Fathers’ frightening behaviors 2 Running head: FATHERS’ FRIGHTENING BEHAVIORS Fathers’ frightening behaviors and sensitivity with infants: Relations with fathers’ attachment representations, father-infant attachment, and children’s later outcomes

This longitudinal study of 125 families investigated whether negative child outcomes related to fathers’ frightening (FR) behaviors with infants would be mitigated if fathers were also sensitive. Results indicated that children whose fathers were FR and insensitive with them during infancy showed the highest emotional under-regulation at 24 months and highest teacher ratings of attention problems at age 7, whereas those whose fathers were FR and sensitive did not differ from children whose fathers were sensitive but not FR. Sensitive caregiving mitigated the negative impact of FR behaviors on child outcomes for fathers, but not mothers. Perhaps fathers who can be sensitive but also engage in stimulating, albeit frightening, interactions with their infants may actually be scaffolding their ability to regulate their affect in intensely emotional situations. Frightening behaviors by mothers may be more problematic for child outcomes since these behaviors conflict with the primary caregiver’s role of providing comfort. Fathers’ frightening behaviors 4 Fathers’ frightening behaviors and sensitivity with infants: Relations with fathers’ attachment representations, father-infant attachment, and children’s later outcomes Since the early seventies, research on fathers and their role in children’s development has steadily increased. Studies have shown that infants become attached to fathers as well as mothers (Lamb, 1977), and that fathers make important contributions to their children’s developmental outcomes (Lamb, 2002). Still, research on father-infant attachment and it relation to paternal caregiving and child outcomes has lagged far behind research on mother-infant attachment, primarily because attachment theory characterizes fathers as secondary attachment figures, and there has been relatively little discussion of what the role of a ―secondary‖ attachment figure is. As the secondary attachment figure, do fathers have the same function as mothers, but to a lesser degree, or do they serve qualitatively different functions? Most of the research on father-infant attachment and caregiving has assumed the latter and thus has focused on replicating findings from the mother-infant attachment literature with fathers, using the same assessments and hypotheses. Specifically, recent research has indicated that both fathers and mothers who have secure-autonomous representations of attachment, i.e., who value attachment relationships and are able to openly and objectively discuss and evaluate both negative and positive aspects of their childhood experiences with their own parents, are more likely than parents who have insecure representations of attachment to be sensitive in interactions with their infants (van IJzendoorn, 1995; Grossman, Grossmann., Fremmer-Bombik, Kindler, Scheuerer-Englisch, & Zimmermann, 2002). Moreover, sensitive caregiving has been found to mediate the relationship between the parent’s secure-autonomous Fathers’ frightening behaviors 5 representation of attachment and the development of a secure parent-infant attachment relationship for fathers as well as mothers (van IJzendoorn & De Wolff, 1997). In a longitudinal study of 125 couples followed from before the birth of their first child until the child was 7 years old, we replicated the finding that sensitive caregiving mediates the relationship between fathers’ secure-autonomous representations of attachment and secure attachment with their infants (McFarland, Hazen, Jacobvitz, & Boyd-Soisson, under review). However, we also found striking differences in the caregiving behaviors of fathers versus mothers who were classified as unresolved/disorganized (U/d) on the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) (George, Kaplan, & Main, 1984/1985/1996). As part of the AAI, subjects are asked to describe and evaluate a number of attachment-related experiences, including loss of attachment figures through death and traumatic experiences such as abuse. Subjects are considered to be unresolved with respect to loss or trauma (U/d) if they show lapses in the monitoring of reasoning or discourse during discussions of traumatic experiences, such as death of loved ones, or physical or sexual abuse. For example, U/d subjects may speak as thought the person who died many years ago is still alive, or may exhibit prolonged silences or incoherent speech while discussing the trauma, suggesting that the speaker has retreated to an altered state. Parents’ unresolved loss or trauma is believed to spontaneously give rise to fears related to the loss or trauma that induce the parents to behave for brief moments in ways that frighten their infants. In turn, infants who continually experience frightened and/or frightening, or FR, behavior from their primary caregiver are caught in an irresolvable paradox, in which they fear the very person from whom they want to seek comfort when they are afraid. In turn, infants who continually experience frightening care from their Fathers’ frightening behaviors 6 primary caregiver are caught in an irresolvable paradox, in which they fear the very person from whom they want to seek comfort when they are afraid. The likely result is theorized to be a pattern of disorganized parent-infant attachment, in which the infant shows conflicted, anomalous approach-avoidance behaviors in attachment-relevant situations with the caregiver (Main & Hesse, 1990; Lyons-Ruth & Jacobvitz, 2008). To examine parents’ frightening behavior, Main and Hesse (1995) developed a system for coding frightening (FR) parental behaviors that traumatized parents might display during interactions with their infants. These behaviors include physical threatening behaviors (e.g., sudden invasions of vulnerable areas of the infant’s body, attack postures, pursuit movements), facial/verbal threatening behaviors (e.g., baring ones’ teeth, widening and rolling back one’s eyes so the whites show, suddenly roaring at the baby), frightened behaviors (e.g., frightened facial expressions, backing away from the infant as the infant approaches), dissociative behaviors (e.g., freezing or stilling for several seconds, handling the baby like an inanimate object), and role-reversed behaviors (e.g., deferential or sexualized behaviors such as sensual stroking). These behaviors are inexplicable in the context of the interaction and are presumed to occur when the parent is in an altered, dissociated state of consciousness. Empirical support for links between mothers’ U/d classification and FR behavior has been found in an increasing number of studies (Schuengel, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 1999; Abrams, Rifkin, & Hesse, 2006; Madigan, Moran, & Pederson, 2006), as well as in our own longitudinal sample (Jacobvitz, Leon, & Hazen, 2006). Even more studies have found strong support for links between mothers’ U/d attachment classification and disorganized mother-infant attachment in the Strange Fathers’ frightening behaviors 7 Situation (Lyons-Ruth & Jacobvitz, 2008), and at least one study found that maternal frightening behavior mediates the link between mothers’ U/d attachment representations and mother-infant disorganized attachment (Schuengel et. al., 1999). In our research, however, we did not find evidence for relations among U/d attachment, FR behavior, and disorganized attachment for fathers (McFarland et al., under review). Compared to other fathers, even other insecure fathers, our fathers classified as U/d were less sensitive, more emotionally disengaged, and more hostile with their infants, but not more likely to show FR behavior. Interestingly, our mothers classified as U/d had similar levels of FR behavior as the U/d fathers (Jacobvitz et al., 2006). However, unlike mothers, fathers who were not U/d were just as likely as U/d fathers to engage in FR behavior, so that fathers as a group had significantly higher mean levels of FR behavior than did mothers. Further, we found that disorganized father-infant attachment was predicted only by fathers’ low sensitivity, not by their FR behavior. Only one other study (Abrams et al., 2006) has investigated links between U/d attachment representations, FR behavior, and parent-infant attachment disorganization in fathers. This study reported no significant differences among these measures for mothers and fathers, and therefore the mother and father data (50 mothers and 25 fathers) was combined for analysis. However, only 6 of the 75 subjects were classified as U/d, and it was not clear how many of these 6 were fathers. Considering both the relatively high levels of father FR behavior that we observed and the paucity of research on this topic, further research is needed on father’s FR behavior, its relation to father-infant attachment, its meaning in father-infant interaction, and its implications for children’s later outcomes. Fathers’ frightening behaviors 8 Our findings suggest that FR caregiving is much more frequent in fathers than mothers. In fact, over 40% of the fathers in our study were observed to engage in FR behaviors with their infants. For example, one father grabbed his 8-month-old baby from behind by the legs, pulled him backwards and said, ―I’m gonna get you‖ in a low, growling voice, then suddenly pulled the baby up by the legs and dangled him upside down. Another father snuck up behind the baby while he was playing quietly and suddenly loomed his face right up to the baby’s face, roaring with bared teeth and widened eyes. But when each of these babies became frightened and cried, these fathers cuddled them and spoke soothingly. Other fathers, in contrast, engaged in similar behaviors but rather than respond with comfort when their babies became frightened, they often withdrew or reprimanded the baby. Thus, some fathers who show high levels of frightening behavior with their infants may be sensitive at the same time, while others may be frightening and insensitive. Is much, if not most, of the FR behavior we observed in father-infant