4.3 The Development of Social Bonds

As you have already seen in this chapter, the social context has a powerful impact on development. So does the infant’s age, via brain maturation. Regarding emotional development, the baby’s age determines specific social interactions that lead to growth—first synchrony, then attachment, then social referencing.

Synchrony

Early parent—child interactions are described as synchrony, a mutual exchange that requires split-second timing for parent and child to match each other (“the meeting of the minds”). Synchrony is a joy for both participants, and also is a powerful learning experience. In every episode, infants learn to read others’ emotions and develop social skills, such as taking turns and watching expressions.

Synchrony is evident in the first three months, becoming more frequent and elaborate as the infant matures (Feldman, 2007). The adult—infant partnership usually begins with the adult imitating the infant (not vice versa); adults rarely smile at young infants until the infants smile at them, several weeks after birth. Then adults usually grin broadly and talk animatedly to their babies (Lavelli & Fogel, 2005).

In addition to careful timing, synchrony also involves rhythm and tone (Van Puyvelde et al., 2010). Metaphors for synchrony are often musical—a waltz, a jazz duet—to emphasize that each partner must be attuned to the other. This helps infants connect their internal state with external expressions understood within their culture. Synchrony is particularly apparent in Asian cultures, perhaps because of a focus on interpersonal sensitivity (Morelli & Rothbaum, 2007).

Same Situation, Far Apart: Sweet Synchrony Differences in gender and nation (England and Cuba) are obvious but superficial. The essence of early parent–infant interaction in both situations is synchrony.

NANCY HONEY/GETTY IMAGES
GUYLAIN DOYLE/LONELY PLANET/GETTY IMAGES

Synchrony is evident not only by direct observation, as when watching a caregiver play with an infant too young to talk, but also via computer calculation of the millisecond timing of smiles, arched eyebrows, and so on (Messinger et al., 2010). One study found that mothers who took longer to bathe, feed, and diaper their infants were also most responsive. Apparently, some parents combine caregiving with emotional play, which takes longer but also allows more synchrony.

Neglected SynchronyWhat if there is no synchrony? If no one plays with an infant, what will happen? Experiments using the still-face technique have addressed these questions (Tronick, 1989; Tronick & Weinberg, 1997). In still-face experiments, an infant faces an adult who responds normally while two video cameras simultaneously record their interpersonal reactions. Frame-by-frame analysis reveals that parents instinctively synchronize their responses to the infants’ movements, with exaggerated tone and expression. Babies reciprocate with smiles and flailing limbs.

To be specific, long before they can reach out and grab, infants respond excitedly to caregiver attention by waving their arms. They are delighted if the adult moves closer so that a waving arm touches the face or, even better, a hand grabs hair. You read about this eagerness for interaction in Chapter 3, when infants try to “make interesting sights last” or when they babble in response to adult speech. Meanwhile, adults open their eyes wider, raise their eyebrows, smack their lips, and emit nonsensical sounds—all in response to tiny infant actions.

In the next phase of the experiment, on cue, the same adult does not move closer but instead erases all facial expression, staring quietly with a “still face” (a motionless face) for a minute or two. Sometimes by 2 months, and clearly by 6 months, infants are upset by still faces, especially from their parents (less so from strangers). Babies frown, fuss, drool, look away, kick, cry, or suck their fingers. By 5 months, they also vocalize, as if to say, “Pay attention to me” (Goldstein et al., 2009).

Many types of studies have reached the same conclusion: Synchrony is vital. Responsiveness aids psychosocial and biological development, evident in heart rate, weight gain, and brain maturation (Moore & Calkins, 2004; Newnham et al., 2009). Particularly in the first year, babies of depressed mothers suffer unless someone else is a sensitive partner (Bagner et al., 2010). In the following section, we examine the next stage in child—adult bonding: attachment.

Attachment

Toward the end of the first year, face-to-face synchrony almost disappears. Once infants can move around, they are no longer content to respond to adult facial expressions and vocalizations. Another connection, called attachment, overtakes synchrony. Attachment is the lasting emotional bond that infants develop with a caregiver. Unlike temperament, which focused on the infant, attachment is based on relationships.

British psychoanalyst and researcher John Bowlby first developed a comprehensive theory to explain attachment (1969, 1973a, 1973b, 1988). His work was carried on and expanded upon by American-Canadian developmentalist Mary Ainsworth. Ainsworth received her PhD from the University of Toronto, worked with Bowlby in London, and then performed seminal studies on mother–infant relationships in Central Africa (Ainsworth, 1967). (We will look at Ainsworth’s contribution to attachment theory research in detail later in this chapter.)

As is often the case, both Bowlby and Ainsworth grounded their work in that of other scientists, especially in the fields of psychoanalysis and ethology (the study of animals with the focus on behavioural patterns in natural environments). Bowlby was influenced by the work of psychoanalyst René Spitz (1946), who studied infants in a Colorado orphanage. Spitz tried to explain why, even though these children received adequate food and physical care, they failed to thrive. According to Freud, if basic needs are met, infants would bond with their mothers. Instead, the orphaned infants lost weight, grew passive, and showed no positive feelings for the nurse who fed them (Rutter, 2006). Spitz came to believe that the children suffered a kind of emotional deprivation from the loss of their mothers, and that this sense of loss had lasting negative impacts on their development.

Researcher Harry Harlow’s work also had an important influence on the development of attachment theory. In Harlow’s classic study (1958), rhesus monkeys were taken from their mothers shortly after birth and placed in a cage with two mechanical “mothers.” One was made of wire and had a feeding bottle. The other was covered in soft terrycloth and had no bottle. Surprisingly, all the infant monkeys spent much more time clinging to the cloth mother than the wire one, only going to the wire mother to feed. From this and later experiments, Harlow concluded that an infant’s love for its mother is based more on emotional needs than physical requirements such as hunger and thirst.

Bowlby used the term “maternal deprivation” to describe the emotional trauma suffered by infants who lose their mother or other beloved caregiver. He also believed that the evolutionary need for protection reinforced children’s profound attachment to their maternal or principal caregiver. “The infant and young child,” Bowlby stated in one of his early works, “should experience a warm, intimate, and continuous relationship with his mother (or permanent mother substitute) in which both find satisfaction and enjoyment” (1951). Bowlby argued that not experiencing this fundamental relationship would have serious impacts on a child’s mental health.

Although it is most evident at about age 1 year, attachment begins before birth and influences relationships throughout life (see At About This Time). Adults’ attachment to their parents, formed decades earlier, affects their behaviour with their own children as well as their relationship with their partners (Grossmann et al., 2005; Kline, 2008; Simpson & Rholes, 2010; Sroufe et al., 2005).

In recent years, research on infant attachment has looked beyond Western parenting practices; in Canada, the caregiver-infant relationship within Aboriginal families has merited closer attention. Researchers Cindy Hardy and Sherry Bellamy from British Columbia (2013) have pointed out that the Western perspective of attachment theory is simplistic in comparison to how Aboriginal peoples view family life.

For many Aboriginal families in Canada (and elsewhere), the themes of holism, balance, and respect inform the way children are instructed in their views of health and sickness, and their relations to others (Adelson, 2007). The Medicine Wheel, for example, is one of the models that represents First Peoples’ worldview of the interactions and balance among mind, emotions, spirit, and body (Mitchell & Maracle, 2005), and the interconnectedness with all person’s relations, community, and the land (Vukic et al., 2011). So, researchers in this area need to pay attention to the history, ancestors, extended family, and community to which the caregiver and child are connected, as these connections influence parenting.

Signs of AttachmentInfants show their attachment through proximity-seeking (such as approaching and following their caregivers) and by maintaining contact (such as touching, snuggling, and holding). Proximity-seeking is evident when a baby cries if the mother wants privacy when she goes to the bathroom, or if a backward-facing car seat prevents the baby from seeing the parent. Some parents in the front passenger seat reach back to give a hand, which sometimes reassures the baby. However, contact-maintaining need not be physical: visual or verbal connections are often sufficient.

Research on attachment has occurred in dozens of nations, with people of many ages. Attachment seems to be universal, but specific manifestations vary. For instance, Ugandan mothers never kiss their infants but often massage them, contrary to Western custom. Adults who are securely attached to each other might remain in contact via daily phone calls, emails, or texts, and keep in proximity by sitting in the same room as each reads quietly. Some scholars believe that attachment, not only of mother and infant but also of fathers, grandparents, and non-relatives, is the reason that Homo sapiens thrived whereas other species became extinct (Hrdy, 2009).

Secure and Insecure AttachmentAs infants make sense of their social world, they develop an internal working model, a cognitive framework that is comprised of mental representations for interpreting their world, self, and others. So, how the situation will be evaluated, what is expected, and what infants will do are guided by the internal working model. Simply put, Bowlby (1969) believed that their first relationship (primary caregiver) will act as the prototype for future relationships.

Mary Ainsworth first developed a way of studying Bowlby’s attachment theory by conducting experiments that identified different types of attachment that infants might have with their caregivers. Based on Ainsworth’s work, attachment is now classified into four types, A, B, C, and D (see TABLE 4.1).

Infants with secure attachment (B) feel comfortable and confident because their parents are generally responsive and sensitive to their needs. “Responsive” and “sensitive” are terms that need to be distinguished because they describe two different types of behaviour. If a baby cries and a parent immediately goes over to the baby to see what the matter is, this is responsive behaviour. However, does the parent know why the baby is crying? Is the baby hungry? Does the baby’s diaper need to be changed? Does the baby want to be held? That is when parents need to be sensitive to the needs of their infants (and later on, to those of their children). When parents are responsive and sensitive, infants learn that they can trust their parents to protect them and to ensure their well-being. The caregiver is also a base for exploration, providing assurance and enabling exploration. A toddler might, for example, scramble down from the caregiver’s lap to play with an intriguing toy, but periodically look back and vocalize (contact-maintaining) or bring the toy to the caregiver for inspection (proximity-seeking).

By contrast, insecure attachment (A and C) is characterized by fear, anxiety, anger, or indifference in children whose parents are not consistently sensitive or responsive to their needs. Some insecure children play independently without maintaining contact; this is insecure-avoidant attachment (A). The opposite reaction is also insecure: some children are unwilling to leave the caregiver’s lap, which is insecure-resistant/ambivalent attachment (C).

Ainsworth’s original schema identified only A, B, and C types of attachment. Later researchers discovered a fourth category (D), disorganized attachment. Type D infants may shift from hitting to kissing their mothers, from staring blankly to crying hysterically, or from pinching themselves to freezing in place.

Among the general population (not among infants with special needs), almost two-thirds of infant attachments are secure (B). Their mothers’ presence gives them courage to explore; her departure causes distress; her return elicits positive social contact (such as smiling or hugging) and then more playing. A balanced reaction, being concerned but not overwhelmed by comings and goings, indicates security. (Reference here to the mother is deliberate, as most early research was on mother–infant attachment; later research included fathers, siblings, and other caregivers.)

About one-third of infant attachments are insecure, either indifferent (A) or unduly anxious (C). About 5 to 10 percent of infants fit into none of these categories and are labelled disorganized (D). Disorganized infants have no evident strategy for social interaction (even an avoidant or resistant one, A or C). Sometimes they become hostile and aggressive, difficult for anyone to relate to (Lyons-Ruth et al., 1999). Unlike the first three types, disorganized infants have elevated levels of cortisol in reaction to stress (Bernard & Dozier, 2010).

Measuring AttachmentAinsworth (1973) developed a now-classic laboratory procedure called the Strange Situation to measure attachment. The procedure takes place in a location that is unfamiliar to the infant, which is likely to increase the infant’s need for his or her parent. In a well-equipped playroom, an infant is observed for eight episodes, each lasting three minutes. First, the infant and his or her parent are together in the playroom. Then, the infant is exposed to separations from and reunions with the parent, as well as two interactions with a stranger, one with the parent in the room and one with the parent out of the room. During these episodes, observers rate the infant’s behaviour according to

• Exploration of the toys. A secure toddler plays happily.
• Reaction to the caregiver’s departure. A secure toddler notices when the caregiver leaves and shows some sign of missing him or her.
• Reaction to the caregiver’s return. A secure toddler welcomes the caregiver’s reappearance, usually seeking contact, and then plays again.

In this procedure, the infant’s behaviour in response to these situations indicates the quality or security of the child’s attachment.

Attachment is not always measured via the Strange Situation. Instead, surveys and interviews are also used. Sometimes parents answer 90 questions about their children’s characteristics, and sometimes adults are interviewed extensively (according to a detailed protocol) about their relationships with their own parents, again with various specific measurements (Fortuna & Roisman, 2008).

Research measuring attachment has revealed that some behaviours that might seem normal are, in fact, a sign of insecurity. For instance, an infant who clings to the caregiver and refuses to explore the toys in the new playroom might be type A. Likewise, adults who say their childhood was happy and their mother was a saint, especially if they provide few specific memories, might be insecure. And young children who are immediately friendly to strangers may never have formed a secure attachment (Tarullo et al., 2011). A new diagnostic category in DSM-5, reactive attachment disorder, recognizes that some children never form an attachment at all, even an insecure one.

Assessments of attachment, developed and validated for middle-class North Americans, may not be culturally appropriate elsewhere. Infants who seem dismissive or clingy may not always be insecure, as cultures differ. Everywhere, however, infants are attached to their parents, and everywhere secure attachment predicts academic success and emotional stability (Erdman & Ng, 2010; Molitor & Hsu, 2011; Rothbaum et al., 2011).

Insecure Attachment and Social Setting

At first, developmentalists expected secure attachment to “predict all the outcomes reasonably expected from a well-functioning personality” (R. A. Thompson & Raikes, 2003). But this expectation turned out to be naive.

Securely attached infants are more likely to become secure toddlers, socially competent preschoolers, high-achieving schoolchildren, and capable parents (R. A. Thompson, 2006) (see TABLE 4.2). Attachment affects early brain development, one reason these later outcomes occur (Diamond & Fagundes, 2010). However, A, B, C, or D status may shift with family circumstances, such as divorce, abuse, or income loss.

Harsh contexts, especially the stresses of poverty, reduce the incidence of secure attachment (Seifer et al., 2004; van IJzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2010), and insecure attachment correlates with many later problems. However, correlation is not causation, and thus insecure attachment may not be the direct cause of those problems.

Many aspects of low SES make low school achievement, hostile children, and fearful adults more likely. The underlying premise—that responsive early parenting leads to secure attachment, which buffers stress and encourages exploration—seems valid, but attachment behaviours in the Strange Situation are only one indication of the quality of the parent–child relationship.

Insights From RomaniaNo scholar doubts that close human relationships should develop in the first year of life and that the lack of such relationships has dire consequences. Unfortunately, thousands of children born in Romania are proof. When Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausesçu outlawed birth control and abortions in the 1980s, illegal abortions became the leading cause of death for Romanian women aged 15 to 45 (Verona, 2003), and more than 100 000 children were abandoned to crowded, impersonal, state-run orphanages. The children experienced severe deprivation, including virtually no normal interaction, play, or conversation (Rutter et al., 2007).

In the two years after Ceausesçu was ousted and executed in 1989, thousands of those children were adopted by North American, western European, and Australian families. Those who were adopted before 6 months of age fared best; synchrony was established via play and caregiving. Most of them developed normally.

For those adopted after 6 months, and especially after 12 months, early signs were encouraging: skinny infants gained weight and grew faster than other 1-year-olds, developing motor skills they had lacked (Park et al., 2011). However, the impact of early social deprivation soon became evident in their emotions and cognition. Many were overly friendly to strangers throughout childhood, a sign of insecure attachment (Tarullo et al., 2011). At age 11, they scored an average of only 85 on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) IQ test, 15 points below normal (Rutter et al., 2010).

Danger Ongoing Look closely and you can see danger. That bent crib bar could strangle an infant, and that chipped paint could contain lead. These three Romanian infants (photographed in 1990) escaped those dangers to be raised in loving adoptive homes. Unfortunately, the damage of social isolation (note the sheet around the crib) could not be completely overcome: some young adults who spent their first year in an institution like this still carry emotional scars.

©JOSEF POLLEROSS/THE IMAGE WORKS

These children are now young adults, many with serious emotional or conduct problems. The cause is more social than biological. Even those who were relatively well nourished at adoption, or who caught up to normal growth, often became impulsive and angry teenagers. Apparently, the stresses of adolescence and emerging adulthood exacerbated the cognitive and social strains on these children and their families (Merz & McCall, 2011).

Romanian infants are no longer available for international adoption, but some are still abandoned. Research confirms that early emotional deprivation, not genes or nutrition, is their greatest problem. Romanian infants develop best in their own families, second best in foster families, and worst in institutions (Nelson et al., 2007). To the best of our knowledge, this applies to infants everywhere: Families usually care for their babies better than strangers do.

Fortunately, institutions have improved somewhat; more recent adoptees are not as impaired as those 1990 Romanian orphans (Merz & McCall, 2011). However, some infants in every nation are still deprived of healthy interactions, and the early months seem to be a sensitive period for emotional development. Children need parents, biological or not (McCall et al., 2011).

Preventing ProblemsAll infants need love and stimulation; all seek synchrony and then attachment—secure if possible, insecure if not. Without some adult support, infants become disorganized, adrift, and emotionally troubled. Extreme early social deprivation is very difficult to overcome.

Since synchrony and attachment develop over the first year, and since more than one-third of all parents have difficulty establishing secure attachments, many developmentalists seek to discover what particularly impairs these parents and what can be done. We know that secure attachment is more difficult when parents were abused as children, when families are socially isolated, when mothers are young adolescents, or when infants are unusually difficult (Berlin et al., 2011).

If biological parents cannot care for their newborns, foster or adoptive parents need to be found quickly so synchrony and attachment can develop (McCall et al., 2011). Sometimes children are placed in kinship care, especially with their grandparents. In Canada, provincial governments have begun to emphasize using the least intrusive form of intervention when placing a child in foster care. This means they are now providing financial support for kinship care through their foster care systems. As a result, the number of children under 18 years in Canada who were living with grandparents instead of parents increased by 20 percent from 1991 to 2001. When grandparents serve as a child’s primary caregivers, this is known as a “skipped generation household.” By 2001, there were 56 700 Canadian grandparents in skipped generation households (Fuller-Thomson, 2005).

This trend is especially evident among First Nations, whose children, according to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, are four to six times more likely than other Canadian children to come into the care of child welfare agencies (Fuller-Thomson, 2005). Since the early 1980s, the federal and provincial governments have been handing over responsibility for child welfare on reserves to First Nations’ agencies. In developing protocols for placing at-risk infants into foster care, these agencies emphasize the need to keep the children within their home communities whenever possible, and preferably within the extended family. For this reason, grandparents are often the preferred caregivers when parents, for whatever reason, cannot perform this role themselves. Placing infants and young children with their grandparents not only avoids the disruption and trauma associated with handing them over to strangers, but also has the advantage of keeping the children in a culturally similar milieu where they will feel more at home and comfortable (Fuller Thomson, 2005).

If high-risk birth parents believe they can provide good care, early support may avoid later problems. Success has been reported when skilled professionals come to the home to nurture secure relationships between infant and caregiver (Lowell et al., 2011). In fact, if a professional helps parents in the first days after birth, perhaps by using the NBAS (mentioned in Chapter 2) to encourage bonding, problems need never start (e.g., Nugent et al., 2009).

Social Referencing

Social referencing refers to infants seeking emotional responses or information from other people. You may see this when you approach a toddler and she starts looking back and forth between her parent and you. She is looking for facial and body cues from her parent to see if she should be afraid. A parent’s reassuring glance or cautionary words, a facial expression of alarm, pleasure, or dismay—those are social references.

After age 1, when infants can walk and are little scientists, their need to consult others becomes urgent. Social referencing is constant, as toddlers search for clues in gazes, faces, and body position, paying close attention to emotions and intentions. They focus especially on their familiar caregivers, but they also use relatives, other children, and even strangers to help them assess objects and events. They are remarkably selective: even at 16 months, they recognize which strangers are reliable references and which are not (Poulin-Dubois & Chow, 2009).

Social referencing has many practical applications. Consider mealtime. Caregivers the world over smack their lips, pretend to taste, and say “yum-yum,” encouraging toddlers to eat their first beets, liver, or spinach. For their part, toddlers become astute at reading expressions, insisting on the foods that the adults really like. Through this process, some children may develop a taste for raw fish or curried goat or smelly cheese—foods that children in other cultures might refuse. Similarly, toddlers use social cues to understand the difference between real and pretend eating (Nishida & Lillard, 2007), as well as to understand which toys, emotions, and activities are encouraged or forbidden.

Fathers as Social Partners

Fathers enhance their children’s social and emotional development in many ways (Lamb, 2010). Synchrony, attachment, and social referencing are all apparent with fathers, sometimes even more than with mothers. This was doubted until researchers found that some infants are securely attached to their fathers but not to their mothers (Bretherton, 2010). Further, fathers elicit more smiles and laughter from their infants than mothers do.

Close father–infant relationships can teach infants (especially boys) appropriate expressions of emotion (Boyce et al., 2006), particularly anger. The results may endure: Teenagers are less likely to lash out at friends and authorities if, as infants, they experienced a warm, responsive relationship with their father (Trautmann-Villalba et al., 2006). Close relationships with infants help men, too, by reducing the risk of depression (Borke et al., 2007; Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2007).

In some cultures and ethnic groups, fathers spend much less time with infants than mothers do (Parke & Buriel, 2006; Tudge, 2008). Culture and parental attitudes are influential: Some women believe that child care is their special domain (Gaertner et al., 2007), while some fathers think it unmanly to dote on an infant. This is not equally true everywhere. For example, Denmark has high rates of father involvement. At birth, 97 percent of Danish fathers are present, and five months later, most Danish fathers say that every day they change diapers (83 percent), feed their infants (61 percent), and play with them (98 percent) (Munck, 2009).

Same Situation, Far Apart: Bonded That fathers enjoy their sons is not surprising, but notice the infants’ hands—one clutching Dad’s hair tightly and the other reaching for Dad’s face. At this age, infants show their trust in adults by grabbing and reaching. Synchrony and attachment are mutual, in Ireland (left), Kenya (right), and everywhere.

ALAMY
BRITTA KASHOLM-TENGVE/GETTY IMAGES

Research on ethnic minority fathers in North America has increased in recent years, particularly on fathers in immigrant families (Chuang & Moreno, 2011; Chuang & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013). Earlier views of these fathers tended to reinforce stereotypes and generalizations. They often portrayed fathers as strict or distant. However, more recent studies have not substantiated such views.

To illustrate, studies on immigrant Chinese-Canadian and mainland Chinese families with 1-year-olds showed that Chinese fathers in both communities demonstrate a more egalitarian and child-centred framework in their parenting approach. When fathers were asked what their roles and responsibilities were in their families, both Chinese-Canadian and Chinese fathers stated that their roles are multi-dimensional: economic provider, caregiver, playmate, educator/trainer, and household chore performer (Chuang & Su, 2008). When mothers and fathers were asked to recount their daily activities over the last few days, they both recalled fathers spending time with their toddlers, including changing their diapers and feeding and playing with them. Fathers also did household chores (Chuang, 2013; Chuang & Su, 2008).

Less rigid sex roles seem to be developing among parents in many nations. One example of historical change is the number of married mothers with children under age 6 who are employed in Canada. The employment rate in 2009 for this population was 64.4 percent, as compared to 27.6 percent in 1976 (Statistics Canada, 2010a). Note the reference to “married” mothers: About half the mothers of infants in Canada are not married, and their employment rates are even higher. As detailed later in this chapter, often fathers—not necessarily married to the mothers—help care for infants when mothers are at the workplace.

One sex difference seems to endure: Mothers engage in more caregiving and comforting, and fathers in more high-intensity play (Kochanska et al., 2008). When asked to play with their baby, mothers typically caress, read, sing, or rely on traditional games such as peekaboo. Fathers are more exciting: They move their infant’s limbs in imitation of walking, kicking, or climbing, or they swing the baby through the air, sideways, or even upside down. Mothers might say, “Don’t drop him”; fathers and babies laugh with joy.

Since the 1970s, father–infant research has tried to answer three questions:

1. Can men provide the same care as women?
2. Is father–infant interaction different from mother–infant interaction?
3. How do fathers and mothers interact to provide infant care?

FIGURE 4.2 The Effects of Depression Toddlers are naturally curious and careless, often taxing the patience of parents. However, research shows that fathers who were depressed were more likely to spank their children. Both depression and spanking are affected by financial stress, marital conflict, and cultural norms.

Many studies over the years have answered yes to the first two. On the third question, the answer depends on the family (Bretherton, 2010). Usually mothers are caregivers and fathers are playmates, but not always—each couple, given their circumstances (which might include being immigrant, low-income, or same-sex), finds their own way to complement each other to help their infant thrive (Lamb, 2010).

A constructive parental alliance is not guaranteed, whether or not the parents are legally wed. Sometimes neither parent is happy with their infant, with themselves, or with each other. One study reported that 7 percent of fathers of 1-year-olds were depressed, and they were four times as likely to spank as non-depressed fathers (40 percent versus 10 percent) (See Figure 4.2) (Davis et al, 2011).

Family members are affected by each other’s moods: Paternal depression correlates with maternal depression, and with sad, angry, and disobedient toddlers. Cause and consequence are intertwined. When infants are depressed, or anxious, or hostile, the family triad (mother, father, baby) all need help.