Development and Psychopathology, 14 (2002), 279–291
Copyright 2002 Cambridge University Press
Printed in the United States of America
Joint attention and disorganized attachment
status in infants at risk
ANGELIKA H. CLAUSSEN, PETER C. MUNDY, SANGEETA A. MALLIK,
AND JENNIFER C. WILLOUGHBY
University of Miami
Abstract
The development of joint attention skills is a major milestone of infancy. Recent research suggests that the
development of these skills may be affected by disorganized (D) attachment. This hypothesis was examined in a
longitudinal study of attachment and joint attention skill development in a sample of infants at risk for
developmental–behavioral morbidity. The results revealed that toddlers with D classifications initiated joint attention
with an experimenter significantly less often than did secure, or even other insecure, toddlers. However, no group
differences in the capacity to respond to the joint attention bids of others were observed in this study. These data
suggest that a disturbance in the tendency to initiate episodes of joint attention with others may be indicative of
early social–cognitive and social–emotional disturbance among infants affected by disorganized attachment status.
Theory and research is reviewed to suggest that an early impairment in joint attention facility may make a
significant contribution to risk for negative cognitive and emotional outcomes among these infants.
The development of the capacity to share or
coordinate attention with a social partner is a
major milestone of infancy (e.g., Bakeman
& Adamson, 1984; Bruner, 1981; Mundy &
Gomes, 1997; Tomasello, 1995). This broad
capacity is often referred to as “joint attention” skill development (e.g., Carpenter, Nagell, & Tomasello, 1998). The study of joint
attention skills is commonly associated with
theory on social cognition or language acquisition, and it has provided important new perspectives on the nature of atypical, as well as
typical, early development (e.g., Baldwin, 1995;
Carpenter et al., 1998; Corkum & Moore, 1998;
Morales, Mundy, & Rojas, 1998; Mundy &
Neal, 2001; Sigman & Ruskin, 1999; Ulvund
The research described in this paper was conducted with
the support of DOE-OSE Grant H023C30079, NIMH/BStart Grant MH53975-01, SAMHSA Grant SPO8984, and
the philanthropy of Infants In Need (www.iin.org).
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Angelika Claussen, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Psychology Annex, University of Miami, 5665 Ponce de
Leon Boulevard, Coral Gables, FL 33146-0720; E-mail:
aclaussen@miami.edu.
& Smith, 1996; Yoder, Warren, & McCathren, in press). It is less well recognized, though,
that research on joint attention skills may also
contribute to a better understanding of the integration of social–emotional and cognitive
processes in infancy, especially as these affect
risk or vulnerability to psychopathology (Mundy
& Willoughby, 1998).
Significant individual differences in joint
attention skill development are evident in infancy (Mundy & Gomes, 1998), and these individual differences may be determined by social processes, as well as factors associated
with cognition and temperament (Mundy &
Willoughby, 1996, 1998). Specifically, the
tendency of an infant to engage in social sharing or joint attention may be affected by the
early social–emotional aspects of the caregiving environment (Adamson & Russell, 1999;
Flanagan, Coppa, Riggs, & Alario, 1994;
Goldsmith & Rogoff, 1997; Mundy, Kasari,
& Sigman, 1992; Raver & Leadbeater, 1995;
Wachs & Chan, 1986).
Theory and research suggest that an infant’s tendency to engage in joint attention
279
280
A. H. Claussen et al.
with others is optimized in a responsive and
The validation of the D attachment classifiaffectively positive caregiving environment cation as a category used to describe atypical
(Adamson & Russell, 1999; Wachs & Chan, infant attachment behavior has been a focus
1986). Alternatively, less responsive and more of recent studies (van Ijzendoorn, Schuengel,
negatively toned caregiving may be less opti- & Bakersman–Kranenburg, 1999). Current
mal with regard to the infant’s development views suggest that nonstrategic, disorganized
of joint attention skills (Flanagan et al., 1994; attachment behaviors arise from characterisGoldsmith & Rogoff, 1997); that is, individ- tics of the environment, such as maltreatment
ual differences in infant joint attention skill and unpredictable and/or fear evoking caredevelopment reflect, in part, the degree to giving, but may also be influenced by characwhich joint attention bids have become so- teristics within the child, such as behavioral
cially rewarding for the child (Corkum & organization and cognition (Barnett, Butler, &
Moore, 1998; Mundy & Willoughby, 1996; Vondra, 1999; Barnett, Ganiban, & Cicchetti,
1998).
1999; Carlson, 1998; Main, 1996; Lyons–
This line of theory leads to the expectation Ruth & Jacobvitz, 1999; Spangler, Fremmer–
that infant joint attention skills may be asso- Bombik, & Grossmann, 1996). Disorganized
ciated with qualitative aspects of caregiving, attachment, though, is not considered to be a
including the emotional quality of the care- function of children’s temperament (van Ijgiver–infant relationship, such as those as- zendoorn et al., 1999).
sessed by measures of attachment (Mundy &
Although secure attachment functions as a
Willoughby, 1996, 1998). However, although protective factor, it appears as though the prisome qualitative aspects of caregiving have mary categories of insecure attachment (insebeen found to be related to infant joint atten- cure–avoidant and insecure–ambivalent) are
tion processes (Flanagan et al., 1994; Gold- not always maladaptive or necessarily indicasmith & Rogoff, 1997; Raver & Leadbeater, tive of risk (Belsky, 1999; Weinfield, Sroufe,
1995), little research has directly examined Egeland, & Carlson, 1999). The D classificathe relations between attachment and infant tion may be a more consistent attachment rejoint attention skill development. The paucity lated risk index (Crittenden, 1999; van Ijzenof this research is surprising given the puta- doorn et al., 1999). Infants who experience
tive central role of joint attention in the early more extreme forms of insensitive caregiving
development of social and cognitive compe- may lack the behavioral complexity to develop
tence (Adamson, 1995; Tomasello, Kruger, & organized strategies (Barnett et al., 1999; CritRatner, 1993) and the link between attach- tenden, 1999). Indeed, D attachment classifiment and the development of social and cog- cation may be viewed as a marker of risk for
nitive competence (e.g., Thompson, 1999; van maladaptive or psychopathological developIjzendoorn, Dijkstra, & Bus, 1995). Indeed, ment (Barnett et al., 1999; Greenberg, 1999;
Schölmerich, Lamb, Leyendecker, and Fra- Main, 1996) and predicts the presentation of
casso (1997) have recently observed a relation behavior problems in childhood (e.g., Carlbetween attachment and social attention coor- son, 1998; Lyons–Ruth, Alpern, & Repacholi,
dination in mother–child interactions. In this 1993; Moss, Parent, Gosselin, Rousseau, &
study, dyads that were classified as insecure at St. Laurent, 1996; van Ijzendoorn et al., 1999).
13 months in the standard Ainsworth Strange Research also points to the association of disSituation paradigm were significantly less like- organized attachment classifications with probly than secure dyads to display either coordi- lems in interactive and communicative pronated face-en-face attention or coordinated cesses (Moss, St. Laurent, & Parent, 1999;
joint attention to objects. However, a robust Spangler & Grossman, 1999). Whereas secure
effect was evident only for infants classified attachment is associated with positive aspects
as disorganized. This may be because, among of interactive competence (Thompson, 1999),
indices of attachment status, disorganized the disorganized pattern is associated with poor
classification is indicative of more extreme interactive competence (Moss et al., 1999;
disturbance in social emotional development. Solomon & George, 1999).
American Speech—Language Pathology.