Dyadic synchrony: Its structure and function in children’s development

Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592 www.academicpress.com

Dyadic synchrony: Its structure and function in childrenÕs developmentq Amanda W. Harrista,* and Ralph M. Waughb a

Department of Human Development and Family Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA b The University of Texas, TX, USA Received 8 September 2000; received in revised form 17 August 2001

Abstract In this review we examine empirical and theoretical work in three eras—infancy, toddlerhood, and early childhood—and for each era describe the structure of dyadic synchrony in interactions involving children and their caregivers, as well as offer speculation about its developmental function for the child. We review divergent literatures dealing with synchrony-related constructs which, together, suggest that although the structure and function of synchrony change throughout the course of early development, the ability to achieve synchrony may represent a crucial developmental achievement for significant dyadic relationships, one that facilitates social, emotional, and cognitive growth for the child. Ó 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

Developmentalists from diverse theoretical orientations acknowledge that the quality of one-on-one interactions with significant others is crucial to childrenÕs social, emotional, and cognitive growth. Such interactions be-

q The authors contributed equally to this manuscript. Appreciation is expressed to Rebecca S. Bigler, Inge Bretherton, Laura Hubbs-Tait, Ruth Joy-Bryant, Jacqueline Mize, Gregory S. Pettit, Patricia A. Self, and Robert G. Wahler for helpful comments at various stages of this project. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.W. Harrist).

0273-2297/02/$ - see front matter Ó 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 7 3 - 2 2 9 7 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 5 0 0 - 2

556

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

tween children and their caregivers have typically been characterized either in terms of their content (e.g., play, teaching, conflict), or in terms of rather broad ‘‘parenting dimensions,’’ such as warmth or restrictiveness. However, interactions also can be described in terms of their dyadic style. Each interaction is either smooth-flowing or disjointed, for example, regardless of its content. In addition to asking, ‘‘What is going on?’’ then, developmentalists can ask the question, ‘‘How is it going on?’’ We propose that understanding interactional style—the how—is fundamental to understanding childrenÕs development; that what the child learns from an interactional episode, how it functions to support or inhibit the childÕs development, is arguably dependent on its style as well as its content. The theoretical and empirical work concerning interactional style has not yet been synthesized, however. In the current review, we integrate much of this work, focusing specifically on the interactional style labeled dyadic synchrony as it is expressed in the interactions between children and caregivers in three eras: infancy, toddlerhood, and early childhood. In each era, we review empirical work describing the structure synchrony takes. We then extrapolate from theoretical work to speculate about the function of synchrony in each of these developmental epochs.

An introduction to the notion of dyadic synchrony Synchrony-related constructs have been defined in the research literature in a variety of ways, most often in reference to mother–infant interaction. Constructs we consider close to our notion of synchrony include those that focus on mutual responsiveness, variously termed ‘‘reciprocal responsiveness’’ (Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton, 1974), ‘‘contingent responsivity’’ (Clarke-Stewart, 1973), ‘‘reciprocity’’ (Belsky, Rovine, & Taylor, 1984) ‘‘mutuality’’ or ‘‘mutual contingency’’ (Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Tronick, Als, & Brazelton, 1977), and ‘‘social contingency’’ (Dunham & Dunham, 1995). Other descriptors suggest the importance of a matching of affective or other behavioral states, including labels such as ‘‘affect attunement’’ (Haft & Slade, 1989; Stern, Hofer, Haft, & Dore, 1985), ‘‘dyadic affect regulation’’ (Hann, Osofsky, Barnard, & Leonard, 1994), ‘‘behavior state matching’’ (Field, 1995; Field, Healy, Goldstein, & Guthertz, 1990), and ‘‘reciprocal matching behaviors’’ (Joy-Bryant, 1991). A third set of terms highlights the smooth-flowing nature of some dyadic interactions, and includes terms like ‘‘behavioral harmony’’ (Sch€ olmerich, Fracasso, Lamb, & Broberg, 1995), ‘‘interactional synchrony’’ (Isabella, Belsky, & von Eye, 1989), ‘‘dyadic synchrony’’ (Harrist, Pettit, Dodge, & Bates, 1994; Rocissano, Slade, & Lynch, 1987), or simply ‘‘synchrony’’ (Arco & McCluskey, 1981; Booth, Lyons, & Barnard, 1984; Brazelton, Koslowski, & Main, 1974; Censullo, Bowler, Lester, & Brazelton, 1987;

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

557

Farran & Kasari, 1990; Karger, 1979; Youngblade, Park, & Belsky, 1993). For the purposes of this review, synchrony is viewed as a dyadic characteristic. Thus synchrony refers to a type of interaction between two people (in particular a child and caregiver), an observable pattern of dyadic interaction that is mutually regulated, reciprocal, and harmonious. In this context, then, it is inappropriate to refer to synchronous behavior, even though there are behaviors that facilitate or inhibit synchrony (see Cairns, 1979). It is also inappropriate to refer to a synchronous relationship, although one reason it is important to study synchrony is that these observable patterns of dyadic interactions provide a ‘‘window’’ to the social relationship of the interacting partners (see Hartup & Rubin, 1986; Hinde, 1979; Kochanska, 1997; Mize & Pettit, 1997). Three unresolved issues in the synchrony field should probably be discussed before reviewing the literature. The first issue involves the dyadic nature of synchrony, and the fact that some operationalizations of interactional synchrony are more dyadic than others. Fogel (1993) makes the argument for a purely dyadic definition of synchrony, contending that synchrony is most accurately described as continuous social coordination rather than a discrete state communication. He describes a process of ‘‘mutual negotiation leading to patterns of mutually co-ordinated action’’ (p. 17), not something one person can do or a state one person can be in alone. In a synchronous (or ‘‘coregulated’’) interaction, he says, ‘‘you match action that is partly the partnerÕs and partly your own action reflected back to you’’ (p. 16), thus synchrony involves dynamic adaptation on the part of both partners. Fogel argues that most operationalizations of synchrony either assume unilateral anticipation and adjustment of one partner to the other (e.g., Collis, 1979; Stern et al., 1985), thereby ignoring the ‘‘systemic wholeness’’ and dynamic nature of the interaction, or break behavior into discrete units (e.g., Isabella & Belsky, 1991), thus losing sight of the mutually occurring, coconstructed nature of the interaction. Other definitions fall somewhere in the middle, describing synchronous interactions as ‘‘dialogical,’’ with partnersÕ behaviors being ‘‘bidirectionally coordinated’’ (e.g., Jaffe, Beebe, Feldstein, Crown, & Jasnow, 2001). In this review we present conceptualizations of synchrony as a dyadic, dynamic construct, but also present research conducted from a less purely dyadic point of view, and believe that together, the various interpretations of the construct can present a meaningful whole, even as they diverge in their specifics. The second issue involves the question of whether or not positive affect is a requisite component of synchronous interactions. Some researchers include positive affect in their operationalizations of synchrony (e.g., Censullo et al., 1987), but many do not (although the matching of affect is sometimes a component of synchrony, e.g., Stern, 1985; Tronick & Gianino, 1986). Our view is that synchrony can occur without positive emotion expression on the

558

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

part of the interacting partners, although synchrony and positive affect are related. For example (and as discussed later), the experience of synchrony is likely to engender positive emotions; a mismatch of emotions impedes the occurrence of synchrony; and children are thought to learn about emotion regulation in the context of synchrony and nonsynchrony. From this point of view, positive affect can be considered an independent condition, albeit one that overlaps with synchrony, just as maternal warmth and sensitivity are conceptually distinct, but have great empirical overlap. We suggest that by conceptualizing affect and synchrony as separate components of dyadic interactions, more can be learned about individual differences among dyads (see, e.g., Kirsh, Crnic, & Greenberg, 1995). Nevertheless, research where positive affect is conceived as part of synchrony, and research that highlights the links between affect and interaction style, will be included in this review. The final issue involves the question of how common the experience of dyadic synchrony is. This is not an easily answerable question, for several reasons. First, it may be that synchrony is not an all-or-none condition. In other words, it might be that instead of thinking of a dyadic interaction as being in-sync or out-of-sync (i.e., as synchronous vs. nonsynchronous), it may be more valid to think of dyadic interactions approaching synchrony or moving away from synchrony. This view is similar to AinsworthÕs conceptualization of caregiver sensitivity as existing on a continuum (see Ainsworth et al., 1974). From this point of view, judging rates of occurrence of synchrony does not make sense. Second, even if synchrony is conceived as a all-or-none phenomenon, some operationalizations of synchrony still preclude a discussion of rates of occurrence. Karger (1979), for example, operationalized synchrony as the correlation between number of mother and infant communicative behaviors, producing a score not comparable to a frequency. Third, again assuming dyadic synchrony to be an all-or-none phenomenon, base rates have not often been assessed, and when they have, synchrony has been defined in divergent ways. A review of the studies where rates of synchronous interactions have been assessed, however, suggests that most interactions with children are not synchronous, with estimates of rates of synchronous interactions in nonclinical parent–child samples generally well below 50% of all interactional time. Tronick and Gianino (1986), defining synchrony as matching of emotional states, arrived at a 30% estimate in a sample of mothers with 3-, 6-, and 9-month-olds; Hann et al. (1994) defined synchrony as dyadically regulated affective exchanges, and observed a similar rate among a sample of 20-month-olds and their mothers; and Harrist et al. (1994) found that less than 40% of interactions between mothers and their kindergartners were synchronous. But, even if rates of synchrony are less than 50%, this need not suggest that synchrony is an inconsequential phenomenon. In a cross-cultural review, Bornstein et al. (1992) conclude that ‘‘consistent, if infrequent experience with substantive maternal responses that promote or confirm ÔattunedÕ [for our purposes

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

559

ÔsynchronousÕ] interactions could portend as much or more for child growth and development as more frequent experience with other less substantive maternal responses’’ (p. 818). We propose that, indeed, individual differences in the experience of synchrony may be important predictors of child adjustment and family functioning. We further suggest that the structure and function of dyadic synchrony change in a predictable way throughout the course of development, and offer speculation about these changes in the remainder of this review.

Dyadic synchrony during infancy Structure of synchrony in infant–caregiver interactions The majority of empirical and theoretical work relating to dyadic synchrony concerns infants in the first year of life and their mothers. Our reading of the literature concerning this era leads to the conclusion that infant-caregiver synchrony is a phenomenon that consists of three necessary components—a maintained, shared focus of attention, temporal coordination, and contingency—and is achieved primarily via attunement on the part of the caregiver. Maintained engagement. Dyadic synchrony can occur only in relatively prolonged interactional exchanges. Such maintained engagement requires that both infant and caregiver share periods of mutual attention, where both partners visually ‘‘track’’ each other (Beebe, Stern, & Jaffe, 1979). The importance of infant–mother attentional focus has become a fairly recent area of interest, although most researchers examining ‘‘joint attention’’ study interaction between a child, caregiver, and an object after the first 6 months of life (see Moore & Dunham, 1995); mutual attention, however, is possible from birth (see Brazelton et al., 1974). From our perspective, prolonged engagement in mutual attention and turn-taking is a necessary-but-notsufficient dimension of synchrony. An episode of one or two turns is not long enough for partners to establish an interactional rhythm, for example, but just because an episode is prolonged does not mean it is synchronous. Instead, we propose that infant–caregiver synchrony is achieved through mutual engagement that is temporally coordinated and contingent in nature. Temporal coordination. Observational studies of early infant–caregiver interactions report that some dyads—those we would describe as achieving dyadic synchrony—demonstrate a rhythm or pacing of their interactions that involves, among other things, a matching of activity level (Beebe et al., 1982; Papousek & Papousek, 1981; Stern, 1985). This matching or temporal coordination has been observed in body orientations (e.g., Collis, 1979; Trevarthen, 1979), body movements (e.g., Bernieri, Reznick, & Rosenthal, 1988; Brazelton, 1984; Chapple, 1982; Kobayashi, Ishii, Watanabe,

560

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

Takahashi, & Kato, 1984), and facial expressions (e.g., Beebe et al., 1982; Stern, 1974; Trevarthen, 1979). It also appears to exist in the perceptual processes engaged by vocal rhythm (e.g., Brazelton, 1984; Chapple, 1982; Kobayashi et al., 1984), vocal tone and pitch (Papousek & Papousek, 1981), and visual gaze (Collis, 1979; Farran & Kasari, 1990; Stern, 1974). ResearchersÕ descriptions of this temporally coordinated behavioral matching implicate a process that goes beyond simple mimicry, often invoking the metaphors of a well-rehearsed dance or a dialogue (see, e.g., Stern, 1977; Thoman & Browder, 1987). In addition to the temporal coordination of movements and vocalizations, we suggest that a second dimension of synchrony that makes interactions appear dance-like is contingency. Contingency. Contingency has been defined as existing when one event has a temporal, probabilistic relationship to another event; in other words, when the occurrence of one event; increases the likelihood of occurrence of the other (see Feldstein et al., 1993; Moran, Dumas, & Symons, 1992). There is some debate about whether or not it is valid to describe and analyze caregiver–infant interactions in terms of micro-level, sequentially contingent behavior chains (see Fogel & Thelen, 1987; Keller, V€ olker, Lohaus, Cappenberg, & Chasiotis, 1997). The evidence that contingency is important during infancy has been highlighted in a review by Tarabulsy, Tessier, and Kappas (1996), who conclude that very young infants can detect and organize their behavior according to contingencies generated in the environment (as well as those generated by their own behavior). Tarabulsy et al. also found that infants tend to display positive affect in the presence of contingency and negative affect when contingencies are violated, suggesting contingency plays a motivational/adaptational role for infants. We view contingency, as described in Tarabulsy et al.Õs review, as a component of synchrony, and would add that any motivational function served by contingency is magnified when an interaction is not just contingent, but when it also involves the maintained engagement and temporal coordination described above; in other words, when it is dyadically synchronous. Caregiver attunement. Although engagement, temporal coordination, and contingency are dyadic constructs, most developmentalists place the burden for maintaining and coordinating interactions on the infantÕs caregivers, particularly when the infant is a neonate. This does not negate the importance of the infantÕs contribution to the interaction (see Murray & Trevarthen, 1986), but does suggest that notions of caregiver sensitivity and responsivity (e.g., Biringen, 1990; Smith & Pederson, 1988) become particularly salient for understanding synchrony during this era. The sensitive caregiver responds to subtle signals from the neonate about readiness for interaction and need for disengagement through a process sometimes referred to as attunement (see Field, 1985; Stern et al., 1985). Attunement—the process of reading or sensing anotherÕs state and adjusting behavior accordingly—has both affective (feeling and

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

561

proprioceptive sensing) and cognitive (perspective-taking) components. However, because response latencies of neonate and caregiver behaviors during interaction are usually less than half a second—the time required for conscious awareness of a behavior (Papousek & Papousek, 1992)— most interaction responses of caregivers lie outside their conscious awareness (see also Szajnberg, Skrinjaric, & Moore, 1989). In fact, Papousek and Papousek (1981, 1987) and other theorists (e.g., Brazelton, 1984; Emde, 1984; Stern, 1985) believe that parents are biologically preadapted to intuitively attune to their infants. What does attunement look like? Some researchers have hypothesized that dyads become synchronous through a process of mutual entrainment of the attuned partnersÕ periodic, cyclic behavior (for discussions of entrainment in infancy, see Bernieri et al., 1988; Brazelton et al., 1974; Lester, Hoffman, & Brazelton, 1985; for a fascinating discussion and simulation study of entrainment from an evolutionary perspective, see Di Paolo, 2001). Cohn and Tronick (1988), on the other hand, provide data evidencing a lack of periodicity in infantsÕ and in mothersÕ behavior, and instead suggest that because infant and mother behavior is stochastic and nonperiodic, achievement of synchrony results from bidirectional influences, with mothers and infants each responding to changes in their partnerÕs behavior. Regardless of the mechanism, it is important to realize that attunement can involve different dimensions—intensity, timing, and shape—and can occur in different sensory modalities. In fact, researchers have recently proposed an ‘‘intersensory redundancy hypothesis,’’ wherein the infantÕs perception of information across more than one modality aids information processing (Bahrick & Lickliter, 2000). Thus, as Keller et al. (1997) point out, caregiver attunement (or sensitivity) should not be thought of as a unitary response pattern, but rather as behavior that varies depending on the modality of the infantÕs signals. Furthermore, if caregiver adjustments to infant behavior are in the same modality and the same behavioral form as the infantÕs (e.g., when an infantÕs smile elicits the caregiverÕs smile), interactions are akin to mimicry (see Stern et al., 1985). In this case, the underlying interactional process can be thought of as ‘‘contagion,’’ and, from our perspective, would not necessarily lead to a state of dyadic synchrony. High-level caregiver attunement, by contrast, may result in a dimensional match occurring in different sensory modalities (and the modalities involved may, in fact, change as the infant develops; see Gogate, Bahrick, & Watson, 2000). The most frequently cited example of this is the matching of intensity of an infantÕs physical behavior with the intensity of the motherÕs vocal behavior, such as when the motherÕs voice gets louder and more excited sounding as the infantÕs arm flailing increases (Condon & Sander, 1974). This notion of ‘‘precise temporal simultaneity’’ of actions has been disputed for methodological reasons (see Fogel, 1993; McDowall, 1978), and it may be more accurate to describe interacting partnersÕ behaviors in terms of ‘‘coaction.’’

562

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

But what is most relevant to our discussion at this point is that these types of interaction are asymmetrical but complementary: the caregiverÕs accommodative adaptations are different from and yet appear to complete the interactions of the infant (just as nursing and suckling are asymmetrical but complementary), thus helping to ensure the maintenance of reciprocal interactional sequences (Cairns, 1979; Ross, Cheyne, & Lollis, 1988). To frame this notion in our terminology, high-level attunement on the part of caregivers maximizes maintained engagement, allows coordinated interactions, and promotes attunement on the part of the infant, thereby facilitating the occurrence of dyadic synchrony. The observable behavioral structure of infant–caregiver synchrony just described—mutually engaged, temporally coordinated, contingent episodes—has been the most well-studied aspect of dyadic synchrony. But what is the function of synchrony at this point in the child–caregiver relationship? Function of synchrony in infant–caregiver interactions For infants, the function of synchrony with caregivers appears to be biosocial (Chappell & Sander, 1979; Emde, Gaensbauer, & Harmon, 1976). Our reading of the literature suggests that this biosocial function serves the infant in at least four ways, by enhancing multisensory processing, facilitating homeostatic regulation, increasing the likelihood of the experience of effectance, and facilitating the formation of a secure attachment to the caregiver. Multisensory processing. Infants are capable of processing multisensory inputs by ‘‘yoking’’ across a broad range of sensory modes (e.g., Gottfried, Rose, & Bridger, 1977; Turkewitz, Gardner, & Lewkowicz, 1984). In other words, they use perceptual information gained from one or more senses to enhance the perceptual processing of data from others. Processing of visual information as a result of gazing at caregivers, for example, helps infants interpret auditory inputs that emanate from the caregiver vocalizations. Perceptual processing of these visual and auditory inputs also aids infantsÕ interpretation of auditory and proprioceptive (internal, visceral sensations) feedback data created by their own vocalizations and body movements. Furthermore, somatosensory (body sensation) data related to the experience of being held by the caregiver enhance the processing of tactile sensory information, such as when infants experience a surge in arousal (and possibly a feeling of joy) as they reach out and touch the caregiverÕs face (Stern, 1985). We suggest that this coordination of multisensory processing is most likely to occur in states of dyadic synchrony. Because synchronous interactions are prolonged and predictable, and because, during synchrony, information from the caregiver is transmitted to the infant in a complementary (nonredundant, noninterfering) way, the infantÕs ability to yoke across modalities should be maximized during synchronous exchanges. The processing that

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

563

results is not only easier for the infant, but should facilitate the internalization of optimal ‘‘sensory-motor-affective units’’ (Stern, 1977, 1994)—the infantÕs experience of linked motor activity, sensation, and emotion—that are, in theory, the basis for the infantÕs developing understanding of self and other during the first year. Homeostatic regulation. In addition to enhancing perception via multisensory processing, a second hypothesized function of dyadic synchrony for the infant is to facilitate physiological and affective homeostatic regulation. During the first two to three months of life, the primary caregiver plays an essential role in augmenting the neonateÕs limited capacities for establishing homeostatic balance (Chappell & Sander, 1979; Collis, 1979; Fogel, 1982; Korner, 1974; Stern, 1974). Field (1985) has suggested that the caregiver can greatly amplify the neonateÕs capacity for self-regulation of stimulation and arousal, regardless of whether the source is exteroceptive or interoceptive in nature, by engaging the infant in a powerful, multisensory lived experience. The caregiver assists the infant in establishing internal rhythms (in sleeping, waking, eating, dozing, etc.) and homeostatic balance (in affective states and arousal/activity levels) that enable the infant to adapt to the external social world (Chappell & Sander, 1979; Collis, 1979; Field, 1981; Kraemer, 1992; Stern, 1977, 1985; Tronick, 1989). We propose that interactions that best promote the neonateÕs achievement of homeostatic balance and establishment of internal rhythms are those in which the caregiver and infant are in a state of dyadic synchrony, because synchronous interactions are attuned to the infantÕs current state, and can smoothly move the infant to an alternative, subsequent state without introducing environmental intrusion or interrupting the action cycles of the infant. After the first two to three months of life, the infantÕs own autonomic nervous system increasingly takes over physiology-regulating functions (Brazelton, 1984; Emde et al., 1976; Field, 1985; Kraemer, 1992; Stern, 1985). However, it may be inferred that periodic engagement in synchrony with caregivers remains important to the development of this self-regulating capacity, in effect serving the function of joint-regulation of the infantÕs internal functions. Feeding, an activity involving far more complex interactions than previously thought (even among other mammals; see Hofer, 1987; Kraemer, Ebert, Schmidt, & McKinney, 1991), exemplifies the joint-regulating nature of synchrony that can emerge between infant and caregiver. Feeding done in the context of synchrony involves the promotion of up-regulation (e.g., arousing) and down-regulation (e.g., soothing), enabling the dyad to establish mutually optimal stimulation levels and arousal modulation (Brazelton & Als, 1979; Field, 1985, 1987); feeding done in an out-of-sync manner still nourishes the child, but perhaps constrains the development of regulatory skills. We propose that other infant–caregiver interactions that are experienced as synchronous would serve a similar purpose for the infant.

564

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

Experience of effectance. There also is evidence that certain interactional or behavioral states simply ‘‘feel right’’ to the neonate (Powers, 1979). One thing some researchers believe feels right is the experience of effectance that accompanies the completion of self-initiated action cycles, such as when infants get stimulated, perform an action as a response, then get some kind of natural feedback to their response. If infants are not allowed to experience complete action cycles—either because the cycle is interrupted or because too much stress is placed on the infantsÕ self-regulatory mechanisms—they receive conflicting behavioral messages, and, it is hypothesized, things ‘‘feel wrong’’ (see Joy-Bryant, 1991; Tinbergen, 1974).We hypothesize when an infant experiences dyadic synchrony with a caregiver, there is an increased likelihood that self-initiated action cycles are completed, things feel right to the infant, and a sense of effectance is therefore experienced. Gianino and Tronick (1988) propose that it is not simply the experience of synchrony, but the movement from a state of nonsynchrony into a state of synchrony that helps infants develop a sense of effectance. They have found that when interaction with caregivers becomes mistimed or mismatched, as it inevitably does, infants experience distress (Tronick, Ricks, & Cohn, 1982). But, if the infant is subsequently able to control the distress, the sensitive caregiver responds appropriately, and synchrony is reestablished, the successful resolution of that transaction will, they argue, increase the infantÕs sense of confidence in his or her ability to self-regulate and engage others effectively. In other words, reparation of the mismatch is an important learning experience. Beyond the neonatal period, there is still theoretical reason to believe that development of a sense of effectance is a positive functional outcome of the experience of dyadic synchrony. In the next section we describe the fourth proposed functional outcome of repeated experiences of synchrony with the primary caregiver, that is facilitation of secure attachment in the infant. If this function is served, a secure working model of relationships would become a source of effectance for the older infant, since one of the fundamental tenets of attachment theory (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Bowlby, 1982) is that, through interpersonal exchanges with the caregiver, the infant forms expectations regarding interactional patterns and self-other behaviors, including a sense of effectance (see also Belsky et al., 1984; Bretherton, 1985; Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985; Sroufe & Fleeson, 1986). We suggest that the kind of expectations that grow out of synchronous interactions are the kind that help form a secure working model. Facilitation of secure attachment. Because the sensitive caregiver described by attachment theorists fits the criteria of the highly attuned caregiver we have described, it follows that involvement in high rates of dyadic synchrony should be predictive of secure attachment between infants and their caregivers. And, indeed, that has been found to be the case. Ainsworth was the first to show a relation between sensitive mother–infant interaction and later

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

565

relationship functioning: in longitudinal naturalistic home observations of mothers feeding their infants, dealing with infant crying, and engaging in face-to-face interactions with their infants (Ainsworth & Bell, 1969; Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton, 1972), she found that the most sensitive mothers— mothers who were quick to attend to their infant, interpreted the infantÕs cues accurately, responded appropriately to the infantÕs needs and desires, and in general tended to ‘‘see things from the babyÕs point of view’’—had children who demonstrated positive attachment behaviors early in the first year and who were later most likely to be classified as securely attached. Following this line of work, Gilbride (1988) found mothersÕ contingent pacing of emotional expressions and contingent responsiveness discriminated among attachment groups. Likewise, when Isabella et al. (1989) operationalized synchrony as cooccurrence of specific maternal and infant behaviors, they found that synchrony measured at 1 and 3 months of age was disproportionately more prevalent among the interactions of infant– mother dyads whose attachment quality was subsequently classified as secure at 12 months. Isabella and Belsky (1991) replicated these results in a larger sample, based on measures of dyadic synchrony at 3 and 9 months of age, and also found that synchrony-inhibiting or synchrony-disrupting behaviors—intrusiveness, overstimulation, and illogically or inconsistently contingent responsiveness—were more common among the interactions of insecurely attached dyads than among secure dyads. Similarly, Sch€ olmerich et al. (1995) and Sch€ olmerich, Lamb, Leyendecker, and Fracasso (1997) predicted attachment status from measures of what they called ‘‘interactional’’ or ‘‘behavioral harmony’’ among 4- to 12-month-old infants and their Euroand Central-American immigrant mothers. Most recently, Jaffe et al. (2001) found that infants who experienced what they termed ‘‘optimum coordinated interpersonal timing’’ with mothers at 4 months were more likely to be securely attached at 12 months than were other infants. Note that while these studies used dyadic variables to predict attachment, there is not always a clear-cut distinction between the dyadic variables (e.g., noncontingent responsiveness, which is dyadic in the sense that it refers to one partnerÕs behavior as it relates to the otherÕs) and the individual-level parental variables (e.g., sensitivity) that predict attachment. For example, a sensitive caregiver would be more contingently responsive than an insensitive caregiver, and both would likely predict secure attachment. Interestingly, De Wolff and van Ijzendoorn (1997) conducted a meta-analysis of studies linking parental (and dyadic) behavior to attachment in infancy, and found that synchrony (reciprocal, mutually rewarding, responsive interactions) and mutuality (mutually focused, positive, maintained engagement) were as important as parental sensitivity in predicting attachment security (in fact, the two largest effect sizes were for synchrony and mutuality). In summary, there is evidence that dyadic synchrony between infants and caregivers has multiple biopsychosocial functions. The next question to

566

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

address is whether children and their caregivers continue to engage in interactional exchanges that can legitimately be characterized as synchronous. We propose that they do, and that, because of advances in the childÕs verbal, cognitive, and socioemotional competencies—as well as the diminishing relationship asymmetry between caregiver and child—the structure and function of synchrony change.

Is there synchrony beyond infancy? One of the principal goals of this review is to consider whether the notion of dyadic synchrony is meaningful beyond the infancy era. We propose that synchrony remains a salient developmental construct, in the sense that children and caregivers can achieve an optimal interactional style that facilitates significant development within the child as well as in the caregiver–child relationship. We further suggest there is some continuity between its early and later structures and functions. For that reason, from this point on, we will refer to constructs describing optimal interactional style at various ages as ‘‘synchrony-related’’ or simply as ‘‘synchrony,’’ recognizing and discussing the differences between these and the infant–caregiver synchrony we have just described. Far less empirical research on synchrony-related phenomena has been conducted with dyads beyond infancy, and less theoretical speculation has been offered about their role. For instance, Sroufe and Rutter (1984) list ‘‘harmonious dyadic interaction’’ as one of three salient developmental issues for children from birth to age one, but not for subsequent eras. We propose that synchronous interaction becomes more complex, both because of individual development on the part of the child, as well as changing expectations on the part of the caregiver. We also propose that it takes on a greater relationship-building function, especially for parent–child and child–peer relationships. Table 1 presents a sample of research involving synchrony-related phenomena beyond the infant period, and illustrates the complexity of the conceptualization of these types of interactions, as well as the diversity of definitions. Clearly, these phenomena are conceptualized as something beyond a particular pattern of movement or shared affect.

Dyadic synchrony during toddlerhood Structure of synchrony in toddler–caregiver interactions In the childÕs toddler years, the structure of child–caregiver synchrony in many ways is similar to that in the infant period, in that it still involves

Table 1 Synchrony-related phenomena in studies of dyads with children beyond infancy Term used

Description

Supportive social structure

ParentÕs part in interaction is geared to childÕs needs, childÕs agenda Parent–child dyad has joint control of activity (coacting, giveand-take); parent chooses developmentally appropriate activity and uses responsive facial expression, warm vocal expression, accessible body position, affectionate expressions, contingent pacing of turns Parent attuned and responsive (during problem-solving); allows child to initiate, responds accordingly; if child unfocused, parent prompts Parent lets child take lead in play, responds positively (imitates, follows, describes, praises, complies) Parent follows childÕs play leads Parent and child engage in collaborative joint attention (shared focus plus same play ‘‘agenda’’) and reciprocity of turn-taking PartnerÕs focus of attention in previous turn is maintained in next turn Parent is ‘‘slotting... responses into the ongoing stream of the childÕs behavior, with due respect to itÕs temporal and content characteristics... to bring about a ÔsmoothÕ interaction and a predictable outcome’’ (p. 76) Parent and child visually focused on object or activity during which time child directs overt behavior at parent Matching of high parental sensitivity and high child cooperation

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

Parent and child participate in multiple alternating relevant turns in conversation

567

Author(s) Toddler–parent dyads Brownell, Etheridge, and Hungerford (1995) Crittenden (1988)

Sensitive play

Garcia-Sellers and Church (2000)

Synchrony

Lay, Waters, and Park (1989)

Responsive play

Parpal and Maccoby (1985) Raver (1996)

Responsive play Social contingency

Rocissano et al. (1987)

Synchrony

Schaffer and Crook (1978)

Mutuality

Tomasello and Farrar (1986); Harris, Kasari, and Sigman (1996) Vizziello, Ferrero, and Musicco (2000)

Joint attentional focus Synchrony

Preschooler–parent dyads Black and Logan (1995)

Cohesive discourse

568

Author(s)

Term used

Description

Deater-Deckard and OÕConnor (2001)

Dyadic mutuality

Harrist et al. (1994)

Synchrony

Kochanska (1997)

Mutually responsive orientation

Lindsey, Mize, and Pettit (1997); Mize and Pettit (1997) Tsuk (1998)

Synchrony

Parent–child cooperation (explicit agreement in problem solving), parent–child emotional reciprocity (shared positive affect, eye contact, conversation-like quality of interaction), relationship-specific parental responsiveness (amount and immediacy), and child responsiveness (amount and immediacy) Parent–child episodes that are extended, nonnegative, and connected (mutually focused, reciprocal, balanced, equal participation, action and affect of one partner flows from that of other, with a sense of closure present) ParentÕs and childÕs shared cooperation with each otherÕs needs or bids (including parental responsiveness, child compliance, and shared positive affect) Parent and child engaged in mutually focused, reciprocal, responsive exchanges Parent and child display state similarity, reciprocity enthusiasm, and lack of flat, empty, or constricted affect

Mutuality and reciprocity

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

Table 1 (continued)

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

569

prolonged, coordinated, and contingent interactions. However, we propose synchrony differs in at least two ways. First, the child becomes a more active interactional partner, with interactions taking on the appearance of a mutually affiliative dialogue. Second, caregivers use a broader array of information, scaffolding skills, and other accommodative behaviors as they interact responsively with the child. Mutual affiliation. Tarabulsy et al. (1996) lament the lack of attention to the infantÕs behavioral contribution in caregiver–child interactions. We contend that focusing on the childÕs contribution may be even more important in studies when the child is a toddler, particularly because of the childÕs increased mobility and increased cognitive ability. As communication between the child and caregiver moves from preverbal to verbal, and the child is able to assert desires and needs in a wider variety of ways than during infancy, synchronous exchanges may begin to resemble a dialogue between equals more than a ballroom-type dance. Or, if the dance metaphor is used, the dance of synchrony between toddlers and caregivers is one where there is more variability in who leads and who follows. In infant–caregiver synchrony, most attunement is directed toward the infant; although the infant can attune to the caregiver, too, it is the infantÕs expressed needs (for quiet, for stimulation, etc.) that are most often driving the interaction. Schaffer and Crook (1978) describe synchronous interactions as initiated by the infant and ‘‘converted by the mother into a dyadic experience’’ (p. 62). In toddler–caregiver synchrony, by contrast, the toddler takes a more active role. Rutter and Durkin (1987) have shown, for example, that between 18 and 24 months children begin to actively regulate vocal coordination during play with mother, and may even initiate interactions in response to the perceived wishes of the caregiver. Observational studies of synchrony conducted with toddlers (e.g., Crittenden, 1988; Rocissano et al., 1987; Schaffer & Crook, 1980; Vizziello et al., 2000) paint a picture of synchronous exchanges where the child and caregiver appear to be working together toward some common goal, though it should be kept in mind that this is from the point of view of the observer, perhaps not from the participantsÕ points of view (see Fogel, 1993). Vizziello et al. (2000) nicely describe synchronous parent–toddler interactions as being ‘‘based on the capacity of both partners to fit and modulate their behavior to smooth the course of the interactive exchanges’’ (p. 47). The point is, there appears to be a greater balance of participation, with more shared power, in toddler– caregiver synchrony than in the synchrony of the preceding era (see Russell, Pettit, & Mize, 1998). As toddlers become more mobile and self-directed, involvement in synchrony becomes more a matter of choice on the part of the child, even if it is a choice outside the childÕs awareness (see Klinnert, Campos, Sorce, Emde, & Svejda, 1983; Ruff & Rothbart, 1996, for discussions of the young childÕs increasing independence in the control of attention and other

570

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

self-regulatory processes). In other words, the toddler must be a willing participant for synchrony to occur. Thus, when synchronous exchanges do occur, they may be thought of as mutually affiliative. Building a tower of blocks while in-sync with oneÕs parent is probably more fun than building one when out-of-sync, for example, and one empirical study (Lay et al., 1989) suggests that toddler–caregiver synchrony (defined in terms of responsive play) actually promotes a positive mood in the child. If positive emotion is experienced by toddlers during synchronous interactions with caregivers, it is likely to be expressed differently—with a larger and perhaps more covert repertoire of behaviors—than in infancy. For example, toddlers may verbalize their emotions in addition to the laughing and smiling seen in infants. This may, in turn, change the nature of the interaction for the caregiver. It may, for example, positively reinforce caregivers in a way that they become conscious of, as opposed to the more covert reinforcement that may be experienced with an infant in a state of synchrony. The level of awareness that the caregiver-in-synchrony experiences is related to the second hypothesized difference between infant– and toddler–caregiver synchrony. Broader array of information and behaviors used by caregiver. Given the argument just made, should children and caregivers be considered equally responsible for achieving synchrony during toddlerhood? Maccoby (1992) has made the point that, regardless of the bidirectionality of parent–child interactions, there will always be asymmetry in the relationship; that, throughout childhood, caregivers ‘‘must use their greater interactive skills to adapt themselves to the childÕs capacities and current states’’ (p. 1015). How do caregivers make accommodative, adaptive, ‘‘dialogue sustaining’’ adjustments (Cairns, 1979; Kaye & Charney, 1980) with toddlers, and what toddler ‘‘capacities’’ and ‘‘states’’ are relevant to achieving synchrony? Papousek (1995) and others have noted that with young infants, caregivers act as if their infants were intentional, and as if they understand and what the intention is. By toddlerhood, caregivers have more sources of information about the childÕs intentions and desires, such as the childÕs intentional pointing (beginning at about 14 months) and, of course, increasingly sophisticated vocabulary. Thus, on one level, attunement may still be a relatively unconscious achievement on the part of the caregiver, but on another level, caregivers may need to consciously broaden their social–cognitive and behavioral repertoires in order to accommodate the childÕs evolving communicative style. The Vygotsky-type scaffolding of communication and other cognitive skills that has been observed among caregivers of toddlers and preschoolers, for example, may be thought of as part of the developing repertoire of caregiving behaviors (Hartup, 1989; Hartup & Laursen, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978). This notion of a broadening and perhaps more conscious behavior repertoire among caregivers is reminiscent of the communication theorist WallbottÕs (1995) model of nonverbal exchange. Wallbott proposes

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

571

that there are two levels of mutuality in nonverbal communication: the lower level—synchrony of movement—is an unconscious and evolutionarily based component, whereas the higher level—‘‘cognitive empathy and convergence’’—is more conscious. We suggest that the kind of synchrony described by infancy researchers is akin to WallbottÕs lower level of communication, and that when children are older, caregiversÕ perspectivetaking abilities (their cognitive empathy and convergence) become more important in facilitating synchrony.1 Observational studies of toddler–caregiver interaction support the notion that, even though there may be a greater balance of participation in interactions, caregivers are still more responsible for facilitating synchrony. They appear to do this by adjusting to the childÕs changing communication ability and increasing autonomy. In a longitudinal study, for example, Crown et al. (1996) observed that as infants became toddlers, mothers became more ‘‘polite,’’ interrupting their children less often and allowing them to ‘‘have a turn’’ more often than when the children were younger infants. Matas, Arend, and Sroufe (1978) observed mother–child interaction in the first and second year of the childÕs life, and found that, while maternal sensitivity (as a global construct) was stable over time, the behaviors that comprised sensitive interaction changed. During a problem-solving task, the sensitive mothers of 2-year-olds took into account the childÕs newly developing information-processing and sensory-motor abilities, but did so in a way that was well-timed and easily understood. Granted, many synchrony-promoting caregiver behaviors with toddlers are similar to those observed in the infancy era, such as being alert and attentive, speaking rhythmically, facilitating involvement by placing the child in a comfortable position, and pacing interactions contingently (Crittenden, 1988); others, such as allowing joint control of activities, are more notable (or more complex) in interactions with toddlers. Rocissano et al.Õs (1987) laboratory observations of mother–toddler pairs offers a nice example. The mothers were assigned the task of teaching their toddlers a set of behaviors during a pretend tea party. Analysis of conditional probabilities revealed that the dyads were most successful at achieving synchrony when mothers had maintained the 1 An argument could be made that this process of changing caregiver behavior begins earlier than toddlerhood. For example, Crawley et al. (1978) describe how, beginning during the infant period, mothers change the structure of play as their children age. Our position, that the phenomenon of becoming more conscious and using more information in interactions represents a qualitative difference between the infant and toddler era, is speculative, and perhaps should be considered a topic for future research. An additional avenue for research concerns the question of whether having more information from the child makes it easier or more difficult for a caregiver to engage in synchrony. On the one hand, if there is more feedback available, less guesswork is needed to determine a childÕs state; on the other hand, this could cause information overload for some caregivers—it might be easier to respond ‘‘as if you know’’ rather than ‘‘because you know!’’

572

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

shared attentional focus of the previous turn. For example, if the goal was to get the spoon in the sugar bowl, and the toddler was pretending the spoon was an airplane, the synchrony-promoting mother might suggest the airplane land in the sugar bowl ‘‘hangar.’’ We infer that these kinds of caregiver behavior require a somewhat more conscious level of attunement than that involved in synchrony during infancy. The caregiver must be tuned in to the childÕs cognitive level and social needs, in addition to (or on a different level from) being attuned to the child on an emotional level (e.g., sensing what the child feels), as in the infancy era. No one we are aware of has systematically surveyed caregivers to assess their thought processes as they attune to and interact with their young children, however. We have suggested that the structure of synchrony is similar in infancy and toddlerhood, although the nature of involvement on the part of both child and caregiver appears to be somewhat different in the toddler period. The relatively few studies of toddler–caregiver synchrony hint at some functions the experience of dyadic synchrony might serve for the child during this important developmental epoch. Function of synchrony in toddler–caregiver interactions Two functions of dyadic synchrony are proposed for toddlers, each serving the developmental goal of helping the child become a more sophisticated social partner. Increased communication competence. The first hypothesized function served by toddler–caregiver synchrony is the facilitation of language acquisition and communication skills. Although elements of language learning appear in infancy (see Bakeman & Adamson, 1984; Papousek, 1995; Rochat, 2001), and interaction patterns such as infant cry/mother respond/infant decrease cry may be considered communication (see Acebo & Thoman, 1994), we highlight its importance in toddlerhood, when language skills play a more central role in social competence (see Tamis-LeMonda, Bornstein, & Baumwell, 2001). There is compelling evidence that prolonged episodes of joint caregiver–child attention are associated with communicative competence (see Dunham & Dunham, 1995, for a thorough discussion; examples of empirical studies include, e.g., Harris et al., 1996; Rocissano & Yatchmink, 1983; Tomasello & Farrar, 1986). Communication researchers theorize that turn-taking, a key characteristic of dyadic synchrony, not only gives children practice in the give-and-take of social conversation (Bruner, 1983; Dromi, 1993), but that ‘‘two person exchange rituals’’—repeated, structured, reciprocal activities—lead to the development of shared meaning (Newson, 1977) and, therefore, language learning. Others hypothesize that when caregivers use language contingent upon the childÕs focus of attention—a characteristic of any synchronous interaction involving caregiver verbalizations—the childÕs ‘‘cognitive load’’ is decreased and the child is

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

573

more likely to associate words with their referents (Harris et al., 1996; Snow, 1984). In other words, verbalizations in the context of dyadic synchrony provide young children with a ‘‘predictable referential context’’ (Tomasello & Farrar, 1986) that makes language meaningful. FogelÕs more purely dyadic perspective would add that the shared meaning and (ultimately) shared language we suggest is fostered by synchronous toddler–caregiver interactions should be conceived of as a ‘‘dynamic process in which whatever is shared is created through the process of coregulation: not known by one person in advance and communicated as a message to the other’’ (p. 19). Facilitation of autonomy and self-control. The experience of synchrony in toddlerhood may also function to facilitate autonomy development, through providing children an easy way to practice self-regulatory skills as they learn to comply with adult wishes. Toddlers are dealing with the tension between a desire to function on their own and a need to feel emotionally connected to caregivers, and synchrony may be a context where both of those needs are met. Rocissano et al. (1987) speculate that, ‘‘For mothers, synchrony reflects a capacity to remain available to the child, and for children, it indicates an ability to assume the role of a social partner’’ (p. 702). During the toddler years, the sensitivity to the childÕs needs required of caregivers for synchrony to be experienced may be especially important (and especially difficult, because the needs may be in conflict). When caregivers are able to achieve synchrony with their toddlers, however, the children appear to benefit, perhaps because synchrony helps them learn to strike a balance between other-control (i.e., compliance) and self-control. Rocissano et al. found, for example, that if the mother makes a request linked to a childÕs current activity, the child will be more likely to comply than if the request is unrelated to what the child is doing. They also found that, indeed, toddlers from highly synchronous dyads are significantly more compliant than other toddlers. Rescorla and Fechnay (1996) also found evidence of the link between synchrony and child compliance. Using a measure of synchrony similar to Rocissano et al.Õs (viz., an individual-level measure of maintaining partnerÕs topic), they found highly controlling mothers received the lowest observer ratings of synchrony and had the least compliant toddlers. Similarly, Schaffer and Crook (1980) found that toddlers observed with their mothers were most cooperative in the context of synchrony (i.e., when making requests as part of a ‘‘sequential strategy’’ based on the childÕs current state of involvement rather than coming out of the blue), and Crittenden (1988) reached a similar conclusion in a home-observational study: whereas toddlers whose mothers used synchrony-promoting behaviors were found to be cooperative, children of unresponsive/withdrawn mothers were passive, and children of inconsistent mothers were controlling or ‘‘compulsively compliant.’’ The hypothesis that synchrony promotes child compliance is resonant with what Maccoby and Martin (1983) call ‘‘reciprocity theory.’’

574

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

Reciprocity theory posits that compliance based on reciprocity, a willingness to cooperate because the caregiver shows the same kind of willingness, is different from obedience based on the fear of punishment, and that the former is more successfully obtained by caregivers than the latter. Parpal and Maccoby (1985) tested this theory by observing mother–toddler dyads in three contexts: a free play situation, a play situation where the mother had been trained to be responsive (i.e., she was instructed to imitate and narrate the childÕs behavior, to follow the rules and suggestions made by the child, and to minimize her commands and criticism), and a noninteractive session, each ending with a compliance activity. Toddlers from the responsive play session were found to be the most compliant, lending support to the reciprocity hypothesis and our suggestion that synchrony (most likely occurring during ‘‘responsive play’’) ultimately increases the chance that the child will comply with parent wishes, a valued socialization goal during toddlerhood. In addition to being motivated to comply with parents, though, synchronous interactions also give the child practice in complying in a noncoercive, mutually compliant system. This type of experience also allows the child practice in self-regulation. Dunham and DunhamÕs (1995) social contingency model suggests that the combination of high levels of joint attention and contingent turntaking—something very close to our definition of dyadic synchrony—serve as an ‘‘optimal social structure’’ for facilitating the development of the selfand other-regulatory skills that underlie social competence in children. Theoretically, as children become more self-regulating in interactions with caregivers, they become more self-regulating away from caregivers, another key socialization goal for most caregivers. Raver (1996) found support for this model among a sample of 2-year-olds, where prolonged joint attention during mother–child free play predicted toddlersÕ ability to delay gratification through the use of positive self-regulatory strategies (e.g., distraction as opposed to comfort-seeking), after controlling for child characteristics such as negativity. Similarly, but using observations of a problem solving task, Garcia-Sellers and Church (2000) found that ratings of mother–child synchrony were negatively related to toddlersÕ avoidance and frustration during the task. Further evidence for the link between synchrony and selfregulation can be taken from two longitudinal studies. Brownell et al. (1995) found that maternal provision of optimal social structure (synchrony in our terminology) with 15-month-olds predicted their gratification-delaying skill at 2 years, and Feldman, Greenbaum, and YirmiyaÕs (1999) found that early mother–infant affect synchrony (at 3 and 9 months) predicted toddler self-control at 2 years, even after accounting for the effects of temperament and maternal discipline style. In summary, there is suggestive evidence that in toddlerhood, the experience of synchrony with caregivers functions to enhance childrenÕs competence by providing a forum that is conducive to improving language and

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

575

other communication skills, by giving them noncoercive experiences in appropriate compliance with adult demands, and by allowing them to regulate their behavior and soothe their emotions in ways that will work when adults are not around. The bulk of empirical work and theorizing about childrenÕs synchronous interactions with others has been conducted during these first two eras of the childÕs life. We propose, however, that dyadic synchrony remains a meaningful construct as the child ages, although, once again, there is some evidence that its form and function change somewhat.

Dyadic synchrony in early childhood As children get older, there is reason to believe dyadic synchrony still characterizes some interactions with caregivers. Additionally, as childrenÕs social circles broaden, interactions with significant others such as siblings and friends may also be characterized as synchronous or nonsynchronous. There have been a few studies of the kind of synchrony we have been describing among adolescent and adult populations (e.g., Gross & McCallum, 2000), but these studies of older samples typically have been approached from a social–psychological or communications perspective rather than a close-relationships perspective, and tend to focus on either the coordination of bodily movements and postural configurations (e.g., Trees, 2000), or on the building of rapport between dyads such as unacquainted peers (e.g., Bernieri, Davis, Rosenthal, & Knee, 1994; Dickstein, 1998), clients and therapists (Willis, 1990), students and teachers (Bernieri, 1988), or among team members (Ancona & Chong, 1999; Kurzban, 1999). Studies of dyadic synchrony with close others beyond toddlerhood have, instead, been conducted primarily among caregivers with their preschool or kindergarten children. Structure of synchrony in early childhood We suggest there are two notable changes in the structure of child–caregiver synchrony beyond toddlerhood. First, as involvement becomes equal or near-equal, balance in turn-taking and initiations becomes a critical characteristic of synchrony. Second, it becomes important that synchronous exchanges not cooccur with the expression of mutually negative affect. Equal balance of participation. Earlier we argued that toddlers are more responsible for the occurrence of synchrony than are infants; here we suggest older children may play an even greater role in achieving synchrony with caregivers. Studies of dyadic synchrony with children in early childhood are even rarer than studies with toddlers, but they suggest that improved communication competence and general cognitive growth allow children to come to interactions with caregivers as near-equals, in the sense

576

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

that they have the power to engage and withdraw at will. Preschool and kindergarten children are not as easily ‘‘seduced’’ into interacting by caregivers as are infants and toddlers, they can use more complex attention-getting devices to engage inattentive caregivers, and they can carry on sophisticated dialogues with adults once interaction is underway. Among a sample of home-observed 5-year-olds, Harrist et al. (1994) included among the dimensions of child–caregiver synchrony the notion of ‘‘connectedness,’’ with a highly connected interactional episode defined as one where the caregiver and child share a focus of attention for the entire episode, the action or affect of one partner follows from the action or affect of the other, and there is a sense of reciprocity with the participation of both partners being nearly equal (neither is under- or overinvolved). Although this definition included elements we have identified in descriptions of synchrony with infants and toddlers (viz., shared attentional focus and contingency), what is added in this definition is the notion of balance of participation: if either the child or caregiver ignores the other, synchrony is not possible; conversely, synchrony is not achieved if either child or caregiver is too involved (pushing or ‘‘bugging’’ the other, or just being more interested in what is going on than the partner). With infants and toddlers, out-of-balance interactions might be more likely caused by the caregiver (e.g., by intrusiveness or insensitivity); in the early childhood period, we suggest that the child has more power to be the one to disrupt the interaction, to be the intrusive one or the ignoring one (or at least to be more persistent and creative in their intruding or ignoring!). In other words, the burden for maintaining synchrony falls more equally to the child and caregiver than in previous eras, and this has implications for the function of synchrony at this stage. Nonnegative affect. We also propose that, during the early childhood era, it is important that negative affect not accompany synchronous exchanges. There is evidence that interactions that are both synchronous and mutually negative may function in a particularly destructive way. We have argued that both partners need not express positive affect for an interaction to be synchronous. It may be possible, for example, for one partner to be affectively neutral and the other affectively positive, and an interaction still be balanced, mutually focused, and so on. It may even be possible for just one partner to be negative and the interaction still be synchronous: Gottman and DeClaire (1997) have argued that when a child is experiencing negative affect and the caregiver is able to empathically respond to the childÕs need, there is a potential for an increase in the intimacy and security of the relationship; the interaction where the caregiver makes the empathic connection may likely be one of synchrony. Nonetheless, there is a compelling body of literature examining the role of mutually negative affect in family dynamics, which we interpret as suggesting that interactions that have characteristics of synchrony but are

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

577

affectively negative function in a maladaptive rather than a positively adaptive way for children. Patterson (1982) and Patterson, Reid, and Dishion (1992) have found that among families of aggressive children, parent–child dyads tend to engage in elevated rates of what they call ‘‘coercive bouts.’’ Their interactional exchanges look synchronous in that they are mutually focused (both child and caregiver are highly engaged) and they are contingent (one partnerÕs behavior follows predictably from the otherÕs), yet they are negatively toned for both partners. Other researchers (e.g., Snyder, Edwards, McGraw, Kilgore, & Holton, 1994; Wahler & Dumas, 1987) also have observed recurring cycles of increasingly longer interactional frames of aversive and increasingly negative actions among young children (most often boys), and conclude that the social learning principles of simultaneous social reinforcement and cueing of responses may be at work. In other words, when children and caregivers engage in coercive (or what we would label ‘‘negatively synchronous’’) interactions, the children apparently learn to become more aversive or aggressive over time. Wahler and Dumas (1987) suggest a mechanism for this link: they describe how children from typically chaotic homes can be reinforced for their aversive behavior when their caregivers engage in coercion with them. In other words, the predictability inherent in coercive, negatively synchronous cycles is preferable to the typical unpredictability of the childrenÕs experience with caregivers. This kind of negative synchrony may, in fact, be operating among toddlers and their caregivers, but the bulk of observational work has been conducted with preschoolers or older children (perhaps because aggression is considered more problematic, e.g., to classroom teachers, when children are older). We conclude, then, that if the structure of dyadic synchrony during the early childhood years includes mutually negative affect, its positive developmental function will be hampered. Function of synchrony in early childhood Learning of social skills. We propose that, as children reach preschool and early school years, the experience of synchrony functions to prepare children for competence in peer interactions more directly than it did in previous eras. A function of synchrony in toddlerhood—that of learning to comply to social demands and consequently grow in autonomy from parents— was a step in this functional direction, and it could even be argued that coming to view the world as predictable through repeated synchronous interactions in infancy did the same thing. In other words, from birth, synchrony functions to prepare the child to be a competent social partner. What we want to suggest here is that this function comes to prominence during the early childhood period (see Ladd, 1992, for an overview of the research on family–peer linkages, and Russell et al., 1998, for a review of the similarities between certain types of parent–child and peer play).

578

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

Some evidence for the assertion that synchrony promotes social competence beyond compliance can be found indirectly. For example, the parents of the most cooperative and independent preschoolers Baumrind (1967, 1975) studied—the authoritative parents—may be thought of as likely promoting synchrony, in that they were sensitive and encouraged reciprocity through verbal give-and-take with their children. And among Pianta, Sroufe, and EgelandÕs (1989) sample of preschoolers, mothers who were observed to read their childrenÕs cues accurately and respond appropriately had children who had more self-control and were more persistent in a laboratory problem solving task than were children of mothers who were less adept at facilitating synchrony. More recent observational studies of synchrony-related phenomena in samples of children in early childhood confirm this hypothesis more directly, however. Most of these studies have been conducted in a laboratory-type setting, where families are asked to play together as they would at home. In such a setting, Tsuk (1998) observed mothers and their 3- to 6-year-olds, and found that aggressive children were more likely to engage in lower levels of mutuality and reciprocity with their mothers than were the nonaggressive children. Similarly, Parke and colleagues (Barth & Parke, 1993; Burks et al., 1987, as cited in Parke, Cassidy, Burks, Carson, & Boyum, 1992) found that high rates of prolonged, noncoercive, nonparent-directed play were predictive of childrenÕs social competence when beginning kindergarten. Specifically, children whose parents engaged in that type of play were popular among their peers, and were rated by teachers as being independent and considerate of others. In a similar setting, but focusing on communication style, Black and Logan (1995) found that parents of sociometrically popular preschoolers were more likely to participate in episodes of ‘‘cohesive discourse’’ with their children than were other parents. Conversations of parents with their rejected children were more likely to be out of sync, in that the parents made requests of the children without allowing the children time to respond. Using a laboratory protocol with two separate samples of families of preschoolers, Mize and Pettit (1997), Pettit and Mize (1993), and Lindsey et al. (1997) found mother–child synchrony (rated in terms of how reciprocal, responsive, and mutually focused interactions were) was significantly correlated with preschool teachersÕ ratings of the childrenÕs social attentiveness, social problem solving skill, and nonaggression, and that synchrony was predictive above-and-beyond the effects of mothersÕ direct social coaching. They also found that parent–preschooler synchrony correlated significantly with ratings of mutual initiation and mutual compliance in parent–child play, suggesting that learning to balance initiations and compliance to othersÕ initiations might be one skill learned in the context of synchrony that generalizes to the peer group. Comparable results have been found in naturalistic settings, as well. Harrist et al. (1994), for example, observed families at home and found

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

579

that children from mother–child dyads who displayed high levels of positive synchrony (extended, connected, nonnegative exchanges) tended to be free from adjustment problems later in the kindergarten year, when they were rated by their teachers as being socially competent, were seen by observers as being nonwithdrawn, and were considered by both teachers and peers to be nonaggressive. In two studies of mother–preschooler dyads observed at home, Deater-Deckard and OÕConnor (2001) operationalized KochanskaÕs (1997) construct of dyadic mutuality and assessed it via global observer ratings of cooperation, emotional reciprocity, motherÕs responsiveness, and childÕs responsiveness. Children from dyads high in mutuality were found to have lower levels of parent-rated behavioral and emotional problems than did other children. Finally, Vizziello et al. (2000) observed preschooler–parent (and toddler–parent) dyads as they separated and reunited at day care, and as the children interacted with peers after separation from parents. They found that children from highsynchrony dyads most easily integrated into peer play, and were more likely to act as leaders than children from low- or medium-synchrony dyads. Less clear role in cognitive development. There has been almost no examination of the link between synchrony and cognitive development in the early childhood era. Studies of parent–child storybook reading are suggestive of a link, although synchrony per se has not been measured. For example, Haden, Reese, and Fivush (1996) found that preschool children whose parents read to them in a collaborative manner (e.g., who were tuned in to childrenÕs understanding and who elicited child participation, a style that may be close to synchrony) had better literacy skills than children whose parents were not focused on the childÕs participation. However, a more direct examination (Kirsh et al., 1995) provides evidence that the relation between parent–child synchrony and childrenÕs cognitive growth may not be as strong in early childhood as in earlier eras. Kirsh et al. found that observed synchrony (defined as mutually focused attention) among mothers and their 5-year-olds in a free play laboratory observation was unrelated to childrenÕs cognitive skill, as measured by the WPPSI. The authors speculate that because 5-year-olds have more cognitive resources and more experience to draw upon during interaction than do toddlers, synchrony may not be as crucial an interactional component for cognitive development. Kirsh et al.Õs results should be interpreted cautiously, however, due to low levels of reliability in their observational data. Furthermore, there may be other aspects of synchrony that are more relevant than focused attention during this period (e.g., following the childÕs lead during problemsolving), or other settings (besides free play) that would demonstrate a link between synchrony and cognition. Clearly more work is needed before the link between dyadic synchrony and cognitive development in older children is discounted.

580

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

Although researchers are only just beginning to examine the structure and function of synchronous interactions involving caregivers and children in early childhood, there is certainly reason to pursue this line of work as the field of family–peer linkages grows.

Issues for future research There are gaps in the interactional style literature that should be addressed if the study of dyadic synchrony is to move beyond the infancy era in a systematic way. Several questions have already been raised in this review, such as whether synchrony is an all-or-none phenomenon vs. something that functions in a more continuous manner; whether synchronous interactions are purely dyadic vs. something where individual behaviors can meaningfully be disentangled; whether contingency is a central element of synchrony; and what the relation between synchrony and positive affect is. We suggest future investigation might focus on the following five questions, as well. What is the role of synchrony between children and noncaregivers? There is clearly evidence that dyads other than parents and their children can engage in synchronous interactions. Synchronous (smooth-flowing, reciprocal, mutually engaged) interactions have been observed between toddler and even infant pairs (see Lewis, Young, Brooks, & Michalson, 1975; Vandell & Mueller, 1994), and should be especially likely to be observed among close friends or siblings, given the emotional component of their relationships and their shared history (see Dunn, 1983; Howes, 1996; Youngblade & Belsky, 1992). To understand the function of synchrony among children, it might be useful consider SullivanÕs and PiagetÕs proposition that one of the most important characteristics of childrenÕs interactions is the egalitarian nature of the roles and expectations expressed in their interactions. However, there is a developmental aspect to this egalitarianism: young children tend to engage in tit-for-tat, ‘‘unilateral reciprocity,’’ where children look out for their own interests as they interact (Youniss, 1980). An important social developmental milestone for children, then, is learning that reciprocity in interactions can be cooperative. It may be that the enjoyment intrinsic to synchronous interactions is a motivating factor as children move from unilaterality to true reciprocity in their interactions. In addition to these individual developmental functions, synchrony among children may serve a relationship-building function. Smollar and Youniss (1982) have noted that ease of communication and maintenance of shared activity are central to young school age childrenÕs friendship

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

581

interactions, for example, and GottmanÕs observational research (1983) suggests that an ability to ‘‘connect’’ early in a relationship—to ‘‘exchange information successfully, manage conflict and establish a common ground activity’’ (p. 73)—characterizes the successful development of childrenÕs friendships over time. Surely this ability to connect is akin to or facilitated by the ability to engage in synchronous interactions. Thus, although synchrony has rarely been explicitly studied among child–child pairs, there does seem to be a theoretical basis for examining the construct of child–peer synchrony as either a marker for the achievement of some level of social competence, or as a predictor of other developmental outcomes. The relation between parent–child and child–child synchrony is another intriguing question for future study: Do children learn how to engage in synchronous interactions from parents, and carry-over this ability to peer interactions? What is the stability and long-term effect of frequent experiences of synchrony? To date, no one has followed parent–child dyads across time to determine the stability of synchrony as its form and function change. One theoretical question relevant to longitudinal studies is whether or not early parent–child synchrony predicts later child social–cognitive–emotional functioning. Studies linking secure attachment to later social competence (e.g., Zimmermann, Maier, Winter, & Grossmann, 2001) are suggestive, given the evidence reviewed earlier that infant–caregiver synchrony is related to attachment security. And if there is a longitudinal link, is that because of an inoculation effect, wherein the experience of early synchrony is critical, and has long-lasting benefits; is it because parent–child dyads tend to be stable in their ability to engage in synchrony, therefore the long-term benefits are actually the effects of concurrent high levels of synchrony; or is it neither, and instead, that the ability to engage in synchrony is a reflection of some other characteristic of the dyad or the child that is actually underlying the statistical link between synchrony and the child outcome? What is the direction of effect? Because analysis of synchrony data has been primarily correlational, the issue of direction-of-effects is a serious one. It is likely that parents of some children—for example temperamentally sociable children—find it easier to attain synchrony with than others. Vizziello et al. (2000) found, for example, that toddlers in low-synchrony dyads were described by their parents as unloving, unsociable, and restless. If the child has characteristics that are linked to levels of synchrony with parents, and also linked to levels of social competence later on, the synchrony–competence link may be a spurious one.

582

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

One way to examine this question would be to compare interactional styles between the child and multiple caregivers (e.g., mother–child vs. father– child dyad); if synchrony is merely a reflection of the childÕs interaction skill, rates with other interaction partners should be highly correlated. Other options include longitudinal studies and studies involving twins and siblings. Deater-Deckard and OÕConnor (2001) have, in fact, just explored this issue by conducting two behavior genetic studies, one with identical and fraternal twins, and the other with adoptive and. biological siblings. In both cases, they found only moderate similarity in synchrony (‘‘mutuality’’) across mother–preschooler dyads. Additionally, they found that cross-dyad similarity was accounted for by two factors: genetic similarity in the siblings, and nonshared environmental processes (which could be differences in parenting). In other words, the ability to achieve synchrony was relationship-specific and based on childrenÕs genetic propensities and what those genetically based behaviors evoked from their environments. Similar studies of dyads with other-age children are needed to determine whether there are developmental patterns to the degree to which genetic factors influence dyadic interactional style. Are there cultural and gender variations in the experience of synchrony? Other avenues of research that may be fruitful include the exploration of parent- and child-sex differences. Weinberg, Tronick, Cohn, and OlsonÕs (1999) observations of 6-month-olds and their mothers, for example, have found mother–son dyads to have higher synchrony scores than mother– daughter dyads, although the reparation of mismatching states was slower for boys than girls. When a small sample of primary caregiving fathers was compared to a group of primary caregiving mothers and employed mothers, however, father–infant dyads had the highest levels of observed synchrony (Geiger, 1995). Among a sample of toddlers, Garcia-Sellers and Church (2000) found no difference between mean level of synchrony in mother–child vs. father–child dyads during problem-solving task, but found that mother–child synchrony strongly predicted child self-regulatory behaviors, whereas father–child synchrony did not. In our laboratory observations of families of 1st graders engaged in play, father–son dyads have been found to be more synchronous than father–daughter dyads (Carrillo & Harrist, 1997). Few studies have examined sex differences, though, and it is difficult to generalize from these three studies, given the age differences of the children as well as the different operationalizations of synchrony. Ethnic and cultural variations in dyadic interactional styles also remain to be investigated, particularly beyond the infancy era (see Portes, Cuentas, & Zady, 2000, for a recent discussion of ethnocultural contexts and parent– child interaction, and Wallbott, 1995, p. 94, for a discussion of crosscultural differences in styles of nonverbal exchange).

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

583

What is the relevance of studying synchrony in terms of application and intervention? Finally, little attention has been given to the application of the empirical findings summarized here for intervention or education purposes (see Leitch, 1999; Wendland-Carro, Piccinini, & Miller, 1999, for exceptions). Can observations of the level of synchrony among caregiver–child dyads be used diagnostically? Can parents be taught skills that facilitate synchronous interactions with their children? Can rejected children be taught skills that could facilitate more synchronous interactions with peers? Questions such as these may need to be considered as researchers design the next wave of studies examining dyadic interactional style. Conclusion Despite the fieldÕs limitations, the evidence presented here suggests that synchrony represents a significant achievement of close dyadic relationships. The capacity to foster its emergence, prolong its duration, and engender its future reemergence may reflect a developmental milestone for child–caregiver dyads, one that looks and functions slightly differently yet is still significant at each early developmental period. Researchers and theorists are therefore encouraged to consider the nature of the synchrony construct as they study children and child–caregiver dyads beyond the infancy era. References Acebo, C., & Thoman, E. B. (1994). Role of infant crying in the early mother–infant dialogue. Physiology and Behavior, 57, 541–547. Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Bell, S. M. (1969). Some contemporary patterns of mother-infant interaction in the feeding situation. In A. Ambrose (Ed.), Stimulation in early infancy (pp. 133–170). London: Academic Press. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M., & Stayton, D. J. (1972). Individual differences in the development of some attachment behaviors. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 18, 123–143. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M., & Stayton, D. J. (1974). Infant–mother attachment and social development: ÔSocialisationÕ as a product of reciprocal responsiveness to signals. In M. P. M. Richards (Ed.), The integration of a child into a social world (pp. 99–135). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ancona, D., & Chong, C. L. (1999). Cycles and synchrony: The temporal role of context in team behavior. In R. Wageman et al. (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams. Vol. 2: Groups in context (pp. 33–48). Stamford, CT: Jai Press. Arco, C. M., & McCluskey, K. A. (1981). ‘‘A change of pace’’: An investigation of the salience of maternal temporal style in mother–infant play. Child Development, 52, 941–949. Bahrick, L. E., & Lickliter, R. (2000). Intersensory redundancy guides attentional selectivity and perceptual learning in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 36, 190–201.

584

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

Bakeman, R., & Adamson, L. (1984). Coordinating attention to people and objects in mother– infant and peer–infant interaction. Child Development, 55, 1278–1289. Barth, J. M., & Parke, R. D. (1993). Parent–child relationship influences on childrenÕs transition to school. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 173–195. Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43–88. Baumrind, D. (1975). The contributions of the family to the development of competence in children. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 14, 12–37. Beebe, B., Gerstman, L., Carson, B., Dolins, M., Zigman, A., Rosensweig, H., Faughey, K., & Korman, M. (1982). Rhythmic communication in the mother–infant dyad. In M. Davis (Ed.), Interaction rhythms: Periodicity in communicative behavior (pp. 77–100). New York: Human Sciences Press. Beebe, B., Stern, D., & Jaffe, J. (1979). The kinesic rhythm of mother–infant interactions. In A. W. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Of speech and time: Temporal speech patterns in interpersonal contexts (pp. 23–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Belsky, J., Rovine, M., & Taylor, D. G. (1984). The Pennsylvania Infant and Family Development Project: III. The origins of individual differences in infant–mother attachment: Maternal and infant contributions. Child Development, 55, 718–728. Bernieri, F. J. (1988). Coordinated movement and rapport in teacher–student interactions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 120–138. Bernieri, F. J., Davis, J. M., Rosenthal, R., & Knee, C. R. (1994). Interactional synchrony and rapport: Measuring synchrony in displays devoid of sound and facial affect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 303–311. Bernieri, F. J., Reznick, S., & Rosenthal, R. (1988). Synchrony, pseudosynchrony, and dissynchrony: Measuring the entrainment process in mother–infant interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 243–253. Biringen, Z. (1990). Direct observations of maternal sensitivity and dyadic interactions in the home: Relations to maternal thinking. Developmental Psychology, 26, 278–284. Black, B., & Logan, A. (1995). Links between communication patterns in mother–child, father– child, and child–peer interactions and childrenÕs social status. Child Development, 66, 255– 271. Booth, C. L., Lyons, N. B., & Barnard, K. E. (1984). Synchrony in mother–infant interaction: A comparison of measurement methods. Child Study Journal, 14, 95–114. Bornstein, M. H., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Tal, J., Ludemann, P., Toda, S., Rahn, C. W., P^echeux, M. G., Azuma, H., & Vardi, D. (1992). Maternal responsiveness to infants in three societies: The United States, France, and Japan. Child Development, 63, 808–821. Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. I: Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books. Brazelton, T. B. (1984). Four early stages in the development of mother–infant interaction. In N. Kobayashi & T. B. Brazelton (Eds.), The growing child in family and society: An interdisciplinary study in parent–infant bonding (pp. 19–34). Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Brazelton, T. B., & Als, H. (1979). Four early stages in the development of mother–infant interaction. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 40, 349–360. Brazelton, T. B., Koslowski, B., & Main, M. (1974). The origins of reciprocity: The early mother–infant interaction. In M. Lewis & L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.), The effect of the infant on its caregiver (pp. 49–76). New York: Wiley. Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. Growing points of attachment theory and research, 50 (1–2, Serial No. 209), 3–35. Brownell, C., Etheridge, W., & Hungerford, A. (1995). Relations between maternal behavior and toddlers’ self-regulation. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis.

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

585

Bruner, J. S. (1983). ChildÕs talk. New York: W.W. Norton. Cairns, R. B. (1979). Social development: The origins and plasticity of interchanges. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. Carrillo, S., & Harrist, A. W. (1997, April). Contribution of father–child interaction style to children’s interaction with peers. Paper presented in symposia at the annual meeting of the Southwestern Psychological Association, Dallas, TX. Censullo, M., Bowler, R., Lester, B., & Brazelton, T. B. (1987). An instrument for the measurement of infant–mother synchrony. Nursing Research, 36, 244–248. Chappell, P. F., & Sander, L. W. (1979). Mutual regulation of the neonatal–maternal interactive process: Context for the origins of communication. In M. Bullowa (Ed.), Before speech: The beginning of interpersonal communication (pp. 111–130). New York: Cambridge University Press. Chapple, E. D. (1982). Movement and sound: The musical language of body rhythms in interaction. In M. Davis (Ed.), Interaction rhythms: Periodicity in communicative behavior (pp. 31–52). New York: Human Sciences Press. Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (1973). Interactions between mothers and their young children: Characteristics and consequences. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 38 (6–7, Serial No. 153), 1–108. Cohn, J. F., & Tronick, E. Z. (1988). Mother–infant face-to-face interaction: Influence is bidirectional and unrelated to periodic cycles in either partnerÕs behavior. Developmental Psychology, 24, 386–392. Collis, G. M. (1979). Describing the structure of social interaction in infancy. In M. Bullowa (Ed.), Before speech: The beginning of interpersonal communication (pp. 89–110). New York: Cambridge University Press. Condon, W. S., & Sander, L. W. (1974). Synchrony demonstrated between movements of the neonate and adult speech. Child Development, 45, 456–462. Crawley, S. B., Rogers, P. P., Friedman, S., Iacobbo, M., Criticos, A., Richardson, L., & Thompson, M. A. (1978). Developmental changes in the structure of mother–infant play. Developmental Psychology, 14, 30–36. Crittenden, P. M. (1988). Relationship at risk. In J. Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment (pp. 136–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Crown, C. L., Flaspohler, D. C., Feldstein, S., Jaffe, J., Beebe, B., & Jasnow, M. (1996). Mathematical models for coordinated interpersonal timing in mother– infant interactions in the first year of life. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 617–628. Deater-Deckard, K., & OÕConnor, T. G. (2001). Parent–child mutuality in early childhood: Two behavioral genetic studies. Developmental Psychology, 36, 561–570. De Wolff, M. S., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment. Child Development, 68, 571–591. Dickstein, S. L. (1998). The effects of the presence of a friendly dog on anxiety and rapport development (Doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 6231. Di Paolo, E. A. (2001). Behavioral coordination, structural congruence and entrainment in a simulation of acoustically coupled agents. Adaptive Behavior, 8, 27–48. Dromi, E. (1993). The development of prelinguistic communication: Implication for language evaluation. In J. J. Anastasiow & S. Harel (Eds.), At-risk infants: Interventions, families, and research (pp. 19–26). Baltimore: Paul Brookes. Dunham, P., & Dunham, F. (1995). Optimal social structures and adaptive infant development. In C. Moore & P. Dunham (Eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 159–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Dunn, J. (1983). Sibling relationships in early childhood. Child Development, 54, 787–811.

586

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

Emde, R. N. (1984). The affective self: Continuities and transformations from infancy. In J. D. Call, E. Galenson, & R. L. Tyson (Eds.), Frontiers of infant psychiatry (Vol. II, pp. 38–54). New York: Basic Books. Emde, R. N., Gaensbauer, T. J., & Harmon, R. J. (1976). Emotional expression in infancy: A biobehavioral study. Psychological Issues (10 (1, Monograph No. 37)). New York: International Universities Press. Farran, D. C., & Kasari, C. (1990). A longitudinal analysis of the development of synchrony in mutual gaze in mother–child dyads. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 11, 419– 430. Feldman, R., Greenbaum, C. W., & Yirmiya, N. (1999). Mother–infant affect synchrony as an antecedent of the emergence of self-control. Developmental Psychology, 35, 223–231. Feldstein, S., Jaffe, J., Beebe, B., Crown, C. L., Jasnow, M. J., Fox, H., & Gordon, S. (1993). Coordinated interpersonal timing in adult-infant vocal interactions: A cross-site replication. Infant Behavior and Development, 16, 455–470. Field, T. (1981). Infant arousal, attention, and affect during early interactions. In L. P. Lipsitt & C. K. Rovee-Collier (Eds.), Advances in infancy research (Vol. 1, pp. 57–100). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Field, T. (1985). Attachment as psychobiological attunement: Being on the same wavelength. In M. Reite & T. Field (Eds.), The psychobiology of attachment and separation (pp. 415–451). New York: Academic Press. Field, T. (1987). Affective and interactive disturbances in infants. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (2nd ed.., pp. 972–1005). New York: Wiley. Field, T. M. (1995). Psychologically depressed parents. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting, Vol. 4: Applied and practical parenting (pp. 85–99). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Field, T., Healy, B. T., Goldstein, S., & Guthertz, M. (1990). Behavior-state matching and synchrony in mother–infant interactions of nondepressed versus depressed dyads. Developmental Psychology, 26, 7–14. Fogel, A. (1982). Affective dynamics in early infancy: Affective tolerance. In T. Field & A. Fogel (Eds.), Emotion and early interaction (pp. 25–56). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Fogel, A. (1993). Two principles of communication: Co-regulation and framing. In J. Nadel & L. Camaioni (Eds.), New perspective in early communicative development (pp. 9–22). London: Routledge. Fogel, A., & Thelen, E. (1987). Development of early expressive and communicative action: Reinterpreting the evidence from a dynamic systems perspective. Developmental Psychology, 23, 747–761. Garcia-Sellers, M. J., & Church, B. A. (2000). Avoidance, frustration, and hostility during toddlersÕ interaction with their mothers and fathers. Infant–Toddler Intervention, 10, 259– 274. Geiger, B. (1995). Fathers as primary caregivers. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Gianino, A., & Tronick, E. Z. (1988). The mutual regulation model: The infantÕs self and interactive regulation and coping defensive capacities. In T. M. Field, P. M. McCabe, & N. Schneiderman (Eds.), Stress and coping across development (pp. 47–68). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gilbride, K. E. (1988). Adolescent maternal behavior: Assessment over time and its relationship to infant–mother attachment [CD-ROM]. Abstract from ProQuest File, Dissertation Abstracts Item: 1045500. Gogate, L. J., Bahrick, L. E., & Watson, J. D. (2000). A study of multimodal motherese: The role of temporal synchrony between verbal labels and gestures. Child Development, 71, 878– 894. Gottfried, A. W., Rose, S. A., & Bridger, W. H. (1977). Cross-modal transfer in human infants. Child Development, 48, 118–123.

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

587

Gottman, J. M. (1983). How children become friends. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 48 (3, Serial No. 201). Gottman, J. M., & DeClaire, J. (1997). The heart of parenting: How to raise an emotionally intelligent child. New York: Simon & Schuster. Gross, P. H., & McCallum, R. S. (2000). Operationalization and predictive utility of mother– daughter synchrony. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 279–294. Haden, C. A., Reese, E., & Fivush, R. (1996). MothersÕ extratextual comments during storybook reading: Stylistic differences over time and across texts. Discourse Processes, 21, 135–169. Haft, W. L., & Slade, A. (1989). Affect attunement and maternal attachment: A pilot study. Special Issue: Internal representations and parent–infant relationships. Infant Mental Health Journal, 10, 157–172. Hann, D. M., Osofsky, J. D., Barnard, K. E., & Leonard, G. (1994). Dyadic affect regulation in three caregiving environments. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64, 263–269. Harris, S., Kasari, C., & Sigman, M. D. (1996). Joint attention and language gains in children with Down syndrome. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 100, 608–619. Harrist, A. W., Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Dyadic synchrony in mother– child interaction: Relation with childrenÕs subsequent kindergarten adjustment. Family Relations, 43, 417–424. Hartup, W. W. (1989). Social relationships and their developmental significance. American Psychologist, 44, 120–126. Hartup, W. W., & Laursen, B. (1991). Relationships as developmental contexts. In R. Cohen & A. W. Siegel (Eds.), Context and development (pp. 253–279). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hartup, W. W., & Rubin, Z. (Eds.). (1986). Relationships and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hinde, R. A. (1979). Towards understanding relationships. London: Academic Press. Hofer, M. A. (1987). Early social relationships: A psychobiologistÕs view. Child Development, 58, 633–647. Howes, C. (1996). The earliest friendships. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 66–86). New York: Cambridge University Press. Isabella, R. A., & Belsky, J. (1991). Interactional synchrony and the origins of infant–mother attachment: A replication study. Child Development, 62, 373–383. Isabella, R. A., Belsky, J., & von Eye, A. (1989). Origins of infant–mother attachment: An examination of interactional synchrony during the infantÕs first year. Developmental Psychology, 25, 12–21. Jaffe, F., Beebe, B., Feldstein, S., Crown, C. L., & Jasnow, M. D. (2001). Rhythms of dialogue in infancy. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 66 (2, Serial No. 265). Joy-Bryant, R. (1991). The effects of stress on reciprocal matching behaviors of preterm infants and their caregivers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin. Karger, R. H. (1979). Synchrony in mother–infant interactions. Child Development, 50, 882– 885. Kaye, K., & Charney, R. (1980). How mothers maintain ‘‘dialogue’’ with two-year-olds. In D. Olsen (Ed.), The social foundations of language and thought (pp. 211–230). New York: Norton. Keller, H., V€ olker, S., Lohaus, A., Cappenberg, M., & Chasiotis, A. (1997, April). The myth of contingency. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, DC. Kirsh, S. J., Crnic, K. A., & Greenberg, M. (1995). Relations between parent–child affect and synchrony and cognitive outcome at 5 years of age. Personal Relationships, 2, 187–198.

588

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

Klinnert, M. D., Campos, J., Sorce, J., Emde, R. N., & Svejda, M. J. (1983). Social referencing: Emotional expressions as behavior regulators. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion: Theory, research and experience: Vol. 2. Emotions in early development (pp. 57–86). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Kobayashi, N., Ishii, T., Watanabe, T., Takahashi, E., & Kato, T. (1984). Computer analysis of entrainment in mother-neonate interaction and its clinical and scientific significance. In N. Kobayashi & T. B. Brazelton (Eds.), The growing child in family and society: An interdisciplinary study in parent–infant bonding (pp. 3–18). Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Kochanska, G. (1997). Mutually responsive orientation between mothers and their young children: Implications for early socialization. Child Development, 68, 94–112. Korner, A. F. (1974). The effect of the infantÕs state, level of arousal, sex and ontogenetic stage on the caregiver. In M. Lewis & L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.), The effect of the infant on its caregiver (pp. 105–121). New York: Wiley. Kraemer, G. W. (1992). A psychobiological theory of attachment. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 493–511. Kraemer, G. W., Ebert, M. H., Schmidt, D. E., & McKinney, W. T. (1991). Strangers in a strange land: A psychobiological study of infant monkeys before and after separation from real or inanimate mothers. Child Development, 62, 548–566. Kurzban, R. B. (1999). The social psychophysics of cooperation in groups (Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Santa Barbara). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 13–50. Ladd, G. W. (1992). Themes and theories: Perspectives on processes in family–peer relationships. In R. D. Parke & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Family–peer relationships: Modes of linkage (pp. 3–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lay, K. L., Waters, E., & Park, K. A. (1989). Maternal responsiveness and child compliance: The role of mood as a mediator. Child Development, 60, 1405–1411. Leitch, D. B. (1999). Mother–infant interaction: Achieving synchrony. Nursing Research, 48, 55–58. Lester, B., Hoffman, J., & Brazelton, T. B. (1985). The rhythmic structure of mother–infant interaction in term and preterm infants. Child Development, 56, 15–27. Lewis, M., Young, G., Brooks, J., & Michalson, L. (1975). The beginning of friendship. In M. Lewis & L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.), Friendship and peer relations: The origins of behavior (pp. 27–66). New York: Wiley. Lindsey, E. W., Mize, J., & Pettit, G. S. (1997). Mutuality in parent–child play: Consequences for childrenÕs peer competence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 523–538. Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1006–1017. Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington & P. H. Mussen (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1–87). New York: Wiley. Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In: I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. Growing points in attachment theory and research 50 (1–2, Serial No. 209), 66–104. Matas, L., Arend, R. A., & Sroufe, L. A. (1978). Continuity of adaptation in the second year: The relationship between quality of attachment and later competence. Child Development, 49, 547–556. McDowall, J. J. (1978). Interactional synchrony: A reappraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 963–975. Mize, J., & Pettit, G. S. (1997). MothersÕ social coaching, mother–child relationship style, and childrenÕs peer competence: Is the medium the message? Child Development, 68, 312–332.

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

589

Moore, C., & Dunham, P. (1995). Joint attention: Its origins and role in development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Moran, G., Dumas, J. E., & Symons, D. K. (1992). Approaches to sequential analysis and the description of contingency in behavioral interaction. Behavioral Assessment, 14, 65–92. Murray, L., & Trevarthen, C. (1986). The infantÕs role in mother–infant communications. Journal of Child Language, 13, 15–29. Newson, J. (1977). An intersubjective approach to the systematic description of mother–infant interaction. In H. R. Schaffer (Ed.), Studies in mother–infant interaction (pp. 47–61). London: Academic Press. Papousek, M. (1995). Origins of reciprocity and mutuality in prelinguistic parent–infant Ôdialogues. In I. Markova, C. F. Graumann, & K. Foppa (Eds.), Mutualities in dialogue. New York: Cambridge University Press. Papousek, H., & Papousek, M. (1981). Musical elements in the infantÕs vocalization: Their significance for communication, cognition, and creativity. In L. P. Lipsitt & C. K. RoveeCollier (Eds.), Advances in infancy research (Vol. 1, pp. 163–224). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Papousek, H., & Papousek, M. (1987). Intuitive parenting: A dialectic counterpart to the infantÕs integrative competence. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (2nd ed.., pp. 669–720). New York: Wiley. Papousek, H., & Papousek, M. (1992). Beyond emotional bonding: The role of preverbal communication in mental growth and health. Infant Mental Health Journal, 13, 43–53. Parke, R. D., Cassidy, J., Burks, V. M., Carson, J. L., & Boyum, L. (1992). Familial contribution to peer competence among young children: The role of interactive and affective processes. In R. D. Parke & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Family–peer relationships: Modes of linkage (pp. 107–134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Parpal, M., & Maccoby, E. E. (1985). Maternal responsiveness and subsequent child compliance. Child Development, 56, 1326–1334. Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia. Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. (1992). Anti-social boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia. Pettit, G. S., & Mize, J. (1993). Substance and style: Understanding the ways in which parents teach children about social relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Understanding relationship processes: Vol. 2. Learning about relationships (pp. 118–151). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pianta, R. C., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (1989). Continuity and discontinuity in maternal sensitivity at 6, 24, and 42 months in a high-risk sample. Child Development, 60, 481–487. Portes, P. R., Cuentas, T. E., & Zady, M. (2000). Cognitive socialization across ethnocultural contexts: Literacy and cultural differences in intellectual performance and parent–child interaction. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 161, 79–98. Powers, W. T. (1979). Cybernetic theory: Research models in child development. In M. N. Ozer (Ed.), A cybernetic approach to assessment of children: Toward a more humane use of human beings. Boulder, CO: Westview. Raver, C. C. (1996). Relations between social contingency in mother–child interaction and 2-year-oldsÕ social competence. Developmental Psychology, 32, 850–859. Rescorla, L., & Fechnay, T. (1996). Mother–child synchrony and communicative reciprocity in late-talking toddlers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 200–208. Rochat, P. (2001). Dialogical nature of cognition (commentary). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 66 (2, Serial No. 265), 133–143. Rocissano, L., Slade, A., & Lynch, V. (1987). Dyadic synchrony and toddler compliance. Developmental Psychology, 23, 698–704. Rocissano, L., & Yatchmink, Y. (1983). Language skill and interactive patterns in prematurely born toddlers. Child Development, 54, 1229–1241. Ross, H. S., Cheyne, J. A., & Lollis, S. P. (1988). Defining and studying reciprocity in young children. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 143–160). New York: Wiley.

590

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

Ruff, H. A., & Rothbart, M. K. (1996). Attention in early development. New York: Oxford University Press. Russell, A., Pettit, G. S., & Mize, J. (1998). Horizontal qualities in parent–child relationships: Parallels with and possible consequence for childrenÕs peer relationships. Developmental Review, 18, 313–352. Rutter, D. R., & Durkin, K. (1987). Turn-taking in mother–infant interaction: An examination of vocalizations and gaze. Developmental Psychology, 23, 54–61. Schaffer, H. R., & Crook, C. R. (1978). The role of the mother in early social development. In H. McGurk (Ed.), Issues in childhood social development (pp. 55–78). Cambridge: University Press. Schaffer, H. R., & Crook, C. R. (1980). Child compliance and maternal control techniques. Developmental Psychology, 16, 54–61. Sch€ olmerich, A., Fracasso, M. P., Lamb, M. E., & Broberg, A. G. (1995). Interactional harmony a 7 and 10 months of age predicts security of attachment as measured by Q-sort ratings. Social Development, 4, 6274. Sch€ olmerich, A., Lamb, M. E., Leyendecker, B., & Fracasso, M. P. (1997). Mother–infant teaching interactions and attachment security in Euro-American and Central-American immigrant families. Infant Behavior Development, 20, 165–174. Smith, P. B., & Pederson, D. R. (1988). Maternal sensitivity and patterns of infant–mother attachment. Child Development, 59, 1097–1101. Smollar, J., & Youniss, J. (1982). Social development through friendship. In K. H. Rubin & H. S. Ross (Eds.), Peer relationships and social skills in childhood (pp. 279–298). New York: Springer-Verlag. Snow, C. (1984). Parent–child interaction and the development of communicative ability. In R. L. Schiefelbusch & J. Pickar (Eds.), The acquisition of communicative competence (pp. 69– 107). Baltimore: University Park Press. Snyder, J., Edwards, P., McGraw, K., Kilgore, K., & Holton, A. (1994). Escalation and reinforcement in mother–child conflict: Social processes associated with the development of physical aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 305–321. Sroufe, L. A., & Rutter, M. (1984). The domain of developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55, 17–29. Sroufe, L. A., & Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the construction of relationships. In W. W. Hartup & Z. Rubin (Eds.), Relationships and development (pp. 51–71). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Stern, D. N. (1974). Mother and infant at play: The dyadic interaction involving facial, vocal, and gaze behaviors. In M. Lewis & L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.), The effect of the infant on its caregiver (pp. 187–214). New York: Wiley. Stern, D. N. (1977). The first relationship. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Stern, D. N. (1985). The interpersonal world of the infant: A view from psycho-analysis and developmental psychology. New York: Basic Books. Stern, D. N. (1994). One way to build a clinically relevant baby. Infant Mental Health Journal, 15, 9–25. Stern, D. N., Hofer, L., Haft, W., & Dore, J. (1985). Affect attunement: The sharing of feeling states between mother and infant by means of intermodal fluency. In T. M. Field & N. A. Fox (Eds.), Social perception in early infancy (pp. 249–268). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Szajnberg, N. M., Skrinjaric, J., & Moore, A. (1989). Affect attunement, attachment, temperament, and zygosity: A twin study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 249–253. Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Bornstein, M., & Baumwell, L. (2001). Maternal responsiveness and childrenÕs achievement of language milestones. Child Development, 72, 748–767.

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

591

Tarabulsy, G. M., Tessier, R., & Kappas, A. (1996). Contingency detection and the contingent organization of behavior in interactions: Implications for socioemotional development in infancy. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 25–41. Thoman, E. B., & Browder, S. (1987). Born dancing. New York: Harper Row. Tinbergen, N. (1974). Ethology and stress diseases. Science, 185, 20–27. Tomasello, M., & Farrar, M. (1986). Joint attention and early language. Child Development, 57, 1454–1463. Trees, A. R. (2000). Nonverbal communication and the support process: Interactional sensitivity in interactions between mothers and young adult children. Communication Monograph, 67, 239–261. Trevarthen, C. (1979). Communication and cooperation in early infancy: A description of primary intersubjectivity. In M. Bullowa (Ed.), Before speech: The beginning of interpersonal communication (pp. 321–348). New York: Cambridge University Press. Tronick, E. Z. (1989). Emotions and emotional communication in infants. American Psychologist, 44, 112–119. Tronick, E. Z., Als, H., & Brazelton, T. B. (1977). Mutuality in mother–infant interaction. Journal of Communication, 27, 74–79. Tronick, E. Z., & Gianino, A. (1986). Interactive mismatch and repair: Challenges to the coping infant. Zero to Three, 6, 1–6. Tronick, E. Z., Ricks, M., & Cohn, J. F. (1982). Maternal and infant affective exchange: Patterns of adaptation. In T. Field & A. Fogel (Eds.), Emotion and early interaction (pp. 83– 100). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tsuk, K.E. (1998). The emotional relationship between mothers and their aggressive young children: An observation of mother–child interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, York University. Turkewitz, G., Gardner, J. M., & Lewkowicz, D. J. (1984). Sensory/perceptual functioning during early infancy: The implications of a quantitative basis for responding. In G. Greenberg & E. Tobach (Eds.), Behavioral evolution and integrative levels (pp. 167–195). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Vandell, D. L., & Mueller, E. C. (1994). Peer play and friendships during the first two years. In H. C. Foot, A. J. Chapman, & J. R. Smith (Eds.), Friendship and social relations in children (pp. 181–208). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction (Rev. ed.). Vizziello, G. M. F., Ferrero, C., & Musicco, M. (2000). Parent–child synchrony of interaction. In P. M. Crittenden & A. H. Claussen (Eds.), The organization of attachment relationships: Maturation, culture, and context (pp. 38–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.) Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wahler, R. G., & Dumas, J. (1987). Family factors in childhood psychology: Toward a coercion-neglect model. In T. T. Jacobs (Ed.), Family interaction and psychopathology: Theories, methods and findings (pp. 581–627). New York: Plenum. Wallbott, J. G. (1995). Congruence, contagion, and motor mimicry: Mutualities in nonverbal exchange. In I. Markova, C. F. Graumann, & K. Foppa (Eds.), Mutualities in dialogue (pp. 82–98). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weinberg, M. K., Tronick, E. Z., Cohn, J. F., & Olson, K. L. (1999). Gender differences in emotional expressivity and self-regulation during early infancy. Developmental Psychology, 35, 175–188. Wendland-Carro, J., Piccinini, C. A., & Miller, W. S. (1999). The role of an early intervention on enhancing the quality of mother–infant interaction. Child Development, 70, 713–721. Willis, C. J. (1990). The measurement of mutual nonverbal coordination in the psychotherapeutic process: An exploratory study of the development of an index for clinical use (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, A3856.

592

A.W. Harrist, R.M. Waugh / Developmental Review 22 (2002) 555–592

Youngblade, L. M., & Belsky, J. (1992). Parent–child antecedents of 5-year-oldsÕ close friendships: A longitudinal analysis. Developmental Psychology, 28, 700–713. Youngblade, L. M., Park, K. A., & Belsky, J. (1993). Measurement of young childrenÕs close friendship: A comparison of two independent assessment systems and their associations with attachment security. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16, 563–587. Youniss, J. (1980). Parents and peers in social development: A Sullivan-Piaget perspective. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Zimmermann, P., Maier, M. A., Winter, M., & Grossmann, K. E. (2001). Attachment and adolescentsÕ emotion regulation during a joint problem-solving task with a friend. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 331–343.