Affective

Development
in
Infancy

edited by
T. Berry Brazelton
Michael W. Yogman
Children's Hospital, Boston

ABLEX PUBLISHING CORPORATION NORWOOD, NEW JERSEY

Copyright 1986 by Ablex Publishing Corporation

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, micro filming,
recording, or otherwise, without permission of the publisher.
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Main entry under title:
Affective development in infancy.
Bibliography: p.
Includes indexes.
I. Brazelton, T. Berry. II. Yogman, Michael W.
ISBN 0-89391-345-6

Ablex Publishing Corporation

355 Chestnut Street
Norwood, New Jersey 07648

Contents

1.

Introduction: Reciprocity, Attachment, and Effectance: Anlage in Early Infancy 1

T. Berry Brazelton and Michael W. Yogman

2. The Transfer of Affect between Mothers and Infants 11

Edward Tronick, Jeffrey Cohn, and Elizabeth Shea

3. Assessment of Parent-Infant Relationships 27

Bert Cramer

4.

Crying in Early Infancy: An Illustration of the Motivational Function of Affect 39

Virginia Demos

5.

Social Referencing and Social Looking Among Twelve-Month-Old Infants 75

Robert B. Clyman, Robert N. Emde, Jennifer E. Kempe, and Robert J. Harmon

6.

Discovery of an Insecure-Disorganized/Disoriented Attachment Pattern 95

Mary Main and Judith Solomon

7. Affective Responses to Separation 125

Tiffany Field

8. Affective Development in Young Children 145

Marian Radke-Yarrow

Author Index 153

Subject Index 157

Chapter Six
Discovery of an Insecure-Disorganized/Disoriented
Attachment Pattern
Mary Main
University of California, Berkeley

Judith Solomon
Developmental Studies Center
San Ramon, California

The aim of this chapter is to present our recent discovery of a new, insecuredisorganized/disoriented category of infant-parent attachment. Our discovery of
this attachment category is based upon our study of inWe are grateful to the Institute of Human Development, Berkeley, CA, and to the Society for
Research in Child Development for funding which made the study of our families at 6 years
possible. In its earlier phases, the Berkeley Social Development Project was supported by The
William T. Grant Foundation, by the Alvin Nye Main foundation, and by BioMedical Support
Grants 1-444036-32024 and 1-444036-32025. In its final stages, the preparation of this chapter was
assisted by a grant from The Harris Foundation of Chicago.
We are grateful to the following researchers for permitting us to view their strange situation
videotapes: Wanda Bronson, of the Institute of Human Development, Berkeley; Carol George,
Developmental Studies Center, San Ramon, CA; Mary J. O'Connor, Marian Sigmund, and Nancy
Brill, of the University of California at Los Angeles; and Susan Spieker and Kathryn Barnard, Child
Development and Mental Retardation Center, University of Washington, Seattle. Jude Cassidy, Ruth
Goldwyn, Nancy Kaplan, Anitra DeMoss, and Amy Strage were responsible for much of the 6thyear analyses, while Donna Weston was responsible for the identification of many infants in our
sample as "unclassifiable."
A meeting of the MacArthur Network sponsored by Mark Greenberg in Seattle (January 1985)
provided helpful commentary regarding the present chapter. We are particularly indebted for
feedback provided by Dante Cicchetti, Carol George, Robert Harmon, Bob Harmon, and Susan
Spieker. Mary Ainsworth generously provided helpful commentary and continuing support while
we were engaged in developing this expansion of her original system for classifying infant
attachment organization.

95

96

MAIN AND SOLOMON

fant response to the Ainsworth strange situation procedure, a brief, structured

observation of the infant's response to separation from and reunion with the
parent in the laboratory setting (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978).
Individual differences in infant response to this situation presently permit
placement of infants in one of three major "attachment classifications," that is,
as secure (group B), insecure-avoidant (group A), or insecure-ambivalent
(group C) with respect to the parent with whom the infant is observed.
Directions for classification are based upon the infant's behavior in response to
separation and reunion in this setting. Very briefly, infants are classified as
secure (group B) when they greet the parent positively upon reunion, "settling"
if distressed and showing little or no avoidance or resistance toward the parent;
insecure-avoidant (group A) if they actively avoid and resist the parent upon
reunion; and insecure-ambivalent (group C) if they show high levels of distress
throughout the strange situation, and combine weak to strong proximity-seeking
with mild to obvious resistance and inability to be settled by the parent. Almost
all investigators working with low-risk, middle-class samples place each infant
in one of the three established categories, despite the occasional difficulties
presented by the infant whose behavior does not precisely fit to category.
The present, "A, B, C" classification system derives its strength from its tie
to home observations of mothers and infants in interaction. Briefly, mothers of
infants judged secure on the basis of strange situation behavior have repeatedly
been found more sensitive to the infant's signals, and/or more responsive than
mothers of infants judged insecure-avoidant or insecure-ambivalent (Ainsworth,
Bell, & Stayton, 1971; Ainsworth et al., 1978; Grossmann & Grossmann, 1985;
Belsky, Rovine, & Taylor, in press). In addition, strange situation attachment
classifications made in infancy have been found predictive of the child's social
and emotional behavior several years following the infancy assessment. In an
impressive series of follow-up studies conducted in several differing
laboratories, children judged secure in the strange situation with mother in
infancy have repeatedly been found to be more cooperative, more empathic, and
more competent than children who were judged insecure with mother in infancy
(Sroufe, in press; see also Bretherton & Waters, 1985, for a summary of these
studies and for a series of the most recent studies). "Forced" A, B, C
classification of each infant in a given sample has likely over-ridden the
occasional mis-fitting infant; nonetheless, it has not obscured this remarkably
consistent set of research findings.
In this chapter we describe commonalities observed in the behavior of 55
12- to 20-month-old infants whose strange situation behavior could not be
classified using the traditional (A, B, C) classification system, infants who
would nonetheless have been assigned ("forced") into one of

AN INSECURE-DISORGANIZED/DISORIENTED ATTACHMENT PATTERN

97

these three classifications. Our descriptions are based upon close review of the
videotaped strange situation behavior of "unclassifiable" infants, 21 of the
strange situation tapes being drawn from high-risk/maltreatment samples, and
34 from our own, upper middle-class sample of intact families.
Given that a group of infants this large could not be classified because of
failure to meet the group "A", "B," or C" behavioral descriptors, the
identification of several new patterns of strange situation behavior might well
have been expected (e.g., a set of coherent and distinct "D," "E," "F," and "G"
types of behavioral response to separation and reunion). The central discovery
we report here is, surprisingly, the striking absence of such new categories of
infant strange situation response. Infants who cannot be classified within the
present, "A, B, C" system do not appear to us to resemble one another in
strange situation behavior in coherent, organized ways. Rather, within our
normal sample, the behavior of these infants appears disorganized (e.g.,
contradictory, as when an infant approaches with head averted) and/or
disoriented with respect to the environment (e.g., the infant may cease
movement in anomalous postures, or appear dazed). Often, an underlying,
traditional (A, B, C) category remains evident. Most high-risk sample infants
observed to date show similar, although more extreme, indices of
disorganization and disorientation during the strange situation (see Main &
Solomon, in preparation, for more complete consideration of such samples).
Commonalities in the behavior of these 55 "unclassifiable" infants observed
in the strange situation can be characterized by an array of features. Either
behavior is overtly disorganized, or the infant seems disoriented with respect to
the immediate environment. Thus, we have seen in these infants (a) disordering
of expected temporal sequences (e.g., strong avoidance following a strong
proximity-seeking), (b) simultaneous display of contradictory behavior
patterns (e.g., approaching with head averted, gazing strongly away while in
contact), (c) incomplete or undirected movements and expressions, including
stereotypies (e.g., undirected expressions of fear or distress, stereotypic
rocking), (d) direct indices of confusion and of apprehension (e.g., hand-tomouth gestures immediately upon parent's entrance), and (e) behavioral stilling
(e.g., cessation of movement in postures suggestive of confusion or depression
and dazed, disoriented expressions suggest the activation of competing,
mutually inhibitory systems).
Our chapter begins with a review of previous studies reporting difficulties in
"forcing" each infant in a given sample into one of the three major categories.
In an earlier report, we had noted that a number of infants seen in the Ainsworth
Strange Situation in our laboratories failed to fit satisfactorily into any of the
three major attachment classifications de-

98

MAIN AND SOLOMON

scribed by Ainsworth (Main & Weston, 1981). Our impression at that time,
based upon a structured play session videotaped 1 week prior to the strange
situation, was that all of these infants were insecure with respect to the parent
with whom they were seen in the strange situation. However, the majority of
these "unclassified" (now, disorganized-disoriented) infants would have been
identified as secure (group B) with the parent in the strange situation, had we
forced them into the standard classification system.
Our continued study of the same Berkeley Social Development Project
sample has shown that disorganized/disoriented (D) infant attachment status is
independent across caregivers (parents), and stable (distinguishable from A, B,
or C attachment patterns) across a 5-year period (Cassidy & Main, 1984). Our
follow-up studies of this sample at 6 years of age show substantial insecurity in
6-year-old children who had been considered disorganized/disoriented with
mother 5 years previously, an insecurity exhibited at both the behavioral and
representational levels of assessment (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985).
Children for whom the "forced," strange situation classification had been secure
in infancy are found equally as insecure at 6 as children for whom the "forced"
infancy classification had been insecure. These findings suggest a need for the
use of the "D" category, even within normal, middle-class samples.
Early work with maltreatment samples had also led to an initial
classification of maltreated infants as "secure" within the present system of
categorization. Further review of strange situation tapes for infants in
maltreatment and other high-risk samples has now led to recognition of the
insecure attachment status of many of these infants and to recognition of new
combinations of strange situation behavior patterns (Egeland & Sroufe, 1981b;
Gaensbauer & Harmon, 1982; Crittenden, 1985a, 1985b; Spieker & Booth,
1985; Radke-Yarrow, Cummings, Kuczynski, & Chapman, 1985). Some
workers have emphasized qualities of apathy and disorganization, while some
have emphasized the unexpected appearance of both avoidance and resistance,
and/or anomalous behaviors. To this point in time, however, no single or
unifying set of instructions has been developed for the identification of these
and other infants who do not fit within the present Ainsworth system. This
chapter is descriptive of our first efforts in this direction.
The Ainsworth Strange Situation: Procedures and Findings
The Strange Situation Procedure
The Ainsworth strange situation is a brief, structured laboratory procedure
involving infant and parent in two separations and two reunions within an
unfamiliar setting. The situation was devised with the inten -

AN INSECURE-DISORGANIZED/DISORIENTED ATTACHMENT PATTERN

99

tion of highlighting the operation of the attachment behavioral system (Bowlby,

1969) as it is organized in normal infants at 12 months of age. The situation is
designed to elicit exploratory behavior in the early episodes and then, through a
series of mildly stressful events, to shift the infant's attention to the maintenance of
proximity and contact with the attachment figure.
The strange situation is divided into eight episodes, each (except the first one
minute introductory episode) being 3 minutes long. In the opening episode of the
session, infant and parent are introduced to an unfamiliar, comfortable laboratory
room filled with toys. A stranger enters the room; the parent leaves the infant in the
company of the stranger; the parent returns; the parent leaves the infant alone; the
stranger returns; the parent returns once more for the second and final reunion
episode. (In our laboratories, episodes in which the infant is distressed are reduced
to 30 seconds.)
During each reunion, the parent is instructed to pause in the doorway and greet
the infant, permitting time for the infant to mobilize a response to the parent's
arrival. On the second reunion, the parent is instructed to pick the infant up. A more
complete description of this procedure (together with the classification and coding
procedures described below) can be found in Ainsworth et al. (1978).
The critical systems of analysis devised by Ainsworth for classification of infant
attachment focus upon the two reunion episodes of the Strange Situation, when
infant and parent are alone together. As would be expected for a system designed to
highlight the organization of individual differences in attachment, there is some
emphasis upon proximity-seeking and efforts to maintain physical contact with the
parent. Greatest emphasis is placed, however, upon two types of negative behavior
(avoidance and angry resistance) observed in relation to the parent.
Classification Procedures, Reliability, and Stability
As noted earlier, the Ainsworth classification system is designed to permit
assignment of infants to one of three categoriessecure, insecure-avoidant, or
insecure-ambivalent in relation to the parent. Classifications are based upon infant
rather than parental behavior during the Strange Situation.
Infants are classified as secure (Group B) in relation to the parent when they
actively seek proximity and contact following separation, and when these behaviors
appear unmixed with strong anger or avoidance. In the preseparation episodes,
securely attached infants may examine the toys and explore the strange
environment. They may or may not be distressed upon separation, but if they are,
the mother's return provides

100

MAIN AND SOLOMON

comfort and enables them to return either to an engagement in play or to pleasant

interaction with the parent.
Infants are classified as insecure-avoidant (Group A) in relation to the parent
when they actively avoid and ignore the parent during both reunion episodes.
Avoidance of the parent is considered strong when the infant turns away and moves
away from the parent upon reunion, indicates a desire to be put down when picked
up (often in an affectless manner), and ignores the parent's efforts toward
communication. Infants classified as avoidant show no distress specific to the
parent's absence, and often explore the room and toys actively throughout the
strange situation. They are most striking for the apparent absence of fear, distress,
or anger.
Infants are classified as insecure-ambivalent/resistant (Group C) in relation to a
specific parent when they both seek proximity and contact upon reunion and resist
it (actively or passively), seeming to find little security in the parent's return or
presence. Infants classified as insecure-ambivalent are often distressed even before
the first separation and fearful of the person playing the part of the stranger. They
are often extremely distressed upon separation. Proximity-seeking may be weak
rather than active.
Interjudge agreement on the three major classifications is very high (Ainsworth
et al., 1978; Main & Weston, 1981; Matas, Arend, & Sroufe, 1978). The
distribution of categories varies surprisingly little for white middle-class samples
seen throughout the United States, and for samples in England, Southern Germany,
and Italy. The majority of infants in these samples are classified as secure (Group
B), one-fifth to one-third as insecure-avoidant (Group A), and a small minority as
insecure-ambivalent (Group C). In white middle-class samples in which caregiving
arrangements are stable, stability of attachment to a given parent is consistently
found strong across infancy, while attachment classifications for a given infant to
mother and to father are found independent (Bretherton, 1985). Recently,
attachment classifications to mother have been found stable (predictable) over a 5year period (Cassidy & Main, 1984). Stability in attachment classification between
12 and 60 months was based upon a comparison between strange situation behavior
in infancy and response to reunion with the parents following a 1-hour separation at
6 years of age.
Strange Situation Classifications Related to Observed Patterns of Infant-Mother
Interaction
Ainsworth's original study of infant Strange Situation behavior followed upon a
short-term longitudinal study of infant-mother interaction in the home situation.
Twenty-three infant-mother pairs, who had been ob-

AN INSECURE-DISORGANIZED/DISORIENTED ATTACHMENT PATTERN

101

served in the home for approximately 80 hours over the first year of life, were seen
in the laboratory strange situation. Classifications of infant attachment behavior
were based upon Ainsworth's extensive study of the narrative records of these
laboratory sessions. Her examination of these records of infant-mother interaction
in the home situation (9 to 12 months of age) showed that infants judged secure in
terms of strange situation behavior used mother as a "secure base for exploration"
in the home situation, while infants in each of the insecure groups exhibited
imbalances between attachment and exploratory behavior (Ainsworth et al., 1971).
At the same time, mothers of infants judged secure in terms of strange situation
behavior were more "sensitive to the signals and communications of the infant"
than mothers of insecure infants without being notably rejecting (Ainsworth et al.,
1971; Ainsworth et al., 1978).
Efforts to replicate Ainsworth's original investigations in the home or laboratory
environment have concentrated upon differences between the interactions of secure
(group B) vs. insecure (group A and C) dyads, but have seldom been extended to
distinctions between groups A and C (Lamb, Thompson, Gardner, Charnov, &
Estes, 1984). However, a positive relationship between maternal "sensitivity" or
responsiveness and infant security of attachment has been reported now for six
succeeding studies in the home (Grossmann & Grossmann, 1985; Belsky et al.,
1984; Maslin & Bates, 1982) and other settings (Sroufe & Rosenberg, 1982; Main,
Tomasini, & Tolan, 1979; Matas et al., 1978).
Strange Situation Classification Related to Child Behavior
If the strange situation is successful in differentiating infants with respect to
security of attachment, then it ought to have the power to predict the child's
functioning in separate contexts. A number of investigations have been undertaken
in the hope of distinguishing the behavior of infants securely attached to mother
from that of infants who are (or were) insecurely attached to mother within the
Ainsworth strange situation. Many of the earlier of these studies have been
reviewed in Bretherton (1985), while a number of new studies have been recently
completed (see the set of studies included in Bretherton & Waters, 1985). Children
who were judged secure with mother in infancy are found to be more cooperative,
more empathic, more socially competent, more invested in learning and
exploration, and more self-confident than children who were judged insecure with
mother in infancy. Significant group differences have been reported at least as late
as 5 and 6 years of age.
Until recently, most follow-up studies of infant strange situation behavior have
simply compared secure (group B) with non-secure (group A or C) children. Sroufe
and his colleagues at Minnesota have now reported

102

MAIN AND SOLOMON

differences in nursery-school behavior between children classified as A and

children classified as C with mother in infancy (Sroufe, in press). In our own
laboratories, recent studies of both behavioral and representational processes at 6
years of age show sharp distinctions between children judged B, A, and D as
infants (Main et al., 1985).
Individual differences in infant strange situation behavior do not, then, simply
reflect a single dimension of security vs. insecurity in attachment status. Studies
emerging from Berkeley and from Minnesota indicate that infants who differ in the
type of insecurity shown with mother in the Ainsworth strange situation (A, C, or
D) show continuing differences in mental and behavioral organization several years
later.
Reports of Difficulties in Strange Situation Classification
Continued use of the Ainsworth strange situation (particularly with high-risk
populations) has led to a number of reports of difficulties in assigning infants to the
three major classification groups, and to suggestions for alterations in the original
Ainsworth system. Here, we review these studies.
Instability of Classifications Over a 2-Week Period
The first report of difficulty in assignment of infants to strange situation
classification groups came from the Ainsworth laboratory in an early (1972) study
of stability of strange situation behavior (reported in Ainsworth et al., 1978). The
study involved 23 infant-mother dyads, seen in the strange situation at 50 and again
at 52 weeks of age. As noted previously, test-retest studies of comparable white
middle-class samples in which mother-child dyads are placed in separation and
reunion situations 6 months, 8 months, or 5 years apart have yielded strong stability
(from 80% to 95% of dyads being judged to fall in the same attachment
classification at both time periods). Placement with the same parent in the same
separation setting 2 weeks apart, however, was highly distressing for these 1-yearold infants, leading Ainsworth to terminate data collection earlier than planned.
In the first session, 7 of the 23 infants were classified as insecure-avoidant with the
mother, 14 as secure, and 2 as insecure-ambivalent. Judges reported great difficulty
in classifying infants in the second session. Forced classification procedures
yielded the following results: (1) 11 of the 12 infants classified secure in the first
procedure were judged secure again in the second, (2) 1 of the 2 infants classified
as insecure-ambivalent in the first strange situation was classified as secure in the
sec-

AN INSECURE-DISORGANIZED/DISORIENTED ATTACHMENT PATTERN

103

ond, (3) all 7 of the infants classified as insecure-avoidant with mother in the first
strange situation were classified as secure with mother in the second strange
situation. This study showed, in sum, that forced classification procedures can
place insecure infants in secure classifications.
Informal Notice of Difficult-to-Classify Infants in White,
Middle-Class Samples
In conjunction with data collection procedures for her doctoral thesis. Main
(unpublished data) visited her Baltimore sample mothers in the home situation just
prior to the Strange Situation assessment. The strange situation behavior of 5/49
(10.2%) of the infants in her sample was difficult to classify: for 4 of these 5,
informal home observations had suggested unusual degress of difficulty in the
mother-infant relationship. In the strange situation, 2 of the 5 notably difficult-toclassify infants were given "forced" classifications as securely attached to the
mother, while 3 were given forced classification in avoidant (A) or ambivalent (C)
categories while in fact exhibiting both A and C behavior patterns within the
strange situation. One of these latter children showed the extreme distress of the
insecure-ambivalent infant, but arched stiffly out of mother's arms, gaze averted,
while screaming.
Informally, these 3 children were termed "A-C" infants. However, both because
details of the home interaction patterns were unknown and because forced
classification procedures had always been used to date, for data analysis they were
assigned to one of the two insecure classifications. In our present view, each of the
infants would now have been termed insecure-disorganized/disoriented.
Similarly, Sroufe and Waters (1977) noted that of 70 infants classified according
to Ainsworth's strange situation procedure within their Minnesota sample, 10%
could not readily be fitted to one of Ainsworth's three categories. No system was
developed, however, with respect to these mis-fitting infants.
Direct Identification of Difficult-to-Classify lnfants Within a White Middle-Class
Sample
The first direct report of infants who failed to fit reliably into the Ainsworth
classification system was made by Main and Weston (1981). Their study of infant
strange situation behavior with mother and father, and behavior in a separate setting
involving structured interactions with a stranger, was undertaken in part "to identify
characteristics of infants judged unclassifiable within the Ainsworth system"; 152
strange situations (infant and mother, or infant and father) were reviewed; 19 of the
strange

104

MAIN AND SOLOMON

situations (12.5%) were judged unclassifiable using the Ainsworth criteria.

Alternative, "forced" A, B, or C classifications were made for each strange
situation.
Justifications for placement in the unclassifiable category included "behaves to
parent in reunion as a secure infant but behaves identically to the stranger";
"extreme avoidance is combined with extreme distress throughout the situation";
"physical behavior is that of a secure infantapproach, clingingbut infant is
affectless with signs of depression."
Judges viewing the strange situation behavior of these infants felt strongly that
they were insecure in their relationships to the parent with whom they were
unclassifiable. In addition, 6 infants who had been judged unclassifiable with
mother in the strange situation were observed with mother outside of the strange
situation, in a separate, structured play session. The strong conflict behavior of
these infants in this situation suggested the possibility that they were even less
secure with mother than infants in the two traditional insecure categories (Main &
Weston, 1981). Nonetheless, a strong majority of these infants (13/19) would have
been identified as secure with the parent had standardized, "forced" classification
procedures been utilized.
We have now completed assessments of strange situation behavior for 270
infant-mother or infant-father dyads within the Berkeley Social Development
Project Sample. In 2 cases, infant "avoidance" had been so casual that we were
uncertain whether the infant was attached to the parent (in each case, the father);
these cases are not considered further. Among the remaining 268 cases, 34 (12.7%)
were determined to be (below) insecure disorganized/disoriented. Among these 34
cases, the majority (21, or 62%) were judged "secure" in terms of forced
classifications, 8 (23%) were judged "insecure-ambivalent" in terms of forced
classifications, and 5 (15%) were alternately "insecure-avoidant." Note now that
within each of three, white middle-class samples (Main's Baltimore sample, Sroufe
and Waters' Minneapolis sample, and the Bay Area sample first described by Main
and Weston) approximately the same proportions of infants (from 10% to 13%)
have been considered unclassifiable within the Ainsworth system.
Difficulties in the Classification of Infants Within High-Risk and Maltreatment
Samples
In the Main thesis study, informal observations of mothers in the home on a brief
visit led to surprise at the (forced) "secure" infant classification in the case of two
infants who seemed to have experienced markedly disturbing interaction with the
mother in the home environment. Egeland and Sroufe, however (1981a), reported a
far more striking dissonance be-

AN INSECURE-DISORGANIZED/DISORIENTED ATTACHMENT PATTERN

105

tween histories of infant-mother interaction and infant strange situation

classification. Mothers in their Minnesota poverty sample included a number who
had been identified as neglecting, abusing, or both neglecting and abusing of the
infant. Infants were seen with mother in the Strange Situation at 12 months and
again at 18 months of age. At 12 months of age, 8 of the 24 neglected infants (33%)
were judged secure with mother in the strange situation, while at 18 months 47%
were judged secure. At 12 months, 2 of the 4 abused infants were judged secure
with mother in the strange situation; at 18 months, all 4 of these abused infants
were judged secure.
Given the reports that the "secure" pattern of response to the strange situation is
dependent upon a history of sensitive, responsive interactions with the parent,
findings such as these raise serious questions regarding the current classificatory
system. If consistently abused and neglected infants do respond exactly as secure
infants to the Ainsworth strange situation, then the procedure is severely limited in
its ability to represent an infant's interactional history. On the other hand, it may be
that the behavior of abused and neglected infants merely mimics that of secure
infants, and that closer examination of videotaped strange situation behavior would
reveal important differences.
With this reasoning in mind, Egeland and Sroufe undertook a second
examination of strange situation behavior in a separate publication regarding the
same sample (Egeland & Sroufe, 1981b). A "D" pattern of insecurity was
informally recognized, composed of infants "considered anxiously attached but
neither avoidant nor resistant (for example, apathetic or disorganized)." Many of
the abused and neglected infants were found to fit.
Gaensbauer and Harmon (1982) studied abused and neglected infants using a
separation-and-reunion procedure involving a single separation. They were,
however, well acquainted with the Ainsworth classification system and with the
types of reunion responses generally taken as indicative of security or insecurity. In
general, their observations were supportive of the expectation that abused and
neglected infants would show insecure attachment.
Gaensbauer and Harmon (1982) did not attempt to alter the present
classification system, but examined the behavior of some of the abused infants in
greater detail. This examination led to emphasis upon the contrast between
behavior seen immediately upon reunion (e.g., strong proximity-seeking), and
behavior which follows (e.g., "depression and withdrawal"). They describe one 12month-old infant as showing separation and reunion behavior (to a foster mother)
consistent with secure attachment. This child exhibited clear evidence of depression
and withdrawal intermittently following the reunion. In other portions of the

106

MAIN AND SOLOMON

session, other maltreated, "secure" infants also demonstrated affective behavior

indicative of possible developmental disturbance.
Crittenden (1985a, 1985b) also examined the responses of young abused-andneglected children to the Ainsworth Strange Situation. Six abused-and-neglected
infants in a first maltreatment sample were initially assigned to a secure Strange
Situation category. Like Egeland and Sroufe (1981b), she undertook a reexamination of her videotapes, ultimately developing a new "A-C" strange situation
category.
Examination of the behavior of maltreated children who had been placed in the
secure category in this first maltreatment sample showed several distinct behavioral
characteristics. These children often sought proximity obliquely, or without positive
affect. Their resistance often took the form of whiny petulance or non-contextual
aggression (e.g., aggression directed at aspects of the inanimate environment).
Many of the abused-and-neglected children displayed clinical indicators of stress,
such as face covering, head cocking, huddling on the floor and rocking, and
wetting. For the purposes of her study, Crittenden modified the Ainsworth
interactive scoring system to include (score) indirect approaches as both proximity
seeking and moderate avoidance, and to score crankiness and non-contextual
aggression as indices of resistance. A new classification, avoidant-ambivalent ("AC") was identified as consisting of extremely anxious infants whose scores on
Ainsworth's scales combined (1) moderate to high proximity seeking, (2) moderate
to high avoidance, and (3) moderate to high resistance. In addition, these infants
often displayed unusual, stress-related maladaptive behaviors. A second
maltreatment sample was collected, and the new, A-C category utilized. Many of
the A-C children had suffered both abuse and neglect.
In a still more recent study of a sample at high risk for maltreatment, Spieker
and Booth (1985) identified 18% of infants as unclassifiable within the present
Ainsworth system. Fourteen percent showed both avoidance and resistance ("A-C"
characteristics) within the same episode. These infants were extremely distressed at
separation and would be waiting at the door for mother's return. However, when
mother entered the playroom, these infants would turn and walk away from her and
avert their attention, while remaining extremely distressed. If, however, the
mothers made contact, the infants would be resistant. Spieker and Booth describe
these infants as being sometimes depressed, fearful or helpless. Another 4% of
infants exhibited behavior which disqualified them from inclusion in the A, B, C,
or A-C categories. These infants were termed unclassifiable.
Mothers of "A-C" infants in the Spieker and Booth sample reported more
depression, more chronic life difficulties, and more physically uncomfortable
symptoms in pregnancy than other mothers. These mothers

AN INSECURE-DISORGANIZED/DISORIENTED ATTACHMENT PATTERN

107

suggest that the A-C pattern is distinct from other insecure patterns, and may reflect
greater insecurity and a more inadequate rearing environment.
In a recent study of attachment patterns in families with depression, "A-C"
children were identified largely through their exhibition of moderate to high
avoidance and moderate to high resistance during reunion (Radke-Yarrow et al.,
1985). In addition, most also displayed one or more of the following: Affectless or
sad with signs of depression. Odd or atypical body posture or movement, and
Moderate to high proximity seeking. The investigators felt their A-C category was
similar, although not identical, to Crittenden's "A-C" classification and Main and
Weston's "unclassified" category. Insecure attachments were common among
children of mothers with a major depressive disorder. The A-C attachments were
associated with histories of the most severe depression in the mother.
Independence of Disorganized-Disoriented Attachment Status Across
Parents or Caregivers
The above review of studies of difficult-to-classify infants conducted to date
suggests that, within any given sample, these infants may be the least secure, and/or
may have experienced the most extreme of family conditions, including (RadkeYarrow et al.) bi-polar depression in the mother. Given our own description of the
disorganization and disorientation of behavior seen in these infants within the
strange situation, it is reasonable to address the question of whether these infants
are suffering from a biologically or even constitutionally based disorganization,
and/or whetherat least at the time of the strange situation-these infants are
experiencing low stress tolerance.
Relative vulnerability vs. invulnerability to stress undoubtedly serves as one
factor influencing some of the individual differences in infant strange situation
behavior. Whether it is the primary factor affecting insecure-disorganized
attachment status seems doubtful. In the Berkeley Social Development Project
Sample, each infant was seen in the strange situation with one parent at 12 months
and with the other at 18 months. Independent judges who had not seen the infant in
any other setting classified the infants at each age period (inter-judge agreement
across five judges was 88% to 100%). Of 34 strange situations judged "D" within
our Berkeley Social Development Sample, only 3 involved the same infant. Almost
all of the infants were disorganized only in the presence of one parent.
Further evidence for independence of "D" attachment status across caregivers
comes from a recent doctoral thesis completed by Krentz

108

MAIN AND SOLOMON

(1982). Krentz saw 15 infants who were placed in daycare within private homes in
(a) strange situations involving mother and infant, and in (b) strange situations
involving the infant and the daycare caregiver. All 15 strange situations conducted
with the mother were classifiable (A, B, or C). Five out of the 15 strange situations
conducted with the daycare caregiver were judged "unclassifiable," following the
criteria initially identified by Main and Weston (1981). One of the children in the
Krentz sample showed highly disturbing behavior in the strange situation
conducted with the daycare caregiver. During the first reunion, he lay on the floor
against the wall and turned his head away. During the second reunion, he
immediately lay prone on the floor with his arms tucked under him. This child was
judged very secure (Ainsworth sub-group B3) when seen in the strange situation
with mother. Indeed, 3 out of the 5 infants who were judged unclassifiable with the
daycare caregiver were very secure (B3) with mother. (Similar radical differences
in behavior across caregivers, e.g., extremes of disorganization with mother
coupled with the "very secure" organization with father, have also been observed
within our Berkeley sample.)
There are, then, no indications to date that an infant who is disorganized with
one parent or caregiver will be disorganized with the second. However,
vulnerability to stress at a particular brief point in time still seems left open as a
viable explanation of D" attachment status, that is, the "D" infants might have
been disorganized at 12 months but not at 18, or vice versa. In this case, however,
there should be no preservation of insecure-disorganized status with respect to one
particular parent over a longer period.
In fact, reunions observed with both parents at 6 years of age show that children
who had been disorganized with one (but not the other) parent as infants can
readily be distinguished from "classifiable" infants at 6, but only upon reunion with
the same parent (Cassidy & Main, 1984). This suggests thatlike the traditional
strange
situation
categories
(Ainsworth
et
al.,
1978)insecuredisorganized/disoriented attachment status may have its source in the history of the
infant's interaction with the parent, a topic which we examine further in a
succeeding paper (Main & Hesse, in preparation).
Insecurity in 6-Year-Olds Judged Unclassifiable (Disorganized) with Mother 5
Years Previously
Above, we reviewed several studies of high-risk populations which suggested that
difficult-to-classify infants might be even more insecure than infants in the
traditional A or C "insecure" attachment categories. None

AN INSECURE-DISORGANIZED/DISORIENTED ATTACHMENT PATTERN

109

of these studies included direct assessments of the insecure/difficult-to-classify

infants themselves, however. Inferences regarding their insecure status were
derived from information regarding the abuse/neglect history (Crittenden, 1985a,
1985b) of the family, mother's self-report regarding life-stress, depression, and
symptomatology (Spieker & Booth, 1985), or mother's known history of severe,
bipolar depression (Radke-Yarrow et al., 1985).
Recently, we included a number of children who had been "D" as infants within
a follow-up study involving the Berkeley Social Development Project sample, a
sample of children from upper middle-class, intact families who had first been seen
with mother in the strange situation at 1 year of age (Main & Weston, 1981; Main
et al., 1985). At 6, these children were videotaped in a playroom as they responded
to a variety of situations involving (a) an informal period of play in which they
were asked to make a "family drawing" by an adult examiner, (b) an assessment of
their "internal working model" of child-parent attachment as derived from an
interview concerning child-parent separations (Hansburg, 1980; Klagsbrun &
Bowlby, 1976; Kaplan, 1984; Kaplan & Main, 1985), (c) their largely non-verbal
response to presentation of a photograph of themselves with family at the end of
this interview, and (d) reunions with each parent following approximately a 1-hour
separation. One of the principal aims of this follow-up study was the examination
of the 6th-year status of children who had been found "unclassifiable" (now,
insecure disorganized/disoriented) with mother in infancy. Consequently, almost
equal numbers of children who had been judged secure (N = 14), and insecureavoidant or insecure-ambivalent (N = 13), and insecure-disorganized/disoriented
with mother (N = 12) at 12 months returned for participation.
Nine-point scales were devised to represent the child's overall functioning,
overall security on reunion with mother, emotional openness during an interview
concerning what a child "would feel" and what a child "would do" during a childparent separation (Kaplan, 1984), fluency of parent-child discourse as estimated
from the transcripts of a 3-minute reunion episode (Strage & Main, 1985), and
security as estimated from the child's response to the family photograph. Each
assessment involved judges who had seen the child in only a single setting (e.g.,
those observing the response to the family photograph had not seen the child or
parent in infancy nor in any other of the 6th-year assessments). Children considered
to be functioning extremely well, or to be extremely secure, were assigned a 9,
children who were intermediate were assigned a 5, and children who were
considered very worrisome were assigned the lowest rating. (Sample
characteristics, procedures, and assessment devices used in this study have been
described in Main et al., 1985).

110

MAIN AND SOLOMON

We compared the functioning of children judged D with mother 5 years

previously to the functioning of children who had been judged B in strange
situation assessments with mother 5 years previously. All five comparisons were
significant. The means for children who had been judged secure with mother in
infancy were above scale mid-point (i.e., were indicative of security) on all five
scales. The means for children who had been disorganized/disoriented with mother
in infancy on these five assessments indicate striking insecurity at 6 years of age,
ranging from 2.1 to 3.8 on the 9-point scale.
For six of the "D" children, the alternative, "forced" Ainsworth classification
was A or C. For six, it was B. Importantly, there were no significant differences in
functioning at 6 years between disorganized children whose "forced" classification
was B and children whose "forced" classification was A or C. Had these six
children been identified as secure in infancy, the coherency of our studies would
have been considerably reduced.
Specific Patterns of Insecurity Identified in 6-Year-Olds Who Had Been
Judged Disorganized/Disoriented with the Parent in Infancy
As noted above, overall ratings assigned to D vs. other children in the 6th-year
assessments showed substantial insecurity in children showing the D" pattern 5
years earlier. However, we have recently taken a classificatory approach to these
same assessments, addressing the issue of categorical differences in response
patterns among children classified as A, B, C, or D in infancy, rather than relative
standing on single dimensions. In these new, categorical assessments, children who
had been judged disorganized/disoriented with the parent in infancy have shown
remarkably consistent and distinct response patterns.
On reunion with the parent with whom they had been seen in infancy, D"
children differed strongly from "A," "B," or "C" children. Their overall pattern of
reunion behavior was role-reversing, and seemed to represent a relatively wellorganized effort to control the parent-largely through punitive behavior, but
sometimes through caregiving. This type of behavior was seen with the parent with
whom the child had been disorganized in infancy, and was confined to that
particular parent. Occasionally, a child judged "D" in infancy was not controlling of
the parent at 6, but still showed reunion behaviors distinguished from the 6th-year
patterns shown by children who had been judged "A," "B," or "C" as infants. One
child who had been insecure-disorganized with mother in infancy showed neither
the punitive nor the caregiving reunion pattern, but rather seemed nervous
immediately upon mother's return (Cassidy & Main, 1984).

AN INSECURE-DISORGANIZED/DISORIENTED ATTACHMENT PATTERN

111

Several other assessments still further distinguished 6-year-olds who had been
D in infancy from 6-year-olds who had been assigned an A, B, or C classification.
First, discourse analyses based upon transcripts of the 6th-year reunions showed
strong dysfluencies in discourse, with the child often taking the lead in the
conversation, the parent stumbling in speech or occasionally seeming disoriented
(Strage & Main, 1985). Another set of analyses compared the child's
representations or reactions to representations of relationships or of the family, as
assessed in the parent's absence, to early strange situation behavior toward the
mother. In contrast to children classified as A, B, or C with mother in infancy, 6year-olds who had been judged disorganized/disoriented with mother in infancy
responded to presentation of a family photograph with disorganized behavior,
and/or with depressed affect (Main et al., 1985). In discussions of "a child's
response to separations," these children were sometimes silent, and sometimes gave
bizarre or irrational responses (Kaplan & Main, 1985). Finally, family drawings
made by these children were often disorganized (featuring elements which were
scratched out, or re-started drawings), overly bright (e.g., a sun drawn just over the
mother's head, or an entire family drawn standing upon a row of hearts), and/or
ominous. These features were combined in several drawings, and are reminiscent
both of the early disorganization shown by these children, and of the controllingpunitive or controlling-caregiving organization shown on reunion at 6 years of age
(Kaplan & Main, 1985).
Procedures for Identifying Insecure-Disorganized Infants
The above review indicates the identification, by many workers, of a set or sets of
infants whose strange situation behavior cannot be classified utilizing the present
A, B, C system. Many of these are relatively early reports. Since in addition the
numbers of children regarded as unclassifiable in any given sample have been
small, it is not surprising that criteria for either setting aside infants as
unclassifiable (Main & Weston, 1981; Gaensbauer & Harmon, 1982), or identifying
infants as fitting a "D" (Egeland & Sroufe, 1981b) or an "A-C" (Crittenden, 1985a,
1985b; Radke-Yarrow et al., 1985; Spieker & Booth, 1985) pattern differ at present
from laboratory to laboratory. At this point in time, however, it will be useful to
develop a set of somewhat formal procedures for identifying infants who do not fit
to an A, B, or C attachment category.
Below, we present an initial set of such procedures. Our order of presentation
follows the development of our own reasoning and discoveries. These infants were
identified first in terms of failure to fit to category, and

112

MAIN AND SOLOMON

only later in terms of specific indices of disorganization and disorientation in

behavior.
Infants Who Cannot Be Classified Within the A, B, C System:
Identification in Terms of Incoherence and Disorganization in Attachment
Strategy
In earlier papers we have discussed the secure, avoidant, and ambivalent-resistant
attachment categories in terms of coherent attachment strategies (Main, 1981; Main
& Weston, 1982) and/or in terms of coherent "internal working models" of
attachment (Main et al., 1985). The attachment strategy refers to the means the
infant uses in organizing behavior relevant to attachment.
(1) The secure infant has a clearly coherent strategy focused upon the use of the
attachment figure as a secure base. This results in a steady alerting to the need to
increase proximity in strange environments or in the face of separation, and a ready
return to exploration once assured that the attachment figure is once again
available. For these infants, there is a relatively smooth alternation between
attachment behavior and exploratory behavior with one or the other receiving
emphasis, dependent upon the accessibility of the attachment figure and the initial
"strangeness" of the situation.
(2) The avoidant infant also has a coherent and organized strategy. For this
infant, exploration is emphasized over and above attachment behavior, and
specificity of relationship to the attachment figure is de-emphasized. In the strange
situation, these infants seem successfully to divert attention from both the
attachment figure and many environmental changes which act to increase
attachment behavior in other infants (Bowlby, 1980; Main, 1981). Consequently,
these infants engage in exploration throughout separation, are friendly to the
stranger and/or may treat him or her more favorably than the mother, and actively
avoid the parent upon reunion. It is likely through consistent use of an attentiondiverting strategy (above) that the avoidant infant "ignores" separation from as well
as the return of the parent. The impression given by the strange situation behavior
of these infants is largely one of detachment and of a defensive, but successfully
un-interrupted, independence.
(3) Finally, the ambivalent-resistant infant may be seen as having a coherent
strategy of exhibiting extreme dependence upon the attachment figure. Exaggerated
fear of the strange, the stranger, and separation is combined with heightened
distress and anger. In its heightened display of emotionality and dependence upon
the attachment figure (cf. Trivers, 1974; Main, 1981), this infant successfully draws
the attention of the parent.

AN INSECURE-DISORGANIZED/DISORIENTED ATTACHMENT PATTERN

113

It is only our recent review of our "unclassifiable" (Main & Weston, 1981) as
compared to our classified strange situation videotapes which has shown us that
infants judged unclassifiable in terms of strange situation behavior share in
common disorganization and disorientation in behavior. Our original work was
based entirely upon the failure of the strange situation behavior of individual
infants to fit to classification descriptors (Ainsworth et al., 1978), that is, to fit to
the coherent strategies of organization described above.
Thus, for example, in some cases we had judged as unclassifiable: potential
"group A" infants who were greatly distressed by each separation from the parent,
though avoidant on reunions, and thus seemed unable to maintain a "strategy" of
diverting attention from attachment; potential "group B" infants who followed
strong proximity-seeking with avoidance, combined proximity-seeking with
avoidance or seemed at moments dazed, confused, and unable either to take
comfort in the parent or return to play, thus violating the expectancy of smooth
transition between attachment behavior and exploration; and potential "Group C"
infants who failed to cry upon separation and/or alternately exhibited distress and
moderate to strong avoidance, thus violating the expectancy of a consistent
heightening of attachment behavior.
If, for example, a given infant was secure, as indicated by high scores for
proximity-seeking and low scores for avoidance and resistance, why did it turn
about looking dazed directly following a bright, full greeting to the parent, rather
than either continuing to seek engagement with the parent or returning to
exploration and to play? Similarly, if the parent had succeeded in comforting the
presumably secure infant, why did the infant stand silently beside the parent neither
interacting, playing, nor requesting further contact? If the infant was ambivalent, as
indicated by its behavior during the reunion episodes, why was the infant calm and
undistressed so long as the mother was absent? Or, if behavior fitting to the
ambivalent classification was shown in heightened distress during separations and
in distress, proximity-seeking, and some resistance to the mother during the
reunion episode, why had the infant initially attempted to get out the door upon
reunion, and why did the same infant have sudden, interruptive bouts of strong
avoidance? Finally, if the infant was avoidant, as indicated by strong, consistent
avoidance throughout the reunion episodes, why had the infant called or cried
loudly for the parent during the separation episodes, even in the presence of the
stranger? Behavior such as this not only fails to fit to classification descriptors, but,
again, is inconsonant with the notion of the consistent deactivation of attachmentrelevant cues expected in the insecure-avoidant infant (Bowlby, 1980; Main, 1981).
In summary, infants who had been left unclassified had no single coherent strategy
for dealing with separation and reunion.

114

MAIN AND SOLOMON

Specific Indices of Disorganization and Disorientation

In preparation for this chapter, we first engaged in repeated study of each of the 34
strange situations which had been judged unclassifiable within our normal, white
middle-class sample, and of the 21 strange situations which we judged
unclassifiable within maltreatment and high-risk samples. As noted earlier, we had
at first thought it possible that several new strange situation patterns would emerge
from this study (e.g., patterns of strange situation response shared across a few or
many infants who could then be characterized as exhibiting behavioral patterns "D,
E, F," etc., in response to separation and reunion.)
However, our records of exact behaviors observed across all 55 infants
indicated instead the presence of indices of disorganization and disorientation in the
strange situation behavior of each individual. Having recorded these as initially
diverse indices (e.g., "falls prone on reunion," "shows dazed behavior when in
contact with the parent," "approaches with head averted," "approaches with arms
outstretched, then turns and stands still in center of room," "cries while moving
away from parent," "leans head on wall, facing away while crying"), we studied
them in order to develop a more general framework. Almost all of these behaviors
can be seen as falling under one of the following five headings, each of which
suggests to us conflict between behavioral systems, or mutual inhibitions of
systems.
Disordering of expected temporal sequences
Simultaneous display of contradictory behavior patterns
Incomplete or undirected movements and expressions, including stereotypies
Direct indices of confusion and apprehension
Behavioral stilling: "dazed" behavior and indices of depressed affect
Once this list had been drawn up, we undertook a review of 60 tapes of infants
who had been classified as A, B, or C within the strange situation in order to
determine whether these infants also shared these behavior patterns. Every infant
who had been left unclassified either showed one of these five indices strongly, or
exhibited several of these indices. This further undertaking, was however,
necessary. Our initial list had been drawn up following a review confined to
unclassifiable infants. Therefore, there remained some chance that these behavior
patterns occurred with equal strength or frequency in classifiable infants, but had
simply not been noted.
The results of this review were clear. Although 7 of the 60 infants came near to
disorganized/disoriented attachment status using these

AN INSECURE-DISORGANIZED/DISORIENTED ATTACHMENT PATTERN

115

identifiers, none matched to the previously unclassifiable ("D") infants in intensity

or timing of these indices. We are presently constructing a scale for disorganization
and disorientation in strange situation behavior which will permit investigators to
identify and score the appearance of these behaviors, even in A, B, and C infants
(Main & Solomon, in preparation). Here, we present examples of each of the five
identifiers of disorganized/disoriented attachment status, taken from our
observations of infants who had initially been left unclassified.
Disordering of expected temporal sequences. The most striking disordering of
temporal expectancies appeared with respect to avoidance. When the infant ignores
and physically avoids the parent throughout the strange situation, the infant is
classified as insecure-avoidant. When the infant ignores and physically avoids the
parent through much of the first reunion episode, then following a second separation
seeks proximity, the infant is placed in a mildly avoidant sub-category of secure"
infants. In either case, avoidance is seen as an "organized shift in attention" (Main &
Weston, 1982) away from the parent which occurs during and directly following
separation. Both an increase in stress (a second separation) and an assurance of
continued parental proximity may lead to the replacement of avoidance with
proximity-seeking.
The usual temporal organization of the infant's avoidance of the parent can, then,
be readily understood in terms of adult "reserve." Adults not infrequently behave in a
reserved manner following long separations, or when uncertain, angry, or
apprehensive regarding the current status of a relationship. This reserve may "melt"
with time or with assurances from the partner, or in contrast it may "break down" if
the relationship is further threatened (if, for example, the partner threatens to leave
again). There is nothing innately disorganized in this usage of avoidance or reserve.
Consider now instead the temporal organization of avoidance in a number of
disorganized infants. Rather than avoiding the parent upon reunion for a few
seconds, and then initiating interaction or contact, a number of infants who had not
been classified gave the parent a bright, full greeting (e.g., an approach with bids for
contact), then turned away, dazed, and showed strong avoidance. Others showed
high distress upon separation, calling and crying for the parent, then turned strongly
away or even backed away immediately upon reunion, their faces suddenly
expressionless. Others showed the distraught, angry behavior of the insecureambivalent infant immediately upon reunion, then unpredictably turned their backs
upon the parent and crept strongly away. Thereafter, they exhibited the behavior
patterns typical of infants showing strong avoidance.

116

MAIN AND SOLOMON

One of us (blind) was able to identify an abused infant as "insecuredisorganized" rather than secure upon seeing her first reunion episode. The infant
went at once to her mother at the door, arms up for contact in a full, strong, "secure
response"; she was immediately identified as disorganized, however, when she
turned away from the door with a confused, puzzled, expression, advanced a few
steps into the room, and stood with a blank look staring straight ahead. A few
moments later, she made oblique approaches to the mother, readily identifiable as
the type of approaches which physically battered infants make to adult caregivers
(George & Main, 1979). On the basis of her strong, immediate proximity seeking
behavior, this infant had been classified as secure by other investigators.
Another pattern suggestive of temporal disorganization was sudden, undirected,
out-of-context crying following an apparently complete settling by the parent. Many
infants cry for a brief period after reunion. Some insecure-ambivalent infants simply
refuse to become settled by the return of the parent or through parental efforts
towards comfort. Some secure infants continue crying for a period following
reunion, but once having had sufficient contact with the parent, settle. The sign that
settling is complete is usually that the infant is satisfied to return to a genuine
interest in exploration and in play. After this, it is of course expected that the infant
will not again become distressed unless there is a threatening environmental change
(e.g., mother's second leavetaking, or the stranger's re-entrance). Some infants who
had initially been described as unclassifiable gave sudden, undirected, out-of-context
cries following an apparently contented play. These cries differed from those of
insecure-ambivalent infants, who neither settle following the parent's return, nor
return to contented play. Because these sudden cries occurred following settling and
in the midst of contented play, they constituted a disordering of expected temporal
sequences. These cries had no apparent rationale within the immediate environment.
Simultaneous display of contradictory behavior patterns. In our review of the
literature concerning difficult-to-classify infants we have already described several
instances of the simultaneous display of contradictory patterns. Abused infants were
described as approaching "obliquely" (e.g., creeping towards or walking towards the
parent sideways, or with head averted, or "backing" towards the parent rather than
approaching the parent face-to-face). An infant in our sample approached mother
moving backwards on her stomach with face averted. Other infants in our sample
reached strongly for the parent immediately upon reunion but with head down.

AN INSECURE-DISORGANIZED/DISORIENTED ATTACHMENT PATTERN

117

The impression in each case was that approach movements were continually
being inhibited and held back through simultaneous activation of avoidant
tendencies (see George & Main, 1979). In most cases, however, proximity-seeking
sufficiently "over-rode" avoidance to permit the increase in physical proximity.
Thus, contradictory patterns were activated but were not mutually inhibitory. One
infant both reached for and received objects from the parent with back and arms
tense and stiff, stretching forward across a seemingly deliberate distance. One
infant approached hesitantly, then backed or moved very quickly away from the
parent.
An even more striking example of the simultaneous display of contradictory
patterns was avoidance while in contact with the parent. This appeared in reunion
episodes, often after the infant appeared to be settled from previous distress. Infants
who were marked unclassifiable sometimes sat upon the parent's lapperhaps even
"comfortably"while looking away, either sullen or dazed. One infant seemed
extremely comfortable seated on his mother's lap, his body comfortably
conforming to hers, his arms and hands relaxed. His expression was, however,
peculiarly avoidant; he refused her gaze and her vocalizations, then lightly and
incompletely swiped with his hand towards her throat. Another baby sat on the
floor for several minutes with her hand upon mother's lap, leaning into her mother
but turned slightly away as though to approach the environment; silent and trancelike, she failed to turn completely either to the toys or to her mother. Another
unclassified 12-month-old had seemed settled by mother, and was put on the floor
by her side. A few moments later he had moved slightly away from her to stand in
front of her, hands firmly planted on her knees but head and shoulders turned away.
He stood this way for several seconds, looking at the floor, face heavy and somber,
as though unable to play, unable to interact, and unwilling to let go of mother.
Similar behavior appears not infrequently in classifiable infants, who briefly
appear "dazed" upon pick-up, perhaps while recovering from distress. In infants
judged to be disorganized/disoriented, however, the behavior appears long after
initial pick-up, lasts for a substantial period, and appears contradictory. If the infant
is comfortably settled by contact with the parent, why is the infant refusing
interaction by silently looking away? And, if the infant would prefer to "avoid" the
parent by turning attention to exploration of toys and the environment, why is the
infant unable to move out of contact with the parent?
The impression given by avoidance-in-contact is one of the mutual inhibition of
systems in conflict; the infant seemingly can neither fully approach the parent nor
fully shift attention and move away. While the

118

MAIN AND SOLOMON

infant who approaches "obliquely" at least succeeds in the "set-goal" (Bowlby,

1969) of increasing proximity to the parent, the infant exhibiting avoidance while
in contact moves neither one way or the other.
Incomplete or undirected movements and expressions, including stereotypies.
Incomplete or undirected movements and expressions also appeared in
unclassifiable infants. Whereas the behavior examples given above referred to
disorganization in a mixed or in a disordered usage of proximity-seeking, contactmaintaining, and avoidance, most examples of incomplete or undirected
movements on our tapes involved the incomplete or undirected expressions of
distress or anger (resistance).
Expressions of anger toward the mother appear in infants in each of the three
central Ainsworth categories. In each category, the expression of anger takes a
characteristic form. Strong, direct expressions of anger are an identifying
characteristic of infants identified as insecure-ambivalent. In Ainsworth's original
study, two infants were classified as insecure-ambivalent because they both sought
and angrily resisted contact. The expression of anger in these infants was not
subtle. One of them bit the mother.
Infants in secure groups can also express anger toward the mother upon
reunion, and in our own sample infants have occasionally been classified as secure
even when an openly frustrated, expressive "swipe" has been taken. For these
infants, "hitting at" mother seemed a brief, communicative expression of
frustration-often, at being offered a toy when contact was wanted. Finally, while
insecure-avoidant infants do not express distress, anger, or frustration openly,
sometimes they take a sudden directed aim toward the parent, throwing a toy from
a distance, or striking at the parent's foot in passing.
Review of our tapes of "D" infants showed an occasional peculiar usage of
resistance. These infants occasionally struck at the parent's face but in incomplete,
weak, almost undirected movements. The movements of the infant's hand seemed
almost unintentional, or could be interpreted readily as, for example, a merely
"curious" attempt to grasp the parent's glasses or explore the parent's face or eyes.
That these movements were intentional, directed hits at the parent could often only
be inferred from careful analyses in slow motion. In one case there was a sudden,
malignant change in the infant's facial expression prior to the slow almost
"underwater" movement.
Slow, limp, "underwater" movements occurred in a number of unclassifiable
infants, usually in a context suggestive of resistance. One infant leaned toward the
mother, but in a slow, heavy manner suggesting that he was resisting and pushing
away at the same time. Two other infants seemed to wish to maintain contact with
the parent, but never to be

AN INSECURE-DISORGANIZED/DISORIENTED ATTACHMENT PATTERN

119

comfortable; they differed from insecure-ambivalent infants in their pleasant

expressions and lack of open anger and distress, but cycled meaninglessly between
limp, confused approach and getting out of contact, only to attempt again to settle.
Others approached in an abbreviated, start-stop manner, seemingly unable to make
smooth forward movements towards the parent. Two infants who did approach the
parent veered away and rocked upon all fours nearby her.
Finally, distress, like resistance, was occasionally "undirected" in infants whom
we had left unclassified. A striking example was an infant in a first reunion episode
who had moved to a distance across the room from his mother. Remaining at this
distance, this 12-month infant suddenly began a full, continuous cry. While crying,
he neither looked at the mother, oriented to the mother, or undertook an approach
movement.
Direct indices of confusion and apprehension. Direct indices of fearfulness or
apprehension upon the approach of the parent appeared in several normal infants,
and in a larger number of maltreated infants. One infant jerked backwards and
almost lost her balance as the parent entered; this infant had been sitting erect, but
now "fell" backwards pushing legs and arms in front of her. While the parent was
in the room, some infants moved behind the parent's chair, seemingly in order to
hide from the parent. Some moved behind the stranger's chair, or under other pieces
of furniture.
Directly upon sighting (or even hearing) the approach of the parent, a few of the
infants who had been left unclassified exhibited confusion. In some cases, this was
shown in a mixed greeting. One infant hunched her upper body and shoulders at
hearing her mother's call, then broke into extravagant laugh-like screeches with an
excited forward movement. Her braying laughter became a cry and distress-face
without a new intake of breath as the infant hunched forward. Then suddenly she
became silent, blank and dazed. A few infants had an immediate expression of fear,
or sadness mixed with fear, although such expressions were of brief duration.
The most marked expression of confusion and apprehension was a hand-tomouth gesture (mouth, cheeks, or ears) which occurred immediately upon reunion
in several of the unclassified infants. One older child had been crying and calling
during separation. His immediate response to reunion was disturbing. He bowed his
head, stepped backward away from the parent, and put hand to mouth in a gesture
resembling shame and apprehension. His expression was momentarily fearful. Two
of the smaller infants put both hands to mouth and cheeks immediately upon
hearing the mother's call. The impression in one case was of confusion and in the
other confusion mixed with fear.

120

MAIN AND SOLOMON

Undirected expressions of fear (e.g., of the stranger) while in the presence of the
parent were also noted in disorganized infants. At the entrance of the stranger, one
infant fell on her side with an expression of strong fear, her back to her mother. At
stranger's entrance, two other apparently frightened infants moved away from both
mother and stranger to face the wall. One leaned forehead against the wall for
several seconds, looking back in apparent terror.
Behavioral stilling: dazed" behavior and indices of depressed affect. "Dazed"
behavior was one of the most prominent characteristics of insecure-disorganized
infants, appearing in the great majority. "Dazed" behavior was identified as an
unfocused, "dead" stare, mouth and chin limp, body stilled. An infant who seemed
extremely comfortable in contact, clinging to father in a calm, ventral-ventral
posture, became for a long moment excessively still, staring into space as though
completely out of contact with self, environment, and parent. Some infants simply
stood still for a few moments, staring straight ahead. A "dazed" facial appearance
was frequently accompanied by a stilling of all body movement, and sometimes a
freezing of limbs which had been in motion. Odd postures (e.g., with arms flung
behind or in front of face) were occasionally adopted.
Behavioral stilling occurred in some infants in a strong form which involved the
infant falling prone. Some infants fell face-down on the floor in a depressed posture
prior to separation. This occurred even in some infants who had been playing well
for the first minutes of reunion; suddenly, all body movement was stilled as these
infants lay prone. Several other infants responded to sight of the returning parent by
rising, beginning to step forward, and then falling forward into an extremely
depressed-appearing posture which was maintained for several seconds. The
suggestion of depression in these circumstances was inescapable.
Summary and Discussion
Our chapter began with a review of a series of recent studies involving infants
whose strange situation behavior was difficult to classify using the present A, B, C
categorization system. The studies reviewed led to three primary conclusions:
1. Infants who cannot be classified within the present system are found both in
high-risk samples and in upper middle-class samples of intact families.

AN INSECURE-DISORGANIZED/DISORIENTED ATTACHMENT PATTERN

121

2. Studies of both high-risk samples and of an upper middle-class sample of intact

families suggest that these infants are insecure with the parent with whom they
are seen in the strange situation.
3. Infants for whom the "forced" (A, B, C) classification would be "secure" (B)
seem as insecure as infants for whom the "forced" classification is A or C. Misidentification of such infants as "secure" is therefore likely to diminish overall
coherency even within studies involving normal, middle-class populations.
This given, we had seemed to be in need of a single, unifying set of formal
procedures for the description and designation to new categories of infants who do
not fit the present system. No such set of procedures had existed prior to this
writing. Main and Weston (1981) simply set aside all infants who could not be
classified within the present system. Egeland and Sroufe (1981b) identified as "D"
(disorganized) infants who seemed disorganized or apathetic, hence insecure,
without showing marked avoidance or resistance. Crittenden (1985a, 1985b)
revised the Ainsworth systems for scoring avoidance and resistance before arriving
at an "interactive-score"-based system for identifying infants showing moderate to
strong avoidance, resistance, and proximity-seeking as falling into one of two "AC" categories. Radke-Yarrow and her colleagues (Radke-Yarrow et al., in press)
used an "A-C" category which they felt was similar to, but not identical with the
"A-C" category identified by Crittenden and the "unclassifiable" category reported
by Main and Weston. Spieker and Booth (1985) used strict criteria for identifying
"A-C" infants (strong avoidance and resistance, using the present scoring system,
and occurring within the same reunion episode), criteria which left two infants
within their sample still "unclassifiable." Most of these investigators have noted the
existence of "stereotypies" or "clinical indicators" in these infants. However, no
shared list of such indicators has been developed.
The present chapter constitutes a first effort towards the development of a set of
procedures which can fully capture difficult-to-classify infants in our own as well
as other samples (see Main & Solomon, in preparation, for a more complete set of
procedures, to be based upon a still larger sample). In this paper, we have suggested
that the traditional A," "B," and "C" attachment classifications can be seen as
representative of coherent, organized strategies for dealing with the attachment
figure. We have given examples of several "unclassifiable" behavioral responses to
the Strange Situation which were identified through their failure to fit to the
original classification rules as described by Ainsworth (Ainsworth et al., 1978).
Most importantly, we have reported our discovery that review of the Strange
Situation videotapes of a first 55 "unclassifiable" infants

122

MAIN AND SOLOMON

shows that they share in common direct indices of disorganization and/or

disorientation.
While the actual behaviors observed across infants previously regarded as
"unclassifiable" are diverse, we have grouped them under five major headings
indicative of disorganization and disorientation. A comparison of the frequency and
intensity of appearance of these indices between our 55 "unclassifiable" infants and
another 60 infants who had been classified as A, B, or C showed little or no
overlap. Thus, diverse as the indices of disorganization and disorientation are
across infants, they do distinguish a coherent D" category of infant strange
situation response.
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M.D.S., Bell, S.M., & Stayton, D.J. (1971). Individual differences in strange situation
behavior of one-year-olds. InH.R. Schaffer (Ed.), The origins of human social relations. New
York: Academic Press.
Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A
psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Belsky, J., Rovine, M., & Taylor, D. (in press). The development of reciprocal interaction in the motherinfant dyad. Child Development, 54.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss, sadness and depression. New York: Basic Books.
Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.),
Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, Serial #209, Vol. 50:1-2, pp. 3-35.
Bretherton, I., & Waters, E. (1985). (Eds.). Growing points of attachment theory and research.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial #209, Vol. 50:1-2.
Cassidy, J., & Main, M. (1984, April). Stability of attachment across a five year period. Paper presented
at the biennial meeting of the International Conference of Infant Studies, New York.
Crittenden, P. (1985a). Maltreated infants: Vulnerability and resilience. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 26, 85-96.
Crittenden, P.M. (1985b). Relationships at risk. In J. Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical
implications of attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L.A. (1981a). Attachment and early maltreatment. Child Development, 52, 4452.
Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L.A. (1981b). Developmental sequelae of maltreatment in infancy. In R. Rizley
& D. Cicchetti (Eds.), Developmental perspectives in child maltreatment. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.
Gaensbauer, T.J., & Harmon, R.J. (1982). Attachment behavior in abused/neglected and premature
infants: Implications for the concept of attachment. In R.N. Emde & R.J. Harmon (Eds.), The
attachment and affiliative systems. New York: Plenum.
George, C., & Main, M. (1979). Social interactions of young abused children: Approach, avoidance and
aggression. Child Development, 58, 306-318.
Grossmann, K., & Grossmann, K.E. (1985). Maternal sensitivity and newborns' orientation

AN INSECURE-DISORGANIZED/DISORIENTED ATTACHMENT PATTERN

123

responses as related to quality of attachment in Northern Germany. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters

(Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, Serial #209, Vol. 50:1-2, pp. 233-256.
Hansburg, H.G. (1980). Adolescent separation anxiety: A method for the study of adolescent separation
problems. New York: Krieger.
Kaplan, N. (1984). Internal representations of separation experiences in six year olds: Related to actual
experiences of separation. Unpublished masters thesis. University of California, Berkeley.
Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1985, April). Internal representations of attachment at six years as indicated by
family drawings and verbal responses to imagined separations. In M. Main, Attachment: A move to
the level of representation. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Research in
Child Development, Toronto.
Klagsbrun, M., & Bowlby, J. (1976). Responses to separation from parents: A clinical test for young
children. British Journal of Projective Psychology, 21, 7-27.
Krentz, M.S. (1982). Qualitative differences between mother-child and caregiver-child attachments of
infants in family day care. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional
Psychology, Berkeley.
Lamb, M.E., Thompson, R.A., Gardner, W.P., Chamov, E.L., & Estes, D. (1984). Security of infantile
attachment as assessed in the "strange situation." Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 127-171.
Main, M. (1981). Avoidance in the service of attachment: A working paper. In K. Immelmann, G.
Barlow, L. Petrinovich, & M. Main (Eds.), Behavioral development: The Bielefeld
Interdisciplinary Project. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Main, M., & Hesse, E. (in preparation). Disorganized/disoriented infant attachment status: Precursors
and correlates. In M. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the
preschool years (working title). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and adulthood: A move to the
level of representation. Ini. Bretherton&E. Waters (Eds.), Growingpoints of attachment theory and
research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial #209, Vol. 50:1-2,
pp. 66-104.
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (in preparation). Procedures for identifying insecure-disorganized/ disoriented
infants. In M. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years
(working title). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Main, M., Tomasini, L., & Tolan, W. (1979). Differences among mothers of infants judged to differ in
security. Developmental Psychology, 15, 472-473.
Main, M., & Weston, D. (1981). The quality of the toddler's relationship to mother and father. Child
Development, 52, 932-940.
Main, M., & Weston, D. (1982). Avoidance of the attachment figure in infancy: Descriptions and
interpretations. In C.M. Parkes & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in human
behavior (Vol. 8, pp. 203-217). London: Tavistock.
Maslin, C.A., & Bates, J.E. (1982, March). Anxious attachment as a predictor of disharmony in the
mother-toddler relationship. Paper presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies,
Austin, TX.
Matas, L Arend, R.A., & Sroufe, L.A. (1978). Continuity and adaptation in the second year: The
relationship between quality of attachment and later competence. Child Development, 49, 549-556.
Radke-Yarrow, M., Cummings, E.M., Kuczynski, L., & Chapman, M. (1985). Patterns of attachment in
two- and three-year olds in normal families and families with parental depression. Child
Development, 56, 591-615.
Spieker, S.J., & Booth, C. (1985, April). Family risk typologies and patterns of insecure attachment. In
J.O. Osofsky (Chair), Intervention with infants at risk: Patterns of attach-

124

MAIN AND SOLOMON

merit. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,
Toronto.
Sroufe, L. A. (in press). Infant-caregiver attachment and patterns of adaptation in preschool: The roots of
maladaptation and competence. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Minnesota Symposium in Child Psychology
(Vol. 16). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sroufe, L.A., & Rosenberg, D. (1982, March). Coherence of individual adaptation in lower class infants
and toddlers. Paper presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies, Austin, TX.
Sroufe, L.A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child Development, 48,
1184-1199.
Strage, A., & Main, M. (1985, April). Parent-child discourse patterns at six years predicted from the
organization of infant attachment relationships. In M. Main, Attachment: A move to the level of
representation. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Toronto.
Trivers, R.L. (1974). Parent-offspring conflict. American Zoologist, 14, 249-264.