Cambridge.
172
TROY AND SROUFE
Mass.: Harvard University Press. Klein, M. (1948), Contributions to Psychoanalysis. London: Hogarth. Main. M.. Kaplan. N. & Cassidy. J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood. and adulthood: a move to the level of representation. A!onoKf. Soc. Res. Child Develpm.. 50:66-104. Olweus, D. ( 1978), Aggression in the Schools: Bullies and Whipping Hill's. New York: Halsted. - (1'980), Bullying among school boys. In: Children and Violence, ed. R. Barnen. Stochholm: Academic Literature. Pancake. V. (1985), Continuity between mother-infant attachment and ongoing dyadic peer relationship in preschool. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto. Parke, R. D. & Colimer, C. W. (1975). Child abuse: an interdisciplinary analysis. In: Review 01" Child Development Research. ed. E. M. Hetherington. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 509590. Pastor D. (1981). The quality of mother-infant attachment and its relationship to toddlers' initial sociability with peers. Developmental Psvchol., 17:326-335.
Rosenberg, D. N. (1984), The quality and content ofpreschool fantasy play: correlates in concurrent social-personality function and early mother-child attachment relationship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota. Sroufe, L. A. (1979), The coherence of individual development. A mer. Psvchol., 34:834-841. - (i 983), Infant-caregiver attachment and patterns of adaptation in preschool: the roots of maladaptation and competence. Minn. Symp. Child Psychol., 16:41-81. - (1985). Attachment classification from the perspective of infantcaregiver relationships and infant temperament. Child Develpm., 56:1-14. - & Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the construction of relationships. In: The Nature and Development of Relationships, ed. W. Hartup & Z. Rubin. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Waters, E.. Wippman, J. & Sroufe, L. A. (1979), Attachment, positive affect, and competence in the peer group: two studies in construct validation. Child Develpm., 50:821-829. Weber, L. (1984). Relational symmetry: a power exchange. Unpublished manuscript. University of Minnesota.