1. Attachment in Close Relationships and its Influence on Parenting Practices Miranda Bradley, Kimberly Garrow, Whitney Rostad, and Paul Silverman Design: The data from this study is part of a larger, longitudinal research project and explores the relationship between early caregiving experiences and parenting behaviors and practices. Participants: N = 79 M age = 31.78 years, 62.4% married or in a steady relationship Recruited from Head Start programs, local community, and Evolution Services (included caregivers referred by Child and Family Services) Predominantly from Caucasian, lower income families Most parents were high school/GED graduates who had attended some college Procedures: Participants engaged in an initial round of assessments completed in either a quiet room or in some cases at the participants’ homes. Questionnaires required between 30 minutes and an hour to complete and were ordered to minimize priming effects. Instruments: Parental Acceptance and Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ): used to determine participants’ perceptions of early childhood relationships with caregivers Experiences in Close Relationships Questionnaire-Revised (ECR-R): used to determine participants’ state of mind regarding romantic relationships Parent Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI): used to determine participants’ state of mind regarding child/family relationships –Several subscales: Parental support, Satisfaction with Parenting, Autonomy, Involvement, Communication, and Limit Setting Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale (CCNES): used to determine participants’ strategies for coping with negative emotions –Six subscales: Distress reactions, Punitive reactions, Minimization reactions, Expressive encouragement, Emotion-focused reactions, and Problem-focused reaction Parental Reflective Functioning Questionnaire-1 (PRFQ-1): used to determine caregivers’ capacity for reflective functioning –Three subscales: Pre-mentalizing modes, Certainty of mental states, Interest and curiosity in mental states Demographic Survey METHOD Attachment theory proposes that caregiving experiences significantly influence children’s socio-emotional development (Fraley, Roisman, Booth-La Force, Owen & Holland, 2013). If a parent is unable to anticipate and meet the needs of their child, the child can develop maladaptive approaches and responses to future close relationships (Aber & Allen, 1987). Mounting research on adults has found that early attachment relationships with caregivers affect how they experience close relationships with others as well as how they perceive their relationship with their own children (Allen, 2008). Two specific dimensions of adult attachment—anxiety and avoidance—have been linked to negative experiences in adult romantic relationships (Wood, Werner-Wilson, Parker, & Perry, 2012). However, it is less well known how these dimensions relate to parenting behaviors and the quality of parent-child relationships. Reflective functioning has gained increasing support as a fundamental mechanism in the transmission of attachment styles (Slade, 2005). Parents capable of recognizing and considering their own internal mental states when interacting with their child, as well as being able to understand their child’s mental state, based on the child’s behavior, provide a stable foundation for early social and emotional development. Studies have shown caregivers’ coping strategies when addressing children’s negative emotions significantly impacts a child’s social and emotional well-being (Aber & Allen, 1987). The responses conveyed by a parent, such as harsh or distressing reactions, as well as maladaptive coping strategies when addressing a child’s negative emotions, can negatively affect the child’s social competency and emotional regulation (Fabes, Leonard, Kupanoff, & Martin, 2001).INTRODUCTION Significant relationships were detected between attachment anxiety and avoidance and many of the reported parenting practices as measured by the PRFQ-1. Surprisingly, results did not detect many significant relationships between perceived early experiences of rejection and many of the reported parenting behaviors, practices, and experiences in relationships with their own children. For example, participants who reported more avoidance in intimate relationships were more likely to report less involvement and communication with their child, as well as less likely to engage in more supportive coping strategies with their children’s negative emotions. These participants were also less certain of and interested in their children’s mental states. While it is intuitive to expect a relationship between caregivers’ early life experiences with rejection and later relationships with their own offspring (Rohner, Khaleque, & Cournoyer, 2012; Slade, 2005), it is curious that the data in the current study did not reflect this position, as very few significant relationships between parental rejection and many parenting behaviors were detected. Results showed that participants who reported limited reflective functioning also reported more negative experiences and tendencies in their relationships with their children. This suggests that, not only is the self-report PRFQ-1 measuring what it is indeed supposed to measure, but also that reflective functioning is significantly related to many aspects of parent-child relationships. Future Research: More objective measures, such as observational longitudinal methods, would be ideal to further validate the data. It would be interesting to further study the demographic variables that contribute to these findings. For example, relationships between parental rejection and reported parenting behaviors could be stronger for parents involved with child welfare agencies. Further measures should be taken to determine if any impactful early relationship, beside with the mother and father, buffered the impact of early rejection during childhood on parenting practices and experiences in parent-child relationships.DISCUSSION Aber, J. L., & Allen, J. P. (1987) Effects of maltreatment on young children’s socioemotional development: An attachment theory perspective. Development Psychology, 23(3), 406-414. Fabes, R., Leonard, S., Kupanoff, K., & Martin, C. (2001). Parental coping with children’s negative emotions: Relations with children’s emotional and social responding. Society for Research in Children Development, 72(3), 907-920. Fraley, R. C., Roisman, G. I., Booth-LaForce, C., Owen, M. T., & Holland, A. S. (2013). Interpersonal and genetic origins of adult attachment styles: A longitudinal study from infancy to early adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(5), 817-838. Rohner, R. P., Khaleque, A., & Cournoyer, D. E. (2012). Introduction to parental acceptance-rejection: Theory, methods, evidence, and implications. Retrieved May 9, 2013 from University of Connecticut Center for the Study of Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection website at www.csiar.uconn.edu.www.csiar.uconn.edu Slade, A. (2005). Parental reflective functioning: An introduction. Attachment and Human Development, 7(3), 269-281. Wood, N., Werner-Wilson, R., Parker, T., & Perry, M. (2012). Exploring the Impact of Attachment Anxiety and Avoidance on the Perception of Couple Conflict. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 34(3), 416-428).REFERENCES UMCUR, 2014 (Missoula, MT)) 123456789101112131415161718 1. Father rejection 2. Mother rejection0.253* 3. Anxiety0.279*0.269* 4. Avoidance0.248*0.1060.514 5. Parental support-0.149-0.147-0.538**-0.555** 6. Satisfaction with parenting0.119-0.004-0.033-0.246**0.358** 7. Involvement0.076†-0.184-0.126-0.246*0.548**0.661** 8. Communication-0.038-0.065†-0.134-0.296*0.548**0.499**0.778** 9. Limit Setting-0.028-0.225*-0.259*-0.0410.572**0.325**0.461**0.473** 10. Autonomy-0.219*-0.214*-0.271*0.0050.093†0.1430.092†-0.0110.241* 11. Distress reactions-0.073†0.1380.1790.171-0.287*-0.486**-0.503**-0.411**-0.412**-0.092† 12. Punitive reactions-0.067†0.01-0.0130.084†-0.126-0.285*0.305**-0.304**-0.241*0.0280.608** 13. Expressive encouragement-0.12-0.016-0.168-0.1780.209*0.288*0.444**0.397**0.227*0.114-0.547**-0.404** 14. Emotion-focused reactions-0.088†0.030-0.204*-0.273*0.255*0.227*0.407**0.351**0.203*-0.225*-0.454**-0.269*0.506** 15. Problem-focused reactions-0.158-0.103-0.192-0.323**0.299*0.460**0.545**0.459**0.273*0.097†-0.563**-0.397**0.721**0.686** 16. Minimization reactions0.078†-0.1170.097†0.152-0.158-0.132-0.193-0.323**-0.274*-0.1040.470**0.669**-0.340**-0.108-0.294* 17. Pre-mentalizing states-0.0050.082†0.0230.064†-0.343**-0.515**-0.628**-0.531**-0.443**-0.285*0.453**0.351**-0.363**-0.142-0.393**0.13 18. Certainty of mental states-0.158-0.191-0.165-0.237*0.392**0.20.432**0.439**0.466**0.064†-0.194-0.0090.307**0.316**0.361**-0.111-0.173 19. Interest and curiosity in mental states0.0150.03-0.061†-0.288*0.087†0.283*0.387**0.234*0.026-0.025-0.258*-0.263*0.208*0.225*0.378**-0.125-0.296*-0.064† ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the Doris Duke Fellowship for the Promotion of Child Well-Being for the funding of this study. RESULTS