Behavior of toddlers during daily leave-taking and separation from their parents

Behavior of Toddlers During Daily Leave-Taking and Separation from Their Parents Joachim Bensel Institut fi~r Biologie 1, Albert-Ludwigs-Universittit, Freiburg, Germany

At a day-care center (DCC) the behavior of 1 to 3-year-old children was studied in an away-from-home environment. The children's behavior was observed a) before, during, and after daily leave-taking of their parents, and b) during everyday DCC routine as well as in a comparative situation when a parent was present. Children who showed a long leave-taking phase played less during the first half-hour after leave-taking. Children to whom it was possible to make a comparison showed more "aside-behavior" and grief behavior as well as less initiatives to contact adults when their parents were absent than they did in their presence. Some children produced various substitute stimuli for parental presence while their parent was absent. These conspicuous behaviors which were observed are discussed in this paper as being reactions to the situation of being left by the parents. The extent of playing behavior seems to be a measurable indicator which may be used to determine the subsidence of excitement after the parent's leave-taking. KEY WORDS: Child ethology: day-care center: leave-taking: playing behavior: "aside-behavior" : toddlers.

INTRODUCTION

I

n the i n d u s t r i a l n a t i o n s the n u m b e r of w o r k i n g m o t h e r s has greatly i n c r e a s e d in the last few d e c a d e s ; at the same time, h o w e v e r , fathers h a v e not u n d e r t a k e n m a n y m o r e u p b r i n g i n g tasks of their c h i l d r e n at

h o m e . This has r e s u l t e d in g r e a t e r n u m b e r s of c h i l d r e n u n d e r three years of age b e i n g c a r e d for by s t r a n g e r s a w a y from h o m e r a t h e r t h a n by their family care p r o v i d e r s . S i n c e b e i n g a w a y f r o m their p r o t e c t i n g p a r e n t s entails an i n c r e a s e d risk, e s p e c i a l l y for y o u n g c h i l d r e n , special m e c h a n i s m s have d e v e l o p e d in chilReceived July 24, 1991; revised February 3~ 1992. Address reprint requests and correspondence to: Joachim Bensel, lnstitut for Biologie 1, Project Group Professor Dr. B. Hassenstein. Albert-Ludwigs-Universit~it, Albertstr. 21 a, D-7800 Freiburg, Germany. Ethology and Sociobiology 13:229-252 (1992) © Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., 1992 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

()162-0134/92/$3.50

230

J. Bensel

dren in the course of evolution enabling them to attract attention when the;, are left alone (crying, screaming) or to search for their parents (contactappetitive behavior). A young child does not recognize its secure situation (and the return of its parents) as adults do. The lack of signals indicating that its parents are present is a sign of lost contact for a young child !Bowlb~ 1973; Hassenstein 1973). What are the children's reactions to the daily ~c~.aration from their paret~ts? What takes place during the period ~i: ihb, ,,cp aration as well as the subsequent time spent at the day-care center'? Reactions to separations lasting just a few minutes in artificial tal',orato~ ~ situations (e.g., strange situation test) have already been adequately d~-scribed (e.g., Arsenian t943; l'ennes and Lampl 1964, 1966; Cox and Campbell 1968; Rheingold 1969; Ainsworth and Wittig 1969). Very young childrc~t show (beginning towards the end of their first year of lilE and wilh a pear being reached during their second year of life [Kagan 1976}) behaviors of protest (e.g., crying, screaming) and search for the mother, as well as ,., reduction of their playing activity after the separation. The results of these studies, however, cannot replace studies on daily separations in real living situations. Under the conditions of the tests the children were subjected to a single short period of stress during their separation and to this end were left with an unknown adult in surroundings which were completely strange to them. Consequently, it is not surprising that Ragozin (1980) observed that behavioral patterns during day-care center reunions were not significantly related to those in a strange situation. However, there are only a few studies available concerning the daily separations as a result of the day-care situation of a child (Heathers 1954: Janis 1964; Blurton Jones and Leach 1972: McGrew 1972a.b; Heinicke et al. 1973: Resch 1975: Heras 1976; Cummings 1980: Ragozin 1980: Wilcox et al. 1980; Field et al. 1984; Smith and Noble 1987). Conspicuous behavior during these daily separations, such as crying, clinging to the mother, calling for the mother, and verbal protest were found by all authors cited. 1-his behavior changed with the children's age as well as with the time of daycare. Protest behavior shown at the beginning of the observations declined as the time of day-care increased; a phenomenon which is interpreted in different ways. Heathers (1954), for example, found increasingly less protesl behavior in the course of the first five days in 23 to 37-month-old children who were collected from home and driven to nursery school. He gave two different interpretations of this phenomenon, namely, increasing familiarity with the new situation or resignation of the children. Field et al. (1984) reported that protest against the parent's daily leave-taking and clinging to the mother decreased after six months in a DCC in the toddler (18-29 months) and preschooler (30-69 months) groups, but increased in the infant group (3-17 months). They supposed that proximity-maintaining behaviors are more influenced by developmental age than by the amount of experience acquired during leave-takings. Other investigations have revealed clear age-dependent changes of pro-

Behavior of Toddlers at a Day-Care Center

231

test behavior. In Heathers' study, the 30 to 37-month-old children showed more protest than the 23 to 29-month-olds did. He supposed that the older children were more likely to be able to anticipate the coming separation than the younger ones. When observing 2 to 4-year-old children, Blurton Jones and Leach (1972) also detected different behavioral patterns in younger and in older children at the beginning of a play-group. Alter factor analysis they found an age factor which makes a contrast between "crying and clinging, arms up and touching the m o t h e r ' concerning the yotmg on the one hand, and "away from mother, playing, waving, talking and ,jumping" concerning the older on the other hand. Crying at separation was common for the under 2½-year-olds and rare after that age. Resch 11975) and Field el al. (19841 found an inversely U-shaped age curve with 3 to 69-month-old children of a DCC. Toddlers (18-29 months) showed more "'hovering, attention getting, verbal protest, reaching/clinging, and crying" than the infants (3-17 months) and preschoolers (30-69 months) did. However, not all of the observed children showed protest behavior during leave-taking. The individual differences were great. Some American authors (Cummings 1980; Ragozin 1980: Field et al. 19841 observed crying only in rare instances (between 12 and 30% of all cases) and likewise attempts to follow the mother (between 7 and 10%) in I to 3-year-olds during the daily leave-taking from their mothers at a DCC. Cummings concluded from these observations that the children in the day-care environment seemed to accept caregivers as substitutes for the mother, while Ragozin maintained that daycare attendance was compatible with normal attachment relationships. However, the percentage of crying children in Blurton Jones and Leach's (1972) study was considerably higher (50G of the 21 to 30-month-old childrent. Furthermore, crying is only one behavioral element of protest behavior and the lack of protest behavior may be explained by the children's increasing familiarity with their new surroundings as well as by unsuccessful attempts to avoid the separation (Heathers 1954). On the other hand, the question whether there might be any changes of the behavior shown by the day-care children during the daily routine after separation has hardly been investigated up to now. In 3 to 5-year-old nursery school children, McGrew (1972a,b) observed long-term behavioral changes during the period from the first to the sixty-fifth day of DCC attendance as well as short-term changes during a single morning. At the beginning of a particular day or during the first few days the children were much more often immobile (including fixed gaze) and more frequently showed automanipulation, such as scratching, rubbing, fingering the mouth, nose, ears, or hair. He regarded these behavioral patterns as indicators of"fearfulness" because several of the children had never been separated from their mothers and left with strangers before. These behavioral indications of fear decreased in frequency as familiarity with the nursery increased. Newcomers of a DCC at Stanford needed more time to start an activity after their mother had left. It was noticeable, however, that this period of

232

J. Bensel

inactivity became shorter after more day-care experience had been acquired by the children lHeras 1976). Only a few investigations have correlated the children's behavior before separation with the behavior shown afterwards. In this connection, Heathers (1954) lound that children who showed more signs of an upset score during leave-taking subsequently played less at the nursery school. The descriptive study conducted by Resch (1975) also revealed a connection between the difficulties the children had during the daily separation from their parents and their inability to play in a concentrated manner afterwards. In this ethological study the behavior of toddlers between the ages of 1 and 3 years has been directly observed in a DCC for children of university students, before, during, and after leave-taking from their parent, as well as during periods of longer presence and absence of a parent. Two complexes of questions have been the focus of attention. 1. The situation of daily leave-taking. What takes place during the arrival of the children at the day-care center? Are there any conspicuous behaviors already, or do they occur only when the parent actually leaves'? Are there any differences between individuals'? Are they dependent on the child's age'.' Moreover, it was intended that the behavior of the children after leave-taking would be studied. Is a particular behavior before and during the process of leave-taking already predictive for the behavior after leave-taking? 2. How does the presence or absence of a parent during the stay at the day-care center affect I- and 2-year-old children in a peer group'? Is the amount of playing behavior of children of this age group who are cared for by strangers different depending on a parent's presence or absence'? If this is so, then what behaviors replace the activity of playing? Are there any indications of an unsatisfied wish for contact-making in the away-from-homesituation with the parents being absent'?

METHODS Observation M e t h o d Observations were made with the local sampling method (Altmann 1974)+ On record sheets the ongoing behavior of the observed child was documented for a minimum of 30 minutes. The main focus of attention for the purposes of recording was the child,s choice of partners for interaction as well as the question of whether its behavior was a playful or a non-playful one. The actual time at the transition from one behavioral category to another was also noted. In this way, the proportion of time spent on each of the behavioral categories could be computed later. Furthermore, the number of contact initiations was recorded; every new initiation of contact after a time which the child had spent alone and every change of partners of interaction was rated as a new initiation. The initiator of contact was also recorded, whether

Behavior of Toddlers at a Day-Care Center 233

it was the child in focus itself or an adult or another child. The observation was " p a s s i v e - p r e s e n t , " i.e., the o b s e r v e r did not actively participate in any group activities and p r e v e n t e d any initiation of contact by the observed child by looking away. H o w e v e r , he was present together with the children in the same r o o m or playground.

S t u d y Area The observation was carried out in the playrooms and the playground of a DCC of a student administration. The DCC consisted of four half-day groups and two all-day groups with 9 to I 1 children in each case between the first and third year of life. The DCC teacher:child ratio was 1:5.

Subjects The study lasted four months. Children who attended the DCC in the halfday groups were o b s e r v e d between 8 A.M. and 11 A.M. or in the afternoon between 1 P.M. and 5 P.M., while children in the all-day groups were observed between 8 A.M. and 5 P.M. Observations were made only during their free play, and not during meals or at bedtime, etc. The age range of the 52 children o b s e r v e d during arrival and leave-taking was 15 to 35 months (~ = 25.5 _+ 5.8). T h e y had been attending the DCC for 0 to 17 months (~ = 8 + 3.8). It was also possible to o b s e r v e 13 children in the presence of a parent, 9 of them in their first w e e k of day-care attendance ( " s e t t l i n g - d o w n - w e e k " ) and 4 on a w e e k d a y , when some mothers voluntarily assumed the staff's work for two hours ( " W e d n e s d a y - s i t u a t i o n " ) . During the time of their observation the " s e t t l i n g - d o w n - c h i l d r e n " were between 14 and 33 months old (Y~ = 19 _+ 3.8) and had been attending the DCC for 0 to 2 months (~ = 0.7 _+ 0.1). The age range of the " W e d n e s d a y - c h i l d r e n " was 24 to 36 months (~ = 28.8 _+ 4.2), and their time spent attending the DCC before ranged from 7 to 17 months (~ = 12.2 _+ 2.9).

Behavioral Categories The inter-observer reliability was calculated by using the formula agreements (observer A and observer B) agreements + (disagreements [observer A and observer B]/2) for the agreement on "individual o c c u r r e n c e s " (Caro et al. 1979). The reliability coefficient is given in parentheses for every behavioral category. F o r the two different observational situations, different behavioral categories were made up. The categories used for the arrival and leave-taking situation are " c a t e g o r i e s of e v a l u a t i o n , " which were made up and used subsequently based on the freely gathered observation data. Children were

234

J. aensel

scored globally in four categories for the "period of arrival" and three for the "period of leave-taking."

1. Behavioral categories for "arrival" A. Active approach (0.91): the child left its parent after arrival and went actively towards other children or teachers or at least made clear responses to contact offers or began to play alone. B. Ambivalent behavior (0.55): the child returned to its parent after a short playing activity or contact initiation with the teacher (or children) and made physical contact. Or it stayed with its parent and made contact to others from this position. C. Passive behavior (1.0): the child neither showed any effort to keep up the contact with its parent nor began to play or to contact somebody else; he or she remained at his or her place looking around instead. D. Reluctance at separation (0.71): during the whole period of arrival the child maintained close contact with its parent and showed in some cases protest against going into the DCC (e.g., saying '~no" or pulling its parent back to the exit), or clung to its parent's breast or legs. H. Behavioral categories for "leave-taking" E. Leave-taking gestures (l.0): the child looked at its parent during leavetaking and showed goodbye gestures (smiling, goodbye kiss, touching, waving, verbal goodbye, etc.). F. No leave-taking gestures (0.95): the child did not react with the corresponding gestures to the farewell of its parent; in most cases the child did not even look towards its leaving parent. G. Protest (0.86): the child clung to its parent, ran after her/him, cried, shouted " M u m m y " / " D a d d y " or tried to delay the leave-taking by expressing various wishes. For the first scene after separation the categories ~'playing behavior" and "grief behavior" (categories 1 and 4 of the categories made up for the routine behavior at the DCC, see below) were used. The categories of the children's patterns of activity in the presence and absence of a parent were elaborated after a pre-observation period lasting one month and then used for the actual study. They were categories tbr the recording of the children's behavior ("categories of observation") made up as follows:

111. Behavioral categories for "routine behavior at the DCC" 1. Playing behavior (0.91): this category comprises all events having a playful character. --Functional playing (playing with balls, marbles, etc.) --Constructional playing (painting, moulding, etc.)

Behavior of Toddlers at a Day-Care Center

235

- - F a n t a s y games ("preparing meals," etc.) --Active games (sliding, hopping, etc.) --Singing --Exploratory behavior (getting to know the respective area by wandering around) and curiosity behavior (the specific approaching and examining of things which are conspicuous and unknown) --Behaviors serving the starting of a particular game (play-appetitive behavior) • Acts to prepare a game (running to play equipment, such as a slide, a sandpit, or a vehicle, etc.) • Acts to wait for a game (waiting in front of a swing or a slide, etc., until it is available) --Playful aggression (Blurton Jones 1972; Haug-Schnabel 1987) (e.g., play-fighting or running into another bobby-car). Signals for playing, such as play face (Van Hooff 1972; McGrew 1972a,b), to show a playmate that this is not a serious behavior --Joking with another child (e.g., playing together uttering noises) --Expressing the desire to join in a game or asking for help to make a game possible or continue a game --Watching or listening to a structured offer made by the adults (e.g., reading a picture book to the children, singing them songs) 2. Non-playful social behavior (0.80): all kinds of interactive behavior referring to a serious context, i.e., which are not covered by a game. These could comprise, among others, comforting and being comforted, agonistic behavior, physical contact, feeding and taking food, teaching, mediating, "talking to each other or just listening," smiling at somebody, etc. 3. Aside-behavior (0.89): collective term for keeping oneself away from other children or adults, no matter if the child is watching them or not-but excluding solitary playing. These could comprise, among others, sucking fingers or objects, selfgrooming and -clasping, use of objects which had been brought along for self-calming purposes, staring into space, grief without a care provider being present, autoaggressive behavior, aimless wandering around, comfort behavior (blowing its nose, etc.), watching individuals, or events 4. Grief behavior (0.86): behaviors signalling that the child is unsatisfied with its current situation. "Grief" was diagnosed on the basis of the following characteristics which occurred separately or in combination: --Disagreeableness (verbal or purely phonetic expression of disagreement that appeared exaggerated for the known reason) --Facial expressions of sadness or fear --Vocal sounds of contact or alarm ("Mummy-calls," crying). (This category may include behaviors from categories 2. and 3.) Statistical Procedure

The Chi 2 test was used in order to examine the measure of probability of how various frequencies of different categories could have come about by

236

J. Bensel

coincidence. Fisher's exact probability test was applied if the conditions for using the Chi z test could not be met. The proportion of the total time occupied by one kind of behavior was defined in seconds (s) for every 30 minutes (rain). The paired Student's t-test or the sign test was used for comparing the means of two connected and normally distributed random sample surveys (e.g., "children in the presence of a parent" in comparison with the same "children in the absence of a p a r e n t " ) , whereas the unpaired Student's t,test was applied in the case of nonconnected and normally distributed ran~ dom sample surveys, If at least one of the two random sample surveys to be compared was not normally distributed, Wilcoxon's matched-pairs signed-ranks test was used for connected random sample surveys and the U-test by Mann-Whitney was used for unconnected random sample surveys. All tests were two-tailed. A Spearman rank correlation was made in order to check whether there was any correlation between two rows of not normally distributed values. The average values are given as median + interquartile range/2 (~ + 15o/2).

RESULTS Arrival with the Child and Leave-Taking Altogether, the observation time comprised the following three sections: - - P e r i o d of arrival - - P e r i o d of leave-taking - - P e r i o d after leave-taking. The observation was started at the moment when the child with its parem entered the DCC's playroom or playground. The period of arrival was defined as the time from the arrival at the DCC to the moment when the mother (or father) of the observed child gave the first clear sign of leave-taking (foJ example, verbal goodbye, movement toward the exit, etc,). The period ~/ leave-taking ranged from the parent's first sign of farewell to the moment of leaving the room or ground.

Period of Arrival During the observation of the arrival of parent and child it was noticed that the behaviors of the children were conspicuously different. They showed four differing patterns of behavior. Some typical examples are given in the following sections, (A) Example of active approach: Nicole (26 months old, all-day long at the DCC for I I months) is hopping towards a DCC teacher. The teacher welcomes her. N. says: "Swing" and touches a swing. The teacher: "'Wera

237

Behavior of Toddlers at a Day-Care Center

was here before you!" N. starts examining stones on the ground. Then she looks around. (B) Example of ambivalent behavior: Freya (35 months old, all-day long at the DCC for 14 months) is coming in through the garden gate together with her father. The father takes off her shoes and puts a sweat shirt on her. Then he takes her things into the building, while F. is talking with Dea and Nils about her shorts. Suddenly she calls with a crying voice: ~'Daddy, daddy!" and runs into the building also. A short time after, her father comes out of the house again with F. on his arm and sets her down. She utters sounds of displeasure and kicks her feet about. Her father takes her by the hand and goes to a teacher. (C) Example of passive behavior: Ines (32 months old, all-day long at the DCC for 7 months) is standing under the door with her finger in her mouth. Her father takes off her shoes, both are talking to each other, I. goes into the room and stands in front of her father. The father says: "Well !" slightly pushing her by her head towards the middle of the room. 1. looks around holding the doll she has brought along in her hand. (D) Example of reluctance at separation: Festus (27 months old, all-day long at the DCC for 10 months) is standing at the door together with his mother. He returns to the corridor. His mother brings him in again. Both are standing at the door, F. looking into the room. The mother talks to him and pushes him into the room. F. clings to one of her legs. His mother takes him onto her arm and carries him near the breakfast table. He is sitting on her thigh with a feeding bottle in his mouth. His mother offers him an apple, and so does the teacher. F. does not react to either of the two offers. His mother talks to him and then she goes towards the door. He clings to one of his mothers legs again. T a b l e 1 p r e s e n t s the d i s t r i b u t i o n of these four b e h a v i o r a l p a t t e r n s : 46% of the c h i l d r e n a p p r o a c h e d the t e a c h e r s (or o t h e r children) actively or p l a y e d a l o n e ; 19% of the c h i l d r e n s h o w e d an a m b i v a l e n t b e h a v i o r : 8% r e m a i n e d p a s s i v e ; 27% of the c h i l d r e n s h o w e d r e l u c t a n c e at s e p a r a t i o n from their p a r e n t (Chi 2 test; X2 = 8.5, d f = 3, p = 0.04). The 2-year-olds (24-35 m o n t h s old, ~, = 30 _+ 4) w e r e m o r e r e l u c t a n t at s e p a r a t i o n t h a n the l - y e a r - o l d s (15-23 m o n t h s old, :~ = 19 ± 2) (12 out of 31 as against 2 out of 21' Chi 2

Table 1.

Behavior During the Period of Arrival and the Period of Leave-Taking at the DCC

Behavioral Category

l-year-olds (n = 21)

2-year-olds (n - 31)

Total (n = 52)

Arrival (A) Active approach (B) Ambivalent behavior (C) Passive behavior (D) Reluctance at separation

12 5 2 2

12 5 2 12

24 10 4 14

Leave-taking (E) Leave-taking gestures (F) No leave-taking gestures (G) Protest

1 15 5

7 17 7

8 32 12

238

J. Bensel

test; X2 = 4.0, d f = 1, p = 0.04 for ~'reluctance at s e p a r a t i o n " versus ~'no reluctance at s e p a r a t i o n " ) .

Period of Leave-Taking During the following p e r i o d o f leave-taking by the parent the children s h o w e d different b e h a v i o r s as well. In this c o n t e x t , too, some typical e x a m p l e s o f 3 different behavioral patterns will n o w be given. (E) Example of leave-taking gestures: The father says to lnes ~31 months old, all-day long at the DCC for 7 months): "'Mummy will come and pick you up, O K ? " He sets 1. down in a chair at the breakfast table, I. takes a piece of apple from a teacher. Both parents wave goodbye. So does |. and continues eating. (F) Example of m~ leave-taking gestures: The mother of Siegfried i22 months old, half-day at the DCC for 6 months) says twice: "Bye, Siegfried !'" stroking his hair. S. is playing with Legos on the floor. He does not stop playing during the leave-taking gestures of his mother. His mother leaves the room, while he keeps on looking at his Legos. ~G) Example of protest: The lather says to Freya ~36 months old, all-day long at the DCC for 14 months): "'Come on, 1 have to go, don't make such a big show!" F. clings to him. F.: "Daddy, I just wanna give you a kiss!" Her father keeps her at a distance from himself. F.: "Just a kiss!" Her father leaves the room. A teacher picks her up and sets her on the window sill. Her father comes into sight through the window. Freya says whiningly: " B y e " and starts crying and calling for her father. Fifteen p e r c e n t o f the children took part in the leave-taking p r o c e s s b~ indicating gestures. M o s t o f the children (62%) s h o w e d no " g o o d b y e " beh a v i o r (Chi 2 test: X2 = 7,5, df = 2, p = 0.02): 23% tried to prevent their separation f r o m the parent by protest, In this c o n n e c t i o n the 2-year-olds t e n d e d to be m o r e active during leave-taking than the l-year-olds (7 out o f 31 as against l out o f 21, p = 0.08; F i s h e r ' s exact test for " a c t i v e particip a t i o n " versus " n o active p a r t i c i p a t i o n " ) (Table 1t.

Relationship between Period of Arrival and Period of LeaveTaking One case s h o w s a possible c o m b i n a t i o n o f " b e h a v i o r o f a r r i v a l " and "~behavior of leave-taking": Shoona (31 months old, half-day at the DCC for 11 months) is coming into the playground being carried on her mother's arm. She is holding a swimming ring on her arm. The mother sets S. down. She looks for a moment and then runs after her mother who is leaving, calling " M u m m y ! " The mother takes away S.'s chewing gum. S. looks for a short time and then talks to her mother. The mother strokes S.'s head: "1'11 come and pick you up later." S. is standing and looking. Her mother repeats: -Bye, I'I1 pick you up later" and kisses S.,s forehead. Shoona does not return any goodbye gesture.

239

B e h a v i o r of T o d d l e r s at a D a y - C a r e C e n t e r

Table 2.

Frequency with which a Specific "Behavior of Arrival" Followed a Specific "Behavior of Leave-taking" (n = 52)

"Behavior of Leave-Taking"

"Behavior of arrival" (A) Active approach (B) Ambivalent behavior (C) Passive behavior (D) Reluctance at separation

(E) Leave-Taking Gestures

!F) No Leave-Taking Gestures

(G) Protest

~ 2 0 1

18 4 4 ~

I 4 tl 7

This c a s e s h o w s that not e v e r y child w h i c h r e m a i n e d c l o s e to its p a r e n t d u r i n g the p e r i o d o f a r r i v a l or o p p o s e d s e p a r a t i o n did a c t u a l l y p r o t e s t against the final s e p a r a t i o n d u r i n g l e a v e - t a k i n g (see T a b l e 2). H o w e v e r , the p r o b a b i l i t y that c h i l d r e n w h o h a d a l r e a d y o p p o s e d s e p a r a t i o n d u r i n g the p e r i o d o f a r r i v a l w o u l d a c t u a l l y p r o t e s t a g a i n s t l e a v e - t a k i n g was higher than for c h i l d r e n w h o a p p r o a c h e d the D C C situation a c t i v e l y (7 out o f 14 as ag ~inst ] oul of'24, p = 0.002: F i s h e r ' s e x a c t test for ~'protest'" v e r s u s " n o p r o t e s i "' t This also a p p l i e d to t h o s e c h i l d r e n w h o w e r e a m b i v a l e n t during arrival (4 out o f 10 as a g a i n s t 1 out o f 23, p = 0.02; F i s h e r ' s e x a c t test for " p r o t e s l " v c r s u s "'no p r o t e s t " ) . In the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n an e x a m p l e o f p r o t e s t during l e a v e - t a k i n g after r e l u c t a n c e at s e p a r a t i o n d u r i n g a r r i v a l will be given: Amanda (28 months old, all-day long at the DCC for 10 months) is coming into the playroom, being carried on her father's arm. She closely snuggles to his breast. Her father sets her on the floor. A. puts up a fight against this: " N ' . n ' ! " and clings to him again. Her father shows her a Lego. bul she looks up only for a moment. He tries to drav, her attention to the lruits laying on the table, A mother unknown to her suggests: " D o you want to come on my lap'?" A. declines. Her father lays her on a mattress, and another mother tries to get into contact with her. A. shouts: " M u m m y ! " Her father turns A. over from her belly onto her back. The father goes away and A. remains alone on the mattress. She starts crying and another mother picks her up and tries to distract her by playing with a ball. Angrily. A. throws the ball away from herself. T h e m o s t f r e q u e n t c o m b i n a t i o n o f arrival and l e a v e - t a k i n g b e h a v i o r is c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y no l e a v e - t a k i n g b e h a v i o r a f t e r a c t i v e a p p r o a c h to the DCC s i t u a t i o n . A n e x a m p l e o f this is as f o l l o w s : Sabine (16 months old, half-day at the DCC for 4 months) is entering the playroom smiling, her mother is following her. She looks around with her hands in her mouth. She sees the teacher, runs toward her with a delighted face and sits down on her lap. Her mother says: " B y e ! " and has a short talk with a teacher. S. watches the other children playing. The child does not react to its mothers leave-taking in any way.

240 Table 3.

J. Bensel Frequency with which Playing or Non-Playing as well as Grief or No Grief Followed Immediately After a Specific Behavior During Arrival or Leave-Taking First Scene After Leave-Taking Playing

Behavioral C a t e g o r y

no

yes

Arrival (A) Active a p p r o a c h (B) A m b i v a l e n t b e h a v i o r ~C) Passive b e h a v i o r (D) Reluctance at separation

II ,~ 3 9

I?, 2 J 4

Leave-taking (E) Leave-taking g e s t u r e s (F) N o leave-taking gestures (G) Protest

6 15 10

2 15 2

Grief p value' lAirs(B)

0.09

IF1 vs ~Gt <(!.05

no

yes

p value ~

22 6 3 ~

I 4 I 4

IAi~sIBi

~ 28 4

0 2 8

(E) v~ ((~) (kO(i4 If:) ~ i()i , 0.00t

It.02

il)~ ~ iAi ~ (t.0~

Fisher's exact probability ~est.

The Period After Leave-Taking After leave-taking, a hall-hour observation was started. The first scene after leave-taking was examined with a view to whether the children played or not, and whether they showed any grief behavior or not (see Table 3). Children who approached the DCC situation actively tended to show playing behavior subsequent to leave-taking more often (52%) than those who showed ambivalent behavior (20%,). They also showed less grief behavior (4%) than ambivalent (40%) and contact-maintaining children (3 I%). Chip dren who had protested against leave-taking more often showed grief subsequently to leave-taking (67%) than children who had bidden goodbye to their parents (0%) or shown no goodbye gestures (7%,). Furthermore, protesting children played less during the following scene (17%) than children without any leave-taking reaction did (50%) (see Table 3).

Time of Presence of the Accompanying Parent and Playing Behavior Does the total time of the accompanying parent's presence already provide us with any indication of the future behavior of the children'? (The total time of presence of the accompanying parent was taken as the period from the entry of the parent with his/her child into the DCC to the final leaving of the parent, i.e., duration of the period of arrival plus duration of the period of leave-taking.) To answer this question, the average times of presence of the accompanying parent in the behavioral patterns (A) to (G) were compared as a first step. As Table 4 shows, the presence of the accompanying parent was longer by far for those children showing ambivalent behavior or reluctance at separation during arrival as for those children who actively approached the situation or remained passive.

Behavior of Toddlers at a Day-Care Center

Table 4.

241

Time of Presence of the Accompanying Parent Dependent on Forms of Behavior During Arrival and Leave-Taking (n = 53)

Behavioral Category

Time of Presence in s (:~ _+ lso/2)

Arrival (A) Active approach (B) Ambivalent behavior (C) Passive behavior (D) Reluctance at separation

105 221 53 229

Leave-taking (E) Leave-taking gestures (F) No leave-taking gestures (G) Protest

140 z 67 114 +_ 39 285 _+ I10

+ _+ + _+

31 94 31 90

p value' (A) vs (B) <0.001, (A) vs (D) -< 0.001 (B) vs (C) < 0.05. (CI vs (D) 0.07

(E) vs (G) 0.02 (F) vs !G) <0.001M

Unpaired Student's t-test; except M Mann-Whitney U-test.

Furthermore, this timing revealed that the period when the accompanying parent was present was more than twice as long for those children who had tried to prevent leave-taking, compared with children showing no goodbye gestures or taking part in leave-taking actively. As a second step the following feature was examined: correlation between the time of presence of the accompanying parent and the proportion of time devoted to playing behavior during the following half-hour. Result: The longer the accompanying parent was present, the shorter was the time of playing behavior during the first half-hour following leave-taking (Spearman rank correlation; n = 28, r~ = - 0.50, p < 0.01) (see Fig. 1).

Long Presence and Absence of a Parent at the DCC Nine children were observed during the "settling-down phase" of their DCC time. During this period one parent was still present to make it easier for his/her child to get used to the DCC and the teachers were ah'eady present to become familiar with the children. Four children were observed in the "Wednesday-situation," when their mother (together with another mother) took care of the children replacing the teachers. Observations of the same children during everyday DCC routine with only the two respective teachers being present served as a comparative situation. The proportions of time devoted to different behaviors and the frequency of contact initiatives of the children to the adults and vice versa were compared. At first, both examining situations were analysed separately: but after it had turned out that the "settling-down phase" and the '~Wednesday-situation" showed conspicuous features of the same pattern, the data were combined (n = 13). The proportions of time of the behavioral categories examined to the total time of observation changed with the independent variable of '~Parental

242

J. Bensel

Time devoted to playing during the first 30 rain 25 22

•

19

~

•

• •

eO

•

~ . - . qp

eD

1316

10 O

7

e

l 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Parental presence (in rain) F I G U R E 1.

Correlation between time of presence of the accompanying parent and proportion of time devoted to playing behavior during the half-hour subsequent to the parent's departure (n = 28).

P r e s e n c e " (see Table 5). The children played 18% more and showed 85%. less " a s i d e - b e h a v i o r " in the presence of their own parent. The last of these differences can safely disregard any possibility of coincidence. In the presence of a parent the children showed also less grief behavior. Furthermore, it was examined how often the children contacted adults in the presence of their parent (including the teachers) and how often they did so when their parent was absent. In this context, rating included initiatives such as addressing somebody, smiling at somebody, seeking physical contact or offering an object. First of all, two examples will explain this form o f behavior: Matthias (26 months old, half-day at the DCC for 10 months) is looking around. Then he touches his mother for a moment. He runs to his "cuddling Table 5.

Temporal D i s t r i b . ~ i o n of the Children's Behavior in the Absence and Presence of a Parent (s of 30 rain l i :t: lso/2]; n = 13)

Behavioral Category Playing behavior "Non-playful social behavior" "Aside-behavior" Grief behavior

Parental Presence 1143 284 338 0

± 207 ± 132 _+ 99 -+ 13

~'P paired Student's t-test: w Wilcoxon's signed-ranks test: s sign t e s t

Parental Absence 936 297 626 13

_+_+ 129 ± 118 _+ 157 ± 22

p value ~ 0.14 P 0.69 e 0.03 w ,-~:0. l0 s

Behavior of Toddlers at a Day.Care Center

243

piece" and returns again to his mother. He lies on his mother's lap; she strokes his head . . . . M. slides down muttering to himself. Then he stands beside his mother touching her knee . . . . His mother gets out a box containing toys and shows him how to play with Legos. M. beats on a chair with his hand: " M u m m y [sit] here!" His mother sits down on the chair. He is playing with the Legos . . . . M. points again at the chair his mother had got up from: " M u m m y ! " Regina (24 months old, half-day at the DCC for 7 months) is climbing. She runs to her mother and cuddles up to her, She kisses her forehead. Then she goes on climbing . . . . R. slides down the slide. She runs to her mother and gives her a nudge on her shoulder: " M u m m y ! " and snuggles up to her thigh. T h e c h i l d r e n c o n t a c t e d a d u l t s (their o w n p a r e n t s as well as t e a c h e r s a n d u n f a m i l i a r m o t h e r s ) o n t h e i r o w n initiative m o r e often, o b v i o u s l y , w h e n t h e i r m o t h e r o r f a t h e r w a s p r e s e n t (9.6 +_ 4.5 in ratio to 4.2 _+ 1.9 initiatives p e r 30 rain [~ +_ I5o/2]) ( S t u d e n t ' s t - t e s t , p < 0.05, n = 13). T h e i n i t i a t i v e s o f the a d u l t s w e r e r e c o r d e d as well for the c o m p a r a t i v e s i t u a t i o n . T h e n u m b e r w a s a l m o s t the s a m e in b o t h s i t u a t i o n s (9.2 +_ 4.4 a n d 9.9 _+ 1.6 i n i t i a t i v e s p e r 30 min). This m e a n s that if no p a r e n t w a s p r e s e n t the o b s e r v e d c h i l d r e n app r o a c h e d a d u l t s (i.e., in this c a s e the t e a c h e r s ) m u c h less t h a n the l a t t e r a p p r o a c h e d the c h i l d r e n (4.2 to 9.9 initiatives p e r 30 min) ( S t u d e n t ' s t-test, p < 0.01). T h e s m a l l e r n u m b e r o f c h i l d r e n ' s initiatives, h o w e v e r , was not c o m p e n s a t e d for b y a s i m u l t a n e o u s i n c r e a s e in adult initiatives. F i g u r e 2 p r e s e n t s the c o n t a c t efforts o f 13 c h i l d r e n (A, B . . . . M)--the degree of

FIGURE 2. Contact initiation between child and adults in the presence and absence of a parent (n = 13). Initiations per 30 min Initiations by children

20

10

10

11

20 7 Child:

Initiations by adults

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

I

Parental presence

~

Parental absence

244

J. Bensei

which differs individually from child to c h i l d - - t o adults in the presence of an own parent and their modification in the parent's absence. Only the children listed under K, L, and M who made the fewest attempts at contact ot all children in the parent's presence showed an insignificant increase in the number of contact initiatives to adults when their parents were not at the DCC.

"Aside-Behavior" In the previous section it was demonstrated that children played less at the DCC without their parents and showed more "aside-behavior'" instead. What characterized this behavior and what justified its delimitation fiom other forms of behavior'? This behavioral category was made up after detailed previous observations had taken place. In the course of these observations it turned ottl that the children occasionally stood aside from their teachers as well as other children without even playing alone during this time. in addition to watching other individuals and aimless wandering-around, this +'aside-behavior" consisted of a complex of behavioral patterns which were characterized by the following main feature they each had in common. They appeared when the children were agitated, e.g., because their parent had just left them. Following are examples of four typical behavioral patterns concerning +'asidebehavior":

Sucking fingers or objects Markus (26 months old, half-day at the DCC lot 8 months) is coming ia with his mother holding on to her leg. Matthias smiles at him and touches him. The mother sits down. M. is sitting on her lap and rubs his eyes. His mother sets him down, whereupon he tries immediately to get back on her lap. M. leans over the legs of his mother who asks him: "What's wrong with you, Markus, hey. what's wrong with you?" She tries again to set him down: "What's wrong with you'?" M. keeps on leaning over his mother's lap, while she is stroking his bottom. His mother pushes him back into an upright position, whereupon he holds his head to one side and starts sucking his thumb. The teachers presses him to herself, while his mother says: "Bye, Markus." He shows no reaction at all to her farewell. The teacher says: "Let's get a box (of toys)?" M. is standing there showing no sign of any movement and sucking his thumb. In the course of the following period of observation that lasted almost 23 rain he had an object or his finger in his mouth 40% of the time.

Stroking the body Regina (25 months old, half-day at the DCC lbr 8 months) is looking at Sina who is crying, rubs her eyes and then puts her hands over her ears. After that Regina strokes her own hair. She slides her fingers through her hair and pulls at it. R.: +'Mummy!" The teacher strokes her. R. crawls on all fours towards the door crying and calling "Mummy!"

Behavior of Toddlers at a Day-Care Center

245

Margit (17 months old, half-day at the DCC for 1 month) who had a lot of difficulties getting used to the away-from-home situation was observed stroking her own leg for a minute and finally clinging to her own trousers. A moment before she had cried and called for her mother.

Use of objects which had been brought along for self-calming purposes Nicole (26 months old, all-day long at the DCC for 12 months) is trampling on a Lego board, then she plays with it. N. looks at Dea who is crying. N. pulls at her fur piece (brought along from home), puts it in her mouth and rubs her eyes. She continues fiddling about with the fur. The teacher says to her: " M u m m y yeah! . . . Isn't it you mummy+s fur, and you've brought it along'?" N. keeps on fiddling about with the fur. Then she lies down on it and commences rolling to and fro, Some other children were observed calming themselves with pieces of fur or cloth they had brought along from home.

Staring into space (see also Fig. 3) Regina (see above) keeps on crying at the door. The teacher says: "Nelli+s mummy is leaving too!" R. stops crying for a moment. Then she continues to cry and shouts repeatedly: "No!'" The teacher talks to her and puts her on her lap. R. keeps on crying while sitting on her lap. The teacher offers her marbles. R.: "'No!" The teacher then shows her the wooden pieces of

FIGURE 3. One form of "aside-behavior": Staring into space. 26-month-old girl, all-day long at the DCC for 12 months. In the top right-hand corner of the picture can be seen an enlargement of her face. The lifeless facial expression and the fixed look in her eyes are evident.

246

J. Bensel

a lotto set which R. accepts, sitting on the teacher's lap. R.: "Mummy!" R. continues putting pieces down. R. is looking from the teacher's lap, The teacher helps her with the game. R. is still looking from the teacher's tap. R. : "Mummy?" The teacher says: "I+et's have a look at a book'?" R+ stares into space . • Dea (32 months old, all-day long at the DCC tot 16 monthst repeats. crying, twice: "My mummy?" whereupon the teacher strokes her and tries to calm her: "'She'll be coming soon." D. keeps on crying, D. sits on the teacher's lap and watches two other children, with her fingers in her mouth Again she begins to cr3: "'My mummy'" (repeatedly). Sitting on the teach er's lap she stars into empty space. Dea is running through the room. D. begins to cry and shouts repeatedl3 "My mummy?" The teacher takes her with her on the mattress: "Let's sing something'?" D.: +'I'm very sad?" The teacher repeats her proposal. The teacher sings something. D. leans against the teacher and listens to bet+ talking with Josua+ D. is sitting and staring into space. The teacher notices the trance-like condition of D. and moves her hand up and down in front of Dea's eyes.

DISCUSSION Upon entering the DCC more 2-year-olds showed reluctance at separation than l-year-olds did. This suggests that the latter were more likely to a n ticipate the coming separation from their parent an observation thai con+ forms with the study carried out by Heathers (1954) on nursery ,~chool children. During the actual leaving of the parent, however, no difference in age concerning protest behavior could be detected. Although it was especially those children who had kept up contact with their parent up to this momen~ who protested against separation, more 2-year-olds gave up their attempt~ to contact their parent than l-year-olds did. Altogether only about a quartet + of the children protested against separation. This proportion is similar to the findings o f previous investigations (Cummings 1980: Ragozin 1980, Field et al. 1984). But how is the absence of protest reactions during the actual leave.+ taking of the a c c o m p a n y i n g parent in most of the children to be explained'? It could be thought that some children did not yet associate their p a r e n t s farewell with the following situation when they were left by him/her, or that they had not been fully aware of the leave-taking process because they were distracted by various stimuli. [Some parents took advantage of the time when their children were distracted to ++steal a w a y " without being noticed. ) H o w ever, this did not apply to all children. A " k e y o b s e r v a t i o n " provides at+ explanation for some of this children. One boy started to reach his arm towards his m o t h e r as if appealing for care. but he stopped this action on his own accord after a few seconds and then put his finger in his mouth• Janus t33 months old, half-day at the DCC for 10 months~ and his mother are entering the garden ground. J. holding on to the legs of his mother, J. and his mother go into the inner section. Both of them come out of the

Behavior of Toddlers at a Day-Care Center 247

house again. J. clings to his mother's legs again, then to the legs of his little sister who is being carried by the mother. The mother says: "Bye, Janus!" He holds his hands out for a moment (it looks like an attempt to reach his arms towards his mother) and then he runs after a teacher with his fingers in his mouth. These and other observations lead us to the assumption that all previous experiences of the child that had already made it aware that it was senseless to try to keep up contact with its parent may inhibit the child from showing any protest behavior during leave-taking "situative resignation." F u r t h e r m o r e , some children seemed to have b e c o m e familiar with the surroundings and the DCC teachers. According to a study by Riciutti (1974) as well, 8 to 12-month-old children who had been left alone by their mother for a short time cried less when a familiar teacher stayed in the room than when they had been left alone with an unfamiliar adult. American DCC children showed less grief and smiled more often when their mothers brought them to a center where they were cared for by familiar teachers than they did when they were brought to unfamiliar teachers (Cummings 1980). But the same study also revealed how unstable this substitute function of the teacher may be as a " s e c u r e b a s e " for the child. When the same children were left alone with the same teacher in an unknown laboratory, instead of the familiar playroom, two-thirds of all children cried and half of them searched for their mother immediately.

Indications f r o m the Behavior Before Leave-Taking to the B e h a v i o r After L e a v e - T a k i n g Children who had more difficulties during leave-taking and who put up a fight against separation from their father or mother played less subsequent to leave-taking than those for w h o m leave-taking was easier. H o w may this correlation be explained ethologically? Playing only occurs in an '~eased up field" ( " e n t s p a n n t e s F e l d " ) IBally 1945, 1966; Hassenstein 1973). The behavioral tendencies depending on the readiness for playing have only a weak capacity of dominating behavioral tendencies of all other kinds of readiness (such as hunger, tiredness, fear. etc.), the acts of which serve to cope with actual life. For that reason children whose need for contact was still strongly activated were less capable of accepting an invitation for playing or of playing alone. The behavioral tendency towards contact to the parents inhibited the behavioral tendency towards playing for a longer period by the mechanism of the " m a x i m u m g a t e " ( " H O c h s t w e r t d u r c h l a g , " Hassenstein 1987). Up to now only one study has proved a connection between separation behavior and playing inhibition subsequent to a daily separation before staying at a nursery school (Heathers 1954). A direct correlation between the time when the a c c o m p a n y i n g parent was present and the following proportion of time devoted to playing has never been described before. What are

248

J. Bensel

the possible causes of this correlation? It is a fact that the parent determines the moment of leave-taking by going away. But the toddler influences its parents in at least two ways. On the one hand, the child's protest (e.g~. clinging) may directly prevent their leaving, while on the other hand, the child may send out signals appealing Ibr care (such as crying and screaming), which act on the readiness for care of the accompanying parent as motivation increasing stimuli and consequently causes them to stay. tThere is a possible parallel to Field's study also. The longer the children cried during leave-taking the more time was required by their parents for leave-taking. The stronger the child's wish for contact was, the stronger were its signals and possibly also their effect on its parents. Former experience which the children had gathered during the situation of leave-taking had already caused the development of ~'delaying strategies" in some of them (see example " F r e y a " ) . For that reason ~t is conceivable that the adult's behavioral tendency towards staying and caring for his/her child competed with the bc~ havioral tendency of a rational behavioral motive (e.g., the wish to attend a university lecture) and if the contact-appetitive behavior of the child was stronger it took more time until the tendency towards leaving the child prevailed. In this way the time when the accompanying parent was present provides us indirectly with information concerning the intensity of the child's effort to keep up its contact to its parent. The stronger this contact-appetitive behavior of the child is, the greater will its grief be upon being left by its parent, what may be seen from the extent of playing inhibition.

Presence Versus Absence of a Parent In the presence of the father or mother the children played 18%~ more, whereas they showed 85% less "aside-behavior" and less grief behavior than they did during the period when only the teachers were together with them at the DCC. In the parent's presence the permanent receipt of signals by them reduced the readiness for contact. An "eased up field" in which playing is possible existed during a longer period. For comparative purposes it should be taken into consideration that in the presence of a parent at the DCC as well, there might still be some inhibiting influences on the playing behavior of the children that were caused by the situation in which the children were cared for by strangers: --Away-from-home surroundings (strange territory, no private toys, etc. i - - L e s s attention of the parents to their own children's wishes for playing because (a) they were concerned about their children being able to cope with DCC life without their help in the "settling-down-phase" and (b) they had to care for several other children besides their own child in the "Wednesday-situation." Another difference in the behavior of the children in the presence or absence

Behavior of Toddlers at a Day-Care Center

249

of a parent appeared in the frequency of the children's contact initiatives. Their initiatives for contacting adults were considerably reduced in the absence of a parent (from 9.6 to 4.2 initiatives per 30 min). The teachers took the first step towards initiating communication, physical contact, or suggesting a game twice as frequent as the children did. According to Matejcek (1989) this phenomenon is typical for institutions providing collective teaching. In contrast to this the situation in the presence of a parent will now be considered. In this case the children even approached adults (parents, teachers, or other mothers) a little more often than the other way round. The presence of their most closely related care provider formed a "secure base" (Blatz 1966; Ainsworth and Wittig 1969) for the children. This '~secure base" characterizes a permanent function that is performed by the parents primarilly, whereby the child's ability for exploring its surroundings is based. In consequence of this support provided by a parent's presence, the DCC children were able to approach adults--not only their own parents but other persons as well--to suggest to them a game or some other forms of social contact more often, and in this way to show less "aside-behavior" at the same time (see above).

Grief and ' 'Aside-Behavior"

Grief behavior that was openly shown by the children in the absence of their parents was taken as a whole slight but nevertheless an increase was noticeable. As also can be shown in this case (as already discussed during arrival and leave-taking) it might be supposed that empirical processes, namely, unsuccessful attempts to get back to their mother, had caused some children to give up their contact-appetitive behavior towards their mother and instead of this they reorientatcd their behavior to substitute targets in order to satisfy their activated need for contact. In this way some children were observed who used parts of their own body to calm themselves (retrojections). They fondled themselves or sucked their fingers or alternative objects. Others sought contact to soft objects which they had brought along or carried other " k e e p s a k e s " from home with them. These behaviors are forms of self-stimulation which produce substitute stimuli replacing signals of parental presence. The "original stimuli" are transmitted in the following ways: - - B e i n g stroked by the parents --Suckling the mother's breast - - B e i n g carried or rocked on the parental body - - B ein g addressed by the parent. The study carried out by Thelen (1980) on 4 to 52-week-old infants showed that the more "signs of parental presence" the children received, the less stereotypy could be observed. Various studies have shown that situations

250

j. ~nsel

where excitement or "arousal" is high tend to elicit bouts of stereotypy (Hutt and Hutt 1970: Thelen 1981). Hutt and Hutt suggest that the stereotypy may function to modulate high arousal. Consequently, children who were highly excited in the DCC situation possibly found a way to lessen their stress. These "silent" reactions to the situation of being left by the parents predominate over active outbursts of grief, such as crying for being left or screaming. These more inconspicuous forms of behavior also comprise staring into space, aimless wandering-around (possibly a contact-appetitive behavior, i.e.. undirected searching for the parents) and watching other children from a distance. All these behaviors occurred without any playful activity and without any social contact--just "aside." Some children seemed to have formed a bond to the teacher and in consequence to have found a substitute secure base for the away-from-home situation. This allowed them to play a lot. Other children did not succeed or succeeded only temporarily in doing so. Both the research aspects of this study, namely the behavior during arrival and leave-taking as well as the children's behavior during the day at the DCC in the presence or absence of their parents, revealed that the amount of playing behavior is a measurable indicator for the process during which excitement subsides after leave-taking. Grief for being left need not necessarily become apparent as a form of open grief behavior. It may also be expressed in an increase of"aside-behavior" and the "silent grief reactions" included therein, such as substitute activities, "staring into space," and aimless wandering-around. A child's readiness to contact a few care providers who are often perceptible and always available seems to be an innate characteristic. The conspicuous behaviors observed at the DCC are possibly reactions to this form of care which is not orientated to the natural needs of young children 1 wish to thank my mentors Gabriele Haug-Schnabel and Bernhard Hassenstein for their introduction to the secrets of ethology. I also thank Clemens Rother and the Sozialp~diatriekreis (Social Pediatric Circle) Of Freiburg for the data analysis program and J. Schulte-MOnting for his support in the statistical approach to this study. But I am most grateful to the children and teachers of the day-care center in Freiburg for "playing their part" in the study.

I

,

I

I

.....

II

II

REFERENCES Ainsworth, M.D.S. and Wittig, B.A, Attachment and exploratory behavior of one-year-o!ds in a strange situation. In Determinants o f infant behavior IV, B,M. Foss (Ed.). London: Methuen, 1969, pp. 111-136. Altmann, J. Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods. Animal Behaviour 49: 227265, 1974. Arsenian, J.M. Youngchildreninaninsecuresituation.JournalofAbnormaISocialPsychology 38: 225-249, 1943. Bally, G. Vom Ursprung und ~!on den Grenzen der Freiheit, eine Deutung des Spieles bei Tier und Mensch, Basel: Birkhfiuser, 1945,

B e h a v i o r o f T o d d l e r s at a D a y - C a r e C e n t e r

--.

251

Vom Spielraum der Freiheit. Die Bedeutung des Spiels bei Tier und Mensch, Basel: Schwabe & Co, 1966. Blatz, W.E. Human security; some reflections, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1966. Blurton Jones, N. Categories of child-child interaction. In Ethological studies o f child behaviour, N. Blurton Jones (Ed.). London: Cambridge University Press, 1972, pp. 97-127. -and Leach, G.M. Behaviour of children and their mother at separation and greeting. In Ethological studies o f child behaviour, N. Blurton Jones (Ed.). London: Cambridge University Press, 1972, pp. 217-247. Bowlby, J. Attachment and loss. Separation: Anxiety and anger, Vol. 2., London: Hogarth Press, 1973. Caro, T.M., Roper, R., Young, M., and Dank, G.R. Inter-observer reliability. Behaviour 69: 303-315, 1979. Cox, F.N. and Campbell, D. Young children in a new situation with and without their mothers. Child Development 39: 123-131, 1968. Cummings, E.M. Caregiver stability and day care. Developmental Psychology 16: 31-37. 1980. Field, T., Gewirtz, J.L., Cohen, D., Garcia, R.. Greenberg, R., and Collins, K. Leave-takings and reunions of infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and their parents. Child Development 55: 628-635, 1984. Gershaw, N.J. and Schwarz, J.C. The effects of a familiar toy and mothers' presence on exploratory and attachment behaviors in young children. Child Development 42: 16621666, 1971. Hassenstein, B. Verhaltensbiologie des Kindes, Munchen: Piper, 1973 (4th edition, 1987l. Haug-Schnabel, G. Playful aggression--a special form of aggression, a special form of play. IV, European Conference ISRA (International Society for Research on Agression), Sevilla, 1987. Heathers, G. The adjustment of two-year-olds in a novel social situation. Child Development 25: 147-158, 1954. Heinicke, C.M., Busch, F., Click, P., and Kramer, E. Parent-child relations, adaptation to nursery school, and the child's task orientation: a contrast in the development of two girls. In Individual dtfferences in children, J.C. Westman (Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1973. Heras, 1. Separation and reunion behavior ¢~fyoung children in day care centers, Ph.D. thesis, University of Stanford, 1976, Hurt, C. and Hurt, S,J. Stereotypies and their relation to arousal: a study of autistic children. In Behaviour studies in psychiatry, S.J. Hutt and C. Hutt (Eds.). Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1970, pp. 175-204. Janis, M.G. A two-year-old goes to nurseo, school, London: Tavistock, 1964. Kagan, J. Emergent themes in human development. American Scientist 64: 186-196, 1976. Matejcek, Z. Krippen und die Prinzipien des Familienlebens. Der Kinderarzt 8: 1091-1095. 1989. McGrew, W.C. An ethological study ~fchildren's behavior, London: Academic Press, 1972a. - - ~ . Aspects of social development in nursery school children with emphasis on introduction to the group. In Ethological studies ~f" child behaviour, N. Blurton J ones (Ed. I. London: Cambridge University Press, 1972b, pp. 129-156. Ragozin, A.S. Attachment behavior of day-care children: naturalistic and laboratory observations. Child Development 51: 409-415, 1980. Resch, R.C. Separation. Natural observations in the first three years ¢~(Ife in an infant day care unit, Ph.D. thesis, University of New York. 1975. Rheingold, H.L. The effect of a strange environment on the behavior of infants. In Determinants o f infant hehaviour IV, B.M. Foss (Ed.). London: Methuen, 1969, pp. 137-166. Riciutti, H. Fear and development of social attachments in the first year of life. In The origins o f human behavior: Fear, M. Lewis and L.A. Rosenblum (Eds.). New York: Wiley, 1974. Smith, P.K. and Noble, R. Factors affecting the development of caregiver-infant relationships. In Attachment in social networks, L.W.C. Tavecchio and M.H. van ljzendoorn (Eds.). North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1987, pp. 93-134. Tennes, K.H. and Lampl, E.E. Stranger and separation anxiety in infancy. Journal ~fNervoas and Mental Diseases 139: 247-254. 1964.

252

J. B e n s e l

and - - . Some aspects of mother-child relationship pertaining to infantile separation anxiety. Journal o f Nervous and Mental Diseases 143: 426-437, 1966. Thelen, E. Determinants of amounts of stereotyped behavior in normal human infants. Etholog 3, and Sociobiology l: t41-150, 1980. --. Kicking, rocking, and waving: contextual analysis of rhythmical stereotypies in norm,d human infants. Animal Behaviour 29:3-11, 198I. Van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M. A comparative approach to the phylogeny of laughter and smiling, h~. Non-verbal communication, R.A, Hinde (Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge Universit:, Press, 1972, pp. 209-241. Wilcox, B.M., Staff, P.. and Romaine, M.F. A comparison of individual with multiple assign~ ment of caregivers to infants in day care. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 26: 53-62, 1980,

--