Soon after birth, children are involved in social exchanges with caregivers. These exchanges, which typically occur hundreds of times a day, are the primary local environment in which psychosocial development is fostered or hindered. However, assessing and improving child-caregiver interaction has not yet become an essential part of assistance to educators and families. [For recent contributions, however, see the work of Bailey, Palsha, & Simeonsson (1991); Bromwich (1981); Brown-Gorton & Wolery (1988); Kozloff (1994a, 1994b); MacDonald and Gillette (1984); Mahoney and Powell (1988); Mahoney, Robinson, and Powell (1992); Marfo (1988, 1992); Peck (1989); Seifer, Clark, and Sameroff (1991); Shonkoff, Hauser-Cram, Krauss, and Upshur (1992); Shores (1987); Spiker, Ferguson, and Brooks-Gunn (1993); Tannock, Girolametto, and Siegel (1992); Wetherby and Prizant (1989); and Weistuch and Lewis (1985).]

Inattention to child-caregiver exchanges helps to explain certain destructive trajectories in the lives of many children. For example, if a child has pre-existing "problems" (given caregivers' resources) with temperament, attention, modulation of stimulation, and/or learning, and if caregivers unwittingly reinforce the child's "excessive" or "difficult" behaviors (e.g., fussing or hitting) and less often or less effectively reinforce prosocial and instrumental task behaviors, then the child's "difficult" behaviors may escalate and become durable, while desirable behaviors develop more slowly (Carden-Smith & Fowler, 1983; Carr, Taylor, & Robinson, 1991; Hamblin, Buckholdt, Ferritor, Kozloff, & Blackwell, 1971; Kozloff, 1983). Therefore, in the absence of timely assistance, the following changes may occur.

1. Child-caregiver relationships are increasingly conflictual.

2. The child is seen as an adversary.

3. Caregivers withdraw from the child and/or begin to use harsh methods of discipline.

4. As a result of the above, the child develops fears, sleeping or eating problems, and perhaps aggressive behavior (Trickette, 1993).

5. Caregivers experience much stress and perceive efforts to improve the situation as futile.

6. The child may be diagnosed with an emotional or conduct disorder, and may be ejected from the family and/or school (Donenberg & Baker, 1993).

This paper presents a model of how children's psychosocial development is affected by interaction with caregivers. The model synthesizes information from the author's research with families and schools (Kozloff, 1979, 1988, 1994a, 1994b, 1998; Kozloff et al., 1988) and more than 400 articles and book chapters (representing behavioral, transactional, and cognitive-developmental perspectives) yielded by the data bases PsycLIT, Sociofile, Eric, and Medline published between 1976 and 1993. The model was not developed in the service of any theoretical position. Yet, the final product suggests several generalizations.

First, psychosocial development is a dialectical process. This means that a child's present repertoire (e.g., temperament, competencies, difficult behaviors, and disabilities--as perceived by caregivers) and a child's developmental trajectory (e.g., increasing competence vs worsening problem behavior--as perceived by caregivers) are part of and influence the very interactions that affect the child's development. In other words, children and their social environments change together.

Second, development (prosocial and antisocial) in individuals and social systems has momentum. For example, interaction patterns often change participants' actions, feelings, and perceptions of the self and the other person such that participants are likely to sustain these patterns--even when they are counterproductive. Therefore, in some families and schools it appears impossible to arrest harmful trajectories without outside intervention. This underscores the importance of early assessment, support, and training. Trajectories of interaction and psychosocial development are depicted by relationships among four variable sets.

Set 1 identifies initializing, intervening, and contributing conditions. These help to account for the origins and variations in trajectories between different child-caregiver relationships, and for stability vs change within the same relationship. In other words, variables in Set 1 help to answer questions such as, "How is it that the relationship between Brian and his parents became mutually satisfying so early, while Fred and his parents became adversaries?" "What is it that sustains conflict between Fred and his parents, and what factors, if changed, might enable them to get a fresh start?"

Set 2 identifies features of interaction that operationally define children's and caregivers' "involvement." The nature of "involvement" is important at any time, but especially during early stages (e.g., infancy, early childhood, or a child is entering a new environment), when it is critical that interaction fosters mutual affection; helps children to organize attention, feelings, and vegetative functions (e.g., eating, sleeping, eliminating); and increases children's skill at social interaction (Brazelton, Koslowski, & Main, 1974; Field, 1980, 1986; Fraiberg, 1974; Grossmann & Grossmann, 1991; Hyche, Bakeman, & Adamson, 1992; Tronick, 1980, 1989).

Early patterns of child-caregiver involvement (combined with conditions in Set 1) crystallize into durable patterns of interaction, or exchanges, that characterize a child-caregiver relationship (Set 3). Exchanges are interactions in which each participant takes at least one turn--initiating and/or reciprocating the action of the other person.

Exchanges are classified by the contingencies of reinforcement embedded in episodes (Kozloff, 1988, 1994a, 1994b; Patterson, 1980, 1982; Patterson & Reid, 1984; Pettit & Bates, 1989, 1990; van de Rijt-Plooij & Plooij, 1993). For instance, in the "rewarded noncompliance" exchange, a caregiver initiates with a question or request, and the child responds by objecting or ignoring. The caregiver repeats the initiation. This may reinforce the child's noncompliant response while offering yet another chance for noncooperation. If the child finally cooperates, the caregiver is reinforced for repeating initiations (nagging).

Using a typology of exchanges to assess interaction is especially useful when interaction is crystallizing into frequent, skillful, and durable patterns. This is because each type of exchange fosters specific changes in the participants involved. Therefore, by identifying typical child-caregiver exchanges in a school or family, we are better able to: 1) predict how children's and caregivers' behavioral repertoires and relationship are likely to change; and 2) identify ways to improve their interaction so as to further psychosocial development.

Again, both continuity and change in trajectories are affected by variables in Set 1. The next section briefly examines connections between patterns of child-caregiver interaction and children's psychosocial development.

Society is the coordination of members' actions into script-like forms. The simplest form is an exchange (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1961; Kozloff, 1988; Patterson & Reid, 1984; Simmel, 1971). Examples of exchanges include threats that are made by one person which produce placating responses from the other person; or requests that are made by one person which are followed by cooperation from the second person. Some exchanges involve only one or two turns on the part of each participant. For example, a child asks a question (initiation); her mother answers (reciprocation); and each person returns to what she was doing. However, most exchanges in a social system are assembled into longer sequences--activities such as meals, play, fights, work projects, and lessons. The structure of exchanges helps to organize the feelings, attention, and actions of participants, as shown by the following interaction between a two-month-old infant and his mother.

The infant produces two long bursts of animated behaviour and one short one
which is abruptly terminated by a shift of gaze away from the mother. In
between these "displays" the infant looks attentively at the face of the mother
who, at these moments, is calling or speaking to the baby (Trevarthen, 1977, p. 239).

Exchanges between infants and parents or between new students and peers or teachers (i.e., newcomers and established members) are at first irregular or dysfluent; that is, persons respond somewhat unpredictably to initiations (e.g., requests) and reciprocations (e.g., approval), or fail to take their turns. This is because newcomers may not know (infants certainly do not know) what an adult's words, facial expressions, postures, and hand gestures signify about the adult's feelings or next actions, or what the newcomer is expected to do. Similarly, adults may not tailor initiations, prompts, and reciprocations to the newcomer's competencies, capacities, and communicative intentions. With practice from repeated interaction, however, participants usually learn what each persons' actions signify or mean (Jones, 1977), and each person becomes skilled at taking his or her turns (Brazelton et al., 1974; Cohn & Tronick, 1987; Schaffer, Schaffer, Collis, & Parsons, 1977). This is true whether interaction fosters actions and social roles that are prosocial, antisocial, or self-destructive (Hamblin, Buckholdt, Ferritor, Kozloff, & Blackwell, 1971; Kozloff, 1998; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1989; Sobsey, 1994).

When interaction involves mutual reward (i.e., each person's actions are reinforcers for the other person), children become attentive to social activities, and they learn to organize affect (e.g., pleasure), the expression of affect (e.g., laughter), vegetative functions, and purposive actions into complex routines such as conversation and everyday tasks (Field, 1989; Fogel, 1992; Trevarthen, 1977). Simultaneously, caregivers learn how to further children's development--to initiate, prompt, and reciprocate children's actions in ways that are congruent with children's competencies, capacities, needs, and preferences. In summary, interaction is increasingly smooth and cooperative.

As children learn to collaborate in social life, other persons may come to see and treat them as increasingly competent. They provide resources (e.g., toys and affection), protection, more mature ways to contribute, and personhood (i.e., they see children as members with rights, responsibilities, and personality traits) (Abidin, Jenkins, & McGaughy, 1992; Brazelton, Tronick, Adamson, Als, & Wise, 1975; Henry, 1966; Schaffer, 1984; Valsiner, 1987). (See Personalization and Depersonalization.)

Interaction that involves fights, harsh discipline, and withholding affection, however, teaches children and caregivers to see each other as adversaries, and to withdraw or to use aversive actions to coerce reinforcing responses from the other person (Carden-Smith & Fowler, 1983; Carr, Taylor, & Robinson, 1991; Taylor & Carr, 1994). These patterns inhibit a child's learning desirable behavior and may worsen problem behavior, such as self-injury and aggression, to the point that a child is excluded from "normal" family, education, and recreation settings (Donenberg & Baker, 1993; Patterson, 1982; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion,1989; Trickette, 1993; van de Rijt-Plooij & Plooij, 1993). Therefore, it is important to understand how interaction that fosters vs hinders psychosocial development is initialized, sustained, and may be altered. Following sections address this by examining each of the variable sets noted above.

This section identifies factors that influence early interaction and the crystallizing of durable exchanges.

Children's Temperament, Competencies, and Disabilities
Some children's characteristics make it difficult for caregivers without support and training to engage them (or perhaps to sustain them) in productive interaction. For instance, some children (e.g., with autism, vision and hearing problems) initiate and reciprocate interaction with eye contact, facial expressions, and vocalizations less than children without disabilities; they resist being held; and they take longer to learn turn-taking competencies (Bailey & Wolery, 1984; Barden, Ford, Jensen, Rogers-Salyer, & Salyer, 1989; Fraiberg, 1974; Hyche et al., 1992; Jarvis et al., 1989; Marfo, 1992; Mitchell, 1987; Zirpoli & Bell, 1987).

Also, some infants and young children are temperamental--frequently make distressed faces; express negative mood through crying, turning away, and fussing; are noncompliant but persistent in attention-seeking; and infrequently smile and vocalize in a way that is pleasant for caregivers (Campbell et al., 1994; Shaw et al., 1994; van den Boom, 1991). This helps to explain why some caregivers are intrusive (perhaps as an effort to evoke responses from children) (Mitchell, 1987); and why some caregivers become less involved--make less physical and visual contact, are less responsive to positive behaviors, and soothe children less often than caregivers of nonirritable children (van den Boom & Hoeksma, 1994).

Caregivers' Emotional Wellbeing
Caregivers' emotional wellbeing can affect interaction and therefore children's development (Gardner, 1992). For example, depressed mothers tend to see their infants' behavior as more negative and their own behavior as more positive than do outside observers (Field, Morrow, & Adlestein, 1993). In addition, in contrast to infants and nondepressed mothers, infants and depressed mothers: 1) share more expressions of depressed mood and low activity levels, and share fewer positive behavior states (Field et al., 1989; Field, Widmayer, Adler, & DeCubas, 1990; Pickens & Field, 1993); 2) have fewer opportunities to coordinate actions into activity formats (Cohn, Reinaldo, Tronick, Connell, & Lyons-Ruth, 1986); and 3) experience more failure to repair mismatches (e.g., a depressed caregiver may not reciprocate an infant's effort to procure calming touch) (Tronick & Gianino, 1986). These early unsatisfying exchanges can crystallize into patterns of abuse and neglect (Kolko, Kazdin, Thomas, & Day, 1993; Kurtz, Gaudin, Howing, & Wodarski, 1993).

Stress
Certain stressors affect caregivers' abilities to initiate and sustain positive involvement and productive exchanges, or to improve children's behavior and development. These stressors include: 1) emotional problems (e.g., depression); 2) a child's irritability and unresponsivness; 3) economic vulnerability or hardship (Cantrell, Carrico, Franklin, & Grubb, 1990; Conger, Ge, Elder, Lorenz, & Simons, 1994; Dubowitz, Zuckerman, Bithoney, & Newberger, 1989; Palley & Fisher, 1991; Whipple & Webster-Stratton, 1991); and 4) marital discord (Gable, Belsky, & Crnic, 1992; Miller et al., 1993).

Coping Resources
Certain resources help caregivers to cope with stressors and/or to improve interaction. These include: 1) social support as a source of advice, encouragment, sense of belonging, and models for interpreting children's behavior in a more positive light (Corse, Schmid, & Trickett, 1990; Field, Widmayer, Adler, & DeCubans, 1990; Cooper, Dunst, & Vance, 1990); 2) supervision from spouse or home visitors (Cohen & Warren, 1990); 3) productive interaction with spouse and other family members (Mollerstrom, Patchner, & Milner, 1992); and 4) training tailored to caregivers' situations (e.g., handling depression, parenting children with difficult temperament, being a teenaged parent).

Training appears to result in caregivers: 1) increasing positive attitudes toward their children, knowledge of child development, warmth, opportunities for children to respond, and contingent responsivness; and 2) decreasing their intrusiveness and their reinforcement of undesirable behavior (Bansich, Brooks-Gunn, & Clewell, 1992; Kirkham, Schilling, & Norelius, 1986; Leifer, Wax, Leventhaler-Belfer, & Fouchia, 1989; Panzarine, 1988; Straythorne & Weidman, 1989). Possible effects of the above variables will be shown in the sections that follow, beginning with variable set 2.

When early interaction is characterized by "reciprocity" or "positive involvement," it favors the crystallization of mutually rewarding exchanges (Set 3) that (depending on several intervening variables) foster satisfactory psychosocial development (Brazelton et al., 1975; Frankel & Bates, 1990; Grossmann & Grossmann, 1991; Jarvis, Meyers, & Creasey, 1989; Pettit & Bates, 1989). However, when early interaction is characterized by "negative involvement," it favors the crystallization of counterproductive exchanges that promote children's externalizing behavior, weaken prosocial behavior, and/or victimize children through abuse (Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1990; Field, Healy, & LeBlanc, 1989; Hyche et al., 1992; McGonigle, Smith, Benjamin, & Turner, 1993; Miller, Cowan, Cowan, Hetherington, & Clingempeel, 1993; Olson, Bates, & Bayles, 1989, 1990; Plooij & van de Rijt-Plooij, 1989; van de Rijt-Plooij & Plooij, 1993; Shaw et al., 1994; Weiss, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1992). Positive and negative involvement are defined by four groups of behavior, as follows

Positive Or Negative Climates For Interaction
The likelihood that interaction will be reciprocal vs conflictual is influenced by the climate (something like a foundation) that is established through: 1) the expression of feelings; 2) attention and interest; 3) posture and positioning; 4) modulation of stimulation; and 5) associations between biological necessities (vegetative functions) and feelings.

Expression Of Feelings Expressing feelings is one way that children and caregivers regulate interaction (Field, 1986; Trevarthen, 1977; Tronick, 1989). For example, a caregiver understands a child's grimace as discomfort with the caregiver's close proximity; the caregiver moves back until the child is calmer. Moreover, the expression of affect influences children and caregivers seeking vs avoiding each other for activities, such as play (McCollum, 1983). The positive expression of feelings means that a caregiver frequently smiles, gently touches, warmly vocalizes, cuddles, laughs with, and caresses the child when the child is receptive (Field, Vega-Lahr, Goldstein, & Scafidi, 1987; Field, Vega-Lahr, Scafidi, & Goldstein, 1987; Marfo, 1992; Nwokah & Fogel, 1993).

The negative expression of feelings, however, means that a caregiver infrequently smiles, gently touches, warmly vocalizes, cuddles, laughs with, and caresses the child. Instead, the caregiver often frowns, wears a blank expression (the "still-face"), scolds, pushes, and roughly pulls or holds the child. As a result, a child's smiling may decrease (the child's "depressed" affect now matches the caregiver's), and the child's distress and gaze aversion increase (Cohn & Tronick, 1989; Field, 1986; Field, Vega-Lahr, Scafidi, & Goldstein, 1986; Gusella, Muir, & Tronick, 1988; Pickens & Field, 1993; van den Boom & Hoeksma, 1994). The caregiver may react to these changes in the child by withdrawing or by delivering aversive consequences. This may begin a trajectory of mutual withdrawal or maltreatment (Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1990; Pettit & Bates, 1989; Sanders, Patel, Le Grice, & Shepherd, 1993; Schindler & Arkowitz, 1986).

Attention and Interest An attentive and interested caregiver more effectively initiates and reciprocates a child's actions. Also, a child may understand the caregiver's attention as a sign of mutual involvement. Examples of positive attention and interest include: 1) face-to-face-talk and mutual "visual regard" (e.g., looking at the same objects); and 2) a caregiver turning toward and watching the child's actions (Duchan, 1989; Reimers & Fogel, 1992; Sigman, Beckwith, Cohen, & Parmelee, 1989). Negative attention and interest, however, consist of caregiver and child: 1) frequently not turning toward or looking at the face of the other; and 2) not watching what the other person is doing or attending to.

Posture and Positioning Posture and position influence attention and reaching. Infants in the supine position, for example, look at their mothers more often than infants in the sitting position, perhaps because infants in the sitting position are better able to engage in visually guided reaching (e.g., for objects) (Fogel, Dedo, & McEwen, 1992). Positive posture and positioning means that a caregiver: 1) attends to a child's body and to surrounding objects; and 2) arranges these to facilitate a child's comfort and visual and bodily contact with objects. For example, a child is held or supported upright; objects are placed or moved so a child will orient, reach, grasp, and manipulate them. Negative posture and positioning, however, means that a child: 1) is unsupported; 2) is supported in uncomfortable ways; 3) is not positioned to see the caregiver or important objects; and 4) objects are not positioned so the child can reach or manipulate them.

Modulating Stimulation Children differ in the kinds, intensities, and durations of stimulation (e.g., vocalizations, proximity, facial expressions, background noise) that evoke attention or produce habituation and discomfort; and in their responses (e.g., crying, turning away) to overstimulation and understimulation. When caregivers modulate stimulation congruently with children's needs and preferences, children learn that expressions of comfort/discomfort are effective and that interaction is generally pleasant. When caregivers fail to modulate stimulation, however, interaction is punctuated or characterized by children's fussing and caregivers' intrusive efforts to re-engage the children (Field, 1980; Martin, 1981; Shaw et al., 1994; Tronick, 1989).

Positive modulation of stimulation means that a caregiver alters the kind, intensity, and duration of stimulation in response to a child's expressions of comfort, interest, and energy (Brazelton et al., 1974). For example: 1) an infant turns away, and a parent stops talking until the infant reorients; 2) a young child fusses, and a teacher suspects that the music is loud and lowers the volume; 3) a child becomes calm, turns back to a caregiver and smiles; the caregiver smiles back, re-engaging the child.

Negative modulation of stimulation, however, means that: 1) a caregiver persists in trying to sustain an overstimulated child's attention; 2) a child expresses distress at background noise, and the caregiver talks louder or gesticulates faster; and 3) a child reorients to a caregiver, but the caregiver does not reciprocate (e.g., by initiating a new activity).

Associating Vegetative Functions With Feelings Interaction that surrounds hunger, fatigue, injury, and elimination can have strong effects. For example, when eating is done during conflict (e.g., forcing certain foods), a child may become distressed by hunger and by meal times and meal places, anxious about expressing dispreferences, and resist participating in meals (Sanders et al., 1993). Examples of the positive association of vegetative functions and feelings include the following. A caregiver: 1) gives food choices; 2) allows a child to stop eating when the child expresses having enough; 3) feeds slowly enough ("pacing") and with small enough bites that the child enjoys eating; 4) allows a child to eat in a way that is comfortable (e.g., to finger feed); 5) allows a child to sleep when the child appears tired; 6) comforts a child when putting the child to bed; 7) treats toileting accidents as reflecting current levels of skill; 8) comforts an injured child; 9) expresses warm feelings when a child is eating, toileting, injured, or going to sleep.

Examples of the negative association of vegetative functions and feelings, however, include the following. A caregiver: 1) provokes fussing by badgering a child to eat; 2) forces a child to eat although the child expresses that he or she is done; 3) feeds so quickly or with such large bites that eating is unpleasant; 4) insists that a child use utensils in certain ways; 5) keeps a tired child awake; 6) rushes a child to bed or physically forces a child to stay down; 7) communicates that toileting accidents are shameful; 8) withdraws, scolds, or insults an injured child; 9) expresses irritation, dislike, or disgust while a child is eating, toileting, injured, or going to sleep. There is no better depiction of the above than Henry's Pathways to madness (Henry, 1971).

Providing Or Failing to Provide Children with Opportunities
This is a second group of features that define interaction as reciprocal (positive involvement) or nonreciprocal (negative involvement). Important features include: 1) formats for action and interaction; 2) initiating and sustaining attention; 3) explicit cues to participate; 4) tailoring cues to a child's needs, preferences, and capacities; 5) sufficient wait time

Formats For Action and Interaction Motor tasks (e.g., manipulating objects) and social activities (e.g., imitative play) involve physically necessary and/or conventional sequences (Duncan & Farley, 1990). These sequences are formats that teach participants to assemble actions into projects (as in locating, reaching for, and grasping a ball) or turns (e.g., in games) (Bakeman & Adamson, 1986; Cohn & Tronick, 1987; Connolly & Dalgleish, 1989; Fogel, 1977). Formats also enable participants to acquire shared knowledge of objects, actions, and interaction sequences (Bruner, 1983; Crais, 1990; Mead, 1956).

Examples of the positive use of formats are as follows. A caregiver: 1) names (offers) formats that a child might try ("Pull the string" or "Let's play peek-a-boo"); 2) makes materials available (e.g., books to jointly look at); 3) comments on the format a child is enacting ("You are pulling the string"); and 4) modifies formats in light of a child's competencies, preferences, and capacities (e.g., removes steps in a task or helps a child to cover herself during peek-a-boo).

Examples of the negative use of formats, however, include the following. A caregiver: 1) does not name (offer) formats that a child might try; 2) does not make materials available; 3) does not comment on the format a child is enacting (e.g., procedes through a book as though each page were independent of the rest--i.e., the child does not hear a story); and 4) does not modify formats in light of competencies, preferences, and capacities (e.g., if a child does not cover her head, the caregiver abandons peek-a-boo).

Initiating and Sustaining a Child's Attention When caregivers initiate and sustain a child's attention, competent participation increases (Duchan, 1989; Reimers & Fogel, 1992). Positive efforts to initiate and sustain attention are as follows. A caregiver frequently: 1) smiles, affectionately touches the child, and vocalizes in an approving way; 2) points out objects or events ("Look. The ball is rolling down."); and 3) switches objects, vocalizations (e.g., "Pretty girl"), and activities (e.g., a story) before or shortly after a child habituates or expresses dispreference.

Negative efforts to initiate and sustain attention, however, include the following. A caregiver: 1) seldom smiles, affectionately touches a child, or vocalizes approvingly; 2) fails to indicate interesting objects or events; and 3) persists in presenting an object, or allows or demands that a child continue with tasks and activities, although the child's behavior (turning away, gaze aversion, fussing, saying "No") indicates habituation or dispreference (Lyons-Ruth, Connell, Zoll, & Stahl, 1987).

Explicit Cues to Participate Having created a format and strengthened attention, a caregiver increases a child's participation in several ways. Examples of the positive use of explicit cues are as follows. A caregiver: 1) gives clear cues for the child's turn ("Now you put a block on top"); 2) shows inviting objects and events (e.g., how to roll a toy car down a ramp); and 3) encourages choices (e.g., holds two toys for an infant to reach; asks an older child, "Do you want to read or wrestle?"; offers dispreferred objects or activities to encourage a child to select a different one) (Wetherby & Rodriguez, 1992).

Examples of the negative use of explicit cues, however, include the following. A caregiver: 1) does not give clear cues for the child's turn; 2) does not show inviting objects and events; and 3) selects objects, activities, or topics for interaction; inhibits a child's selecting different ones; or offers only what the child prefers, and so the child does not have to express preferences.

Tailoring Cues to a Child's Needs, Preferences, and Capacities Competence increases if cues are tailored to a child's needs, preferences, and capacities (Landy, Garner, Pirie, & Swank, 1994; Marfo, 1992; Peck, 1989). Cues vary by: 1) the medium (e.g., vocal, gestural, objects used to attract atention); 2) complexity (e.g., a one-word request ["Trash"] or a whole sentence ["Put the paper in the trash."]); 3) intensity (e.g., a soft vs loud request); 4) the degree of control exerted or expected over a child's response (e.g., a hint vs a command); and 5) how much of a response is cued (e.g., from initiating a task to directing every action) (Wolery, Bailey, & Sugai, 1988).

The positive tailoring of cues includes the following.
1. A caregiver uses familiar language (e.g., utterance length, vocabulary) that is at or just above a child's level.
2. With a naive or unresponsive child, a caregiver initiates participation with exaggerated gestures (e.g., big smiles and wide-open eyes) and/or sing-song voice ("motherese") (Fernald & Kuhl, 1987; Stern, 1974).
3. With a less competent child, a caregiver increases "directiveness" with "hints, requests, commands, and other controlling behaviors or actions to get the child to do what...[the caregiver]...wishes and follow her lead" (Marfo, 1992, p. 224).
4. With a more competent child, a caregiver decreases directiveness.

Examples of the negative tailoring of cues, however, include the following.
1. A caregiver uses unfamiliar language (e.g., utterance length, vocabulary), or language that is too high above or too far below a child's level.
2. With a naive or unresponsive child, a caregiver uses an unattractive (e.g., flat), repetitive presentation.
3. With a less competent child, a caregiver increases "directiveness" to the point of "intrusiveness." That is, a caregiver "initiates, intervenes, or elaborates so abruptly" and/or so frequently "as to disrupt the child's ongoing behavior and initiative" (Marfo, 1992, p. 224). This inhibits a child's learning competent behaviors, stabilizes passivity, and/or provokes a child to avoid or escape interaction (Cohn & Tronick, 1989; Mitchell, 1987).
4. With a more competent child, a caregiver still uses intrusive directiveness.

Giving a Child Sufficient Time to Act ("Wait Time") To learn and competently perform turn-taking sequences (e.g., question-answer, model-imitation, request-cooperation), a child must have enough "opportunity space" (Jones, 1977). This means that caregivers must adjust pacing and wait time. "Pacing" refers to the rate of a caregiver's behavior (e.g., invitations, hints, requests, questions, instructions, models) (Marfo, 1992). "Wait time" refers to the "extent to which ...[a caregiver]...waits for the child to respond to...[cues]...for action and information, ranging from a strong tendency to deny the child an opportunity to respond to a high incidence of conscious anticipatory pauses following [cues]" (Marfo, 1992, p.224).

Examples of positive wait time include the following. A caregiver:
1. Shakes a rattle in front of an infant's face, or presents a model for an older child to imitate; waits several seconds before re-presenting the cue or prompting (Berkowitz, 1990; Griffen, Wolery, & Schuster, 1992).
2. Vocalizes slowly and with enough time between utterances for a child to join in.
3. Increases wait time if a child takes longer to respond.
4. Observes a child noticing or about to move toward an object or event; waits several seconds before commenting or inviting the child to act.
5. Varies wait time in light of a child's energy, interest , and difficulty of the task.

Examples of negative wait time, however, include the following. A caregiver:
1. Presents a question, request, or model again, or adds a prompt, if a child does not respond immediately.
2. Vocalizes in a steady stream, not giving the child much chance to join in.
3. Uses a short wait time even if a child takes longer to respond.
4. Observes a child noticing or about to move toward an object or event; quickly comments or invites the child to act (Seifer et al., 1991).
5. Does not vary wait time in light of a child's energy, interest, and difficulty of the task (e.g., rushes the child).

Contingent Responsiveness
Infants and caregivers usually learn to coordinate actions into turn-taking exchanges (e.g., imitation, mutual expressions of pleasure) (Cohn & Tronick, 1988). Contingent responsiveness of caregivers is important in developing skillful interaction. First, contingent responsiveness often serves as reinforcement; that is, it strengthens the child's prior actions (Field, Guy, & Umbel, 1985). Second, a timely contingent response may cue a child to continue a course of action. For example, when a child asks to go outside and a parent nods, the child learns to get her coat. Third, when a caregiver waits for a child to initiate and responds in a timely fashion, there may be a decrease in the caregiver's intrusive and noncontingent behaviors (e.g., repeatedly making requests) (Brown-Gorton & Wolery, 1988). Finally, as each person learns to respond to the other person, it is easier to assemble episodic exchanges into routines, such as meals, lessons, and play. This fosters additional competencies, such as problem solving and instrumental tasks (Frankel & Bates, 1990; Olson et al., 1990; Olson, Bates, & Kaskie, 1992; Pettit, Harrist, Bates, & Dodge, 1991; Seifer et al., 1991).

Examples of contingent responsiveness include the following.
1. A caregiver waits for a child to perform desirable behaviors, and then expresses approval and/or indicates that the child may continue.
2. A caregiver follows a child's lead and joins in ("synchrony") (Brazelton et al. 1974; Censullo, Bowler, Lester, & Brazelton, 1987; Field et al., 1985; Tronick & Cohn, 1989). For instance: a) when a child smiles, the caregiver looks at the child and laughs, communicating readiness to play (Nwokah & Fogel, 1993); and b) when a child claps her hands, a caregiver imitates.
3. Caregiver and child often perform matching positive behavior states (Field, Healy, Goldstein, & Guthertz, 1990; Tronick & Cohn, 1989). For instance, parent and child giggle when the child makes a face. However, a child and caregiver seldom match negative behavior states, such as anger or fussiness.
4. A caregiver responds to a range of behaviors as understandable and rational--as expressing communicative intent. For example: a) a child stares at an object; a caregiver sees this as a sign of interest and builds on it ("That's a truck."); and b) a child shakes her head; a caregiver understands this as expressing dispreference, labels it ("No applesause?"), and offers another food (Kozloff, 1994b).

Examples of noncontingent responsiveness or of caregiver unresponsivness, however, include the following.
1. A caregiver initiates or intrudes with repeated questions, requests, and other stimuli (e.g., shaking a toy near a child's face). The child may respond with fussing and gaze avoidance (Cohn & Tronick, 1989; Field, 1977; Mitchell, 1987), to which the caregiver may react by escalating intrusiveness or by punishing the child. This entrapment cycle" (Henry, 1963) may become typical.

2. A caregiver does not follow a child's lead and join in (lack of synchrony). When a child is only 4 months old, this unresponsiveness may evoke agitation and depressed mood, which may persist over the first year and generalize to other persons (Field, 1986, 1992; Field et al., 1986). With older children (e.g., 12 months), caregiver unresponsiveness may discourage cooperation and foster aggression as children escalate the intensity and duration of exchange initiations (e.g., a child now screams or hits). As children's "externalizing" behavior becomes more aversive, the stage is set for the crystallization of conflict exchanges (Martin, 1981; Shaw et al., 1994; van den Boom & Hoeksma, 1994).

3. Caregiver and child seldom match positive behavior states (e.g., a caregiver is unmoved when a child giggles), but caregiver and child frequently match negative states, such as anger and sadness (Field, et al., 1989; Field et al., 1990).

4. A caregiver fails to respond to behaviors as expressing communicative intent. For example: a) when a child stares at an object, a caregiver sees this as bizarre; b) a child shakes her head when offered applesause, and a caregiver treats this as rude. The child learns that she does not make sense to others, does not warrant efforts to be understood, and/or has little effect on the social environment, leading to withdrawal or "externalizing" behavior (disruptiveness) that other persons may see as oppositional or as attention getting.

Caregivers Effectively Or Do Not Effectively Repair Interaction Difficulties
Early interaction has frequent mismatches (Tronick & Gianino, 1986). For example, one person communicates a wish to be alone, and the other person continues to intrude. With repeated interaction, congruity usually increases (Field, et al., 1990). In some relationships, however, mismatches are unresolved. This inhibits a child's learning prosocial competencies and can lead to the crystallizing of conflict exchanges (e.g., punishment). In view of the above considerations, examples of caregivers' effectively repairing interaction mismatches include the following.

1. Recognizing a mismatch (e.g., a child fusses during an activity), a caregiver tries to understand the child's communicative intentions by asking ("All done?"), suggesting ("You want to play now?"), or changing the situation (e.g., switching tasks) (Henderson, 1991). In the future, the caregiver switches tasks or materials before the child is overly fatigued.

2. Recognizing persistent mismatches, or the likelihood of persistent mismatches because of a child's disabilities, the caregiver uses a more effective medium of communication. For example, when a child has visual impairments, the caregiver is responsive to facial expressions and other gestures, and uses touch and voice to initiate and reciprocate the child's actions (Als, 1985; Fraiberg, 1974).

3. A caregiver transforms a child's negative affect into positive affect (Tronick, 1989). For example: a) if a child communicates that the caregiver is intrusive, the caregiver backs away; b) if a child is frustrated, the caregiver provides encouragement and effective prompts ; c) if a child fusses as the caregiver lays the child in bed, the caregiver uses calming words or touch. In the future, the caregiver uses effective repair techniques before difficulties arise.

Examples of caregivers' ineffectively trying to repair mismatches, or caregivers worsening mismatches, however, include the following.

1. A child fusses during an activity; the caregiver becomes angry (i.e., matches the child's affect).

2. A caregiver does not recognize persistent mismatches, or recognizes them but does not use a more effective medium of communication. For example, a caregiver uses touch to prompt a child with an aversion to touch.

3. A caregiver does not transform negative affect into positive affect, or intensifies a child's negative affect. For example: a) if a child turns away, a caregiver insists that the child turn back; b) if a child is frustrated over errors, the caregiver punishes the child; c) if a child fusses when put to bed, the caregiver uses threatening words or touch that increase the fussing.

With repetition, early interaction becomes regular in form. This is so because each person learns what words, facial expressions, and tones of voice from the other person signify (mean or predict) about the other person's feelings and next actions; and each person learns when and how to perform his or her part in exchanges. Gradually, interaction in a social system crystallizes into a smaller number of exchange forms by which members accomplish routine social activities. For example, a meal or a lesson is a lengthy sequence of exchanges among participants. In time, these exchanges are quite similar from day to day.

There are two sorts of exchanges. Counterproductive exchanges involve conflict or incongruity. One or both persons engage in behavior that is aversive to the other person; or one person engages in desirable behavior but receives little or nothing in return. In productive exchanges, however, each person performs behaviors that are reinforcers for the other person. From the standpoint of participants, each person's behavior is "desirable." This section describes exchanges in pairs--a productive exchange followed by a counterproductive alternative. More complete descriptions are found in Kozloff (1988, 1994a, 1994b).

1a. Rewarded Coercion
In one version of rewarded coercion, a child engages in behavior that is aversive to a caregiver (e.g., screaming or making a mess). The caregiver tries to stop the behavior (i.e., reciprocates the child's initiation) by expressing shock or anger; asking ineffectual questions ("Are we supposed to make messes?"); stating rules ("We don't scream."); trying to distract the child; or by removing events (e.g., difficult tasks) that may be cues for the child's coercive behavior. These reciprocations probably reinforce the child's coercive behavior. Temporarily distracted, the child stops the behavior. This negatively reinforces the caregiver for having reinforced the child. The vicious cycle is now complete; that is, each person is reinforced for his or her actions in the exchange. Therefore, the exchange is likely to occur more often, and participants will become more skillful, respectively, at coercing and at giving in to coercion.

Gradually, the child is seen as an adversary with whom caregivers, siblings, and peers avoid interacting. These two changes--in how the child is perceived and in the willingness of other persons to interact with the child--amount to a degrading of the child's identity and of the child's place in the social system. This further decreases the child's opportunities for learning desirable behaviors, which leaves the child with even fewer alternative prosocial ways to produce reinforcers.

In time, the child's coercive behaviors may increase in severity, possibly exhausting caregivers' teaching and coping repertoires (van de Rijt-Plooij & Plooij, 1993). At this point, the child may be diagnosed as having some sort of conduct disorder.

In another version of rewarded coercion, a caregiver engages in behavior that is aversive to a child (e.g., rough handling). The child then engages in behavior that is reinforcing to the caregiver (e.g., the child promises to be good). The caregiver's aversive behavior therefore increases in frequency and skill, as do the child's coerced efforts to mollify the caregiver. Eventually, the relationship between the child and caregiver may become a relationship between victim and victimizer.

1b. Unrewarded Coercion
In one version of unrewarded coercion, a caregiver tries to remain outwardly calm and does not give in to the child's coercive behavior. Instead, the caregiver provides opportunities and reinforces desirable alternative behaviors, less intense or shorter episodes of undesirable behavior (e.g., milder tantrums), or undesirable behaviors performed in an appropriate place (Carr, Levin, McConnachie, Carlson, Kemp, & Smith, 1994). A second version of unrewarded coercion, in which a child does not give in to a caregiver's aversive behaviors, but instead teaches the caregiver more desirable ways to treat the child, is probably rare.

2a. Rewarded Threat
This exchange often develops out of the rewarded coercion exchange. For example, caregivers know that a child's screaming precedes worse behavior (e.g., self-injury). Or, caregivers know that a child's coercive behavior is likely to occur in certain environments (e.g., during a certain task or in a restaurant). When presented with these cues (threats), caregivers express shock, fear, or anger; try to soothe or distract the child; allow the child to receive reinforcers for inadequate performances; or remove tasks or requests that seem to upset the child. These reciprocations probably reinforce the child's threatening behavior. When the placated child temporarily stops the threatening behavior, and does not go on to perform the really coercive behavior, caregivers feel relief and are negatively reinforced for having reinforced the child's threats. The child's threat behaviors then increase in frequency, and the child comes to command a great deal of reinforcement through the performance of threats.

The price the child pays for this short-term reinforcement is minimal psychosocial development; the price that caregivers pay is an increasingly heavy load to bear trying to placate the child, and chronic fear of the child "getting worse" (which fear helps to sustain their placating responses).

In a second version of the rewarded threat exchange, a child learns cues (e.g., a caregiver's moodiness) that predict that the caregiver will soon engage in aversive behavior (e.g., yelling). The child placates the caregiver by performing tasks for the caregiver, remaining very quiet, or hugging the caregiver. This exchange strengthens the caregiver's threatening behavior and the child's placating behavior. The increasing frequency of the exchange keeps the child in a state of chronic anxiety and/or depression, which inhibit the child's attention and learning of instrumental and academic behaviors (Culp, Little, Letts, & Lawrence, 1991).

2b. Unrewarded Threat
Instead of reinforcing a child's threatening behavior, caregivers remain outwardly calm; ignore mild problem behaviors; and require at least a small amount of desirable behavior before giving reinforcers. If repeated, this exchange teaches children that threatening behavior does not work; children become more skillful at performing desirable behaviors; caregivers develop tolerance of milder problem behaviors and become more skilled at teaching desirable behavior. With regard to a second version of this exchange, it is not likely that children are able to put caregivers' threatening behaviors on extinction, and then teach caegivers more nurturing behaviors.

3a. Rewarded Noncompliance (Nagging)
In one version of this exchange, a child does not cooperate with a caregiver's initiations (e.g., requests or questions). The caregiver repeats the initiations--perhaps louder and/or with extra cues (e.g., facial expressions). These repetitions probably reinforce uncooperative behavior, which increases in strength. The vicious cycle is completed when the child finally cooperates; the caregiver is then reinforced for nagging on a variable ratio schedule, which sustains the caregiver's nagging.

At some point, caregivers may decrease making requests. In this case, the child has fewer chances to learn prosocial behavior and to play a valuable part in family or school. However, caregivers may find a child's worsening noncompliance to be highly provocative. In this case, they may begin to punish the child--thereby setting the occasion for the child to use counter-aggression (Schindler & Arkowitz, 1986).

In a second version of rewarded noncompliance, a caregiver does not cooperate with a child's initiations (e.g., expressions of activity preference). The child repeats the initiations, which probably reinforces the caregiver's disattention and noncompliance. Either the child's initiating behaviors weaken (and the frequency of child-caregiver interaction decreases) or the caregiver finally cooperates (which teaches the child to nag).

3b. Single Cues or Cooperation Training
Instead of repeating requests again and again, a caregiver makes sure that a child is paying attention before presenting cues; gives clear simple cues; immediately reinforces improvements in cooperation; and responds to obvious noncompliance by ignoring it, or if necessary (e.g., crossing a street) manually prompting the child through the motions. The second version of cooperation training, in which a child teaches a caregiver to be more responsive, is probably rare.

4a. Aversive Methods
In one version of this exchange, a child does something that is aversive to a caregiver (e.g., noncompliance or hitting). The caregiver reacts by delivering aversive consequences (e.g., insults or spanking) or by taking away positive reinforcers (e.g., toys). Sometimes this exchange is performed as a single episode. That is, the child reacts to the punishment by expressing fear or pain, and temporarily stops the behavior. This reinforces the caregiver for using punishment. Sometimes, however, the first punishment exchange calls forth another. In this case, there is a fight. For instance, instead of stopping his or her aversive behavior, the child escalates (hits harder) and/or adds another aversive behavior (biting). The caregiver then punishes the child for returning the punishment, and another episode of aggression begins.

Gradually, each person learns new and more skillful aversive/aggressive methods to punish the other person. In addition, caregivers may begin to punish indiscriminately (if they did not do so already). That is, they punish both aggressive and nonaggresive behavior (Dumas, LaFreniere, Beaudin, & Verlaan, 1992). Therefore, child may become anxious, depressed, and withdrawn; and the child's learning of prosocial and instrumental competencies is hindered. Moreover, the child may come to use aggression in other environments and with other persons (siblings, teachers, and peers). This results in the child being socially rejected, and sometimes victimized when other childen begin to retaliate. In addition, the child may come to be seen as having an emotional disorder or sociopathic personality (Cole, Lochman, Terry, & Hyman, 1992; Downey & Walker, 1989; McGonigle et al., 1993; Olson, 1992; Straasberg, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1992; Volling & Belsky, 1992; Weiss et al., 1992).

4b. Mutual Reward Alternatives to Aversive Methods
Instead of responding to a child's undesirable behavior with aversive methods, a caregiver remains outwardly calm and encourages or waits for desirable behaviors to reinforce (e.g., milder forms of a problem behavior; performance of an undesirable behavior in a more desirable place; or performance of desirable alternative behavior).

5a. Lack of Opportunities for Desirable Behavior
In a situation where a child would benefit by an opportunity to respond (e.g., helping to prepare a meal), the caregiver does not notice opportunities, or the caregiver notices but does not cue the child to respond. The child's interest in and proximity to activities is, therefore, on extinction and weakens. As the child's competencies fail to improve, caregivers regard the child as incapable of more skill, and they spend even less effort finding opportunities for the child to participate. This stabilizes the child's role as "an incompetent."

5b. Plenty of Opportunities for Desirable Behavior
In a situation where a child would benefit by an opportunity to respond, a caregiver notices learning opportunities and gives the child clear cues to respond. For example, a child indicates that she wants to stir the soup and her mother says, "Sure, take the spoon and put it in the pot." As the child's interest and competence increase, caregivers are reinforced for their prior efforts to find and provide learning opportunities. This completes a productive cycle; caregivers find and provide even more opportunities, and the child's psychosocial development procedes.

6a. Improper Prompting
When a child makes, or is about to make, an incorrect or inadequate response, a caregiver either provides no prompts or prompts ineffectively. Consequently, the child's competencies increase but slowly, the caregiver is minimally reinforced for teaching efforts (which therefore weaken), and the child comes to be seen as less capable than he or she is.

6b. Proper Prompting
When a child makes, or is about to make, an incorrect or inadequate response, a caregiver provides an adequate prompt. Both the child and the caregiver become more competent at teaching and learning. The caregiver's estimation of the child's capacities increases.

7a. Lack of Rewards for Desirable Behavior
When a child performs a desirable behavior--either a new one or an improved one (e.g., with more skill or in a new place)--a caregiver does not notice the desirable behavior and/or does not provide adequate reinforcement. Consequently, the child's desirable behaviors weaken or fail to increase. This further decreases the child's opportunities for participation and reinforcement, which therefore increases the value of any reinforcing consequences that the child receives for disruptive behavior (as in the rewarded coercion, reward threat, and nagging exchanges).

7b. Plenty of Rewards for Desirable Behavior
When a child performs a desirable behavior, a caregiver notices and properly reinforces the behavior (that is, quickly, enthusiastically, and with events that are known reinforcers). The child's desirable behaviors increase, as does the caregiver's attention to and reinforcement of desirable behaviors. Note that one exchange facilitates the development of other exchanges. For example, as rewarded coercion (in which a child performs aversive behavior) increases, caregivers become more sensitive to aversive events. Therefore, they are more likely to reinforce their child's threatening behavior. The social system now has two counterproductive exchanges--rewarded coercion and rewarded threat.

At some point, the rates and severities of the child's coercive and threatening behaviors are so high that caregivers' capacities to improve the situation are exhausted. Caregivers then may begin to use aversive methods, which often provoke fights. However, introducing a mutal reward exchange (e.g., increasing reinforcement for desirable behavior), can begin a productive spiral. As a child's desirable behavior (e.g., simple tasks, quiet play) increases, caregivers have more opportunities to reinforce the child's social participation. As participation increases, caregivers form a more valorizing conception of the child. This results in a further increase in reinforcement and a decrease in aversive or inattentive responses from caregivers. As the child's incentive to obtain reinforcers through coercive or threatening behavior decreases, the rate of mutual reward exchanges increases, thus completing a positive cycle.

Abidin, R.R., Jenkins, C.L., & McGaughey, M.C. (1992). The relationship of early family variables to children's subsequent behavioral adjustment. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21 (1), 60-69.

Als, H. (1985). Reciprocity and autonomy: Parenting a blind infant. Zero to Three, 5(5), 8-10.

Bailey, D.B., Jr., & Wolery, M. (1984). Teaching infants and preschoolers with handicaps. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Bailey, D.B., Jr., Palsha, S.A., & Simeonsson, R.J. (1991). Professional skills, concerns, and perceived importance of work with families in early intervention. Exceptional Children, 58(2), 156-165.

Bakeman, R., & Adamson, L.B. (1986). Infants' conventionalized acts: Gestures with mothers and peers. Infant Behavior and Development, 9, 215-230.

Barden, C.R., Ford, M.E., Jensen, A.G., Rogers-Salyer, M., & Salyer, K.E. (1989). Effects of cranio-facial deformity in infancy on the quality of mother-infant interaction. Child Development, 60, 819-824.

Bates, J.E. (1990). Conceptual and empirical linkages between temperament and behavior problems: A commentary on the Sanson, Prior, and Kyrios study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38(2), 193-199.

Benasich, A.A., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Clewell, B.C. (1992). How do mothers benefit from early intervention programs? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 13(3), 311-362.

Berkowitz, S (1990). A comparison of two methods of prompting in training discrimination of book pictures by autistic students. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 20(2), 255-262.

Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Bottos, M., D'Eliso, I., & Fantuzzi, S. (1986). Clues in neonatal behavior for treatment of severely handicapped infants and young children. Infant Mental Health Journal, 7(4), 294-301.

Brazelton, T., Koslowski, B., & Main, M. (1974). The origins of reciprocity: The early mother-infant interaction. In M. Lewis & L.A. Rosenblum (Eds.), The effect of the infant on its caregiver (pp. 49-76). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Brazelton, T.B., Tronick, E., Als, H., & Wise, S. (1975). Early mother-infant reciprocity. In M.A. Hofer (Ed.), The parent-infant relationship (pp. 137-155). London: Ciba.

Bromwich, R. (1981). Working with parents and infants: An interactional Approach. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Brown-Gorton, R., & Wolery, M. (1988). Teaching mothers to imitate their children: Effects on maternal mands. Journal of Special Education, 22(1), 97-107.

Bruner, J.S. (1983). Child talk: Learning to use language. New York: Norton.

Campbell, S.B., Pierce, E.W., March, C.L., Ewing, L.J., & Szumowski, E.K. (1994). Hard-to-manage preschool boys: Symptomatic behavior across contexts and time. Child Development, 65, 836-851.

Carden-Smith, L.K., & Fowler, S.A. (1983). An assessment of student and teacher behavior in treatment and mainstreamed classes for preschool and kindergarten. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 3, 35-57.

Carr, E.G., Taylor, J.C., & Robinson, S. (1991). The effects of severe behavior problems in children on the teaching behavior of adults. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24(3), 523-535.

Carr, E.G., Levin, L., McConnachie, G., Carlson, J.I., Kemp, D.C., & Smith, C.E. (1994). Communication-based intervention for problem behavior. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Cantrell, P.J., Carrico, M.F., & Franklin, J.N. (1990). Violent tactics in family conflict relative to familial and economic factors. Psychological Reports, 66(3, Pt. 1), 823-828.

Censullo, M., Bowler, R., Lester, B., & Brazelton, T.B. (1987). An instrument for the measurement of infant-adult synchrony.
Nursing Research, 36(4), 244-248.

Cohen, S., & Warren, R.D. (1990). The intersection of disability and child abuse in England and the United States. Child Welfare, 69(3), 253-262.

Cohn, J.F., Reinaldo, M., Tronick, E.Z., Connell, D. , & Lyons-Ruth, K. (1986). Face-to-face interactions of depressed mothers and their infants. New Directions for Child Development, 34, 31-45.

Cohn, J.F., & Tronick, E.Z. (1987). Mother-infant face-to-face interaction: The sequence of dyadic states at 3, 6, and 9 months. Developmental Psychology, 23(1), 68-77.

Cohn, J.F., & Tronick, E.Z. (1988). Mother-infant face-to-face interaction: Influence is bidirectional and unrelated to periodic cycles in either partner's behavior. Developmental Psychology, 24(3), 386-392.

Cohn, J.F., & Tronick, E. (1989). Specificity of infants' response to mothers' affective behavior. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28(2), 242-248.

Cole, J.D., Lochman, J.E., Terry, R., & Hyman, C. (1992). Predicting early adolescent disorder from childhood aggression and peer rejection. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60(5), 783-792.

Conger, R.D., Ge, X., Elder, G.H., Jr., Lorenz, F.O., & Simons, R.L. (1994). Economic stress, coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Development, 65, 541-561.

Connolly, K., & Dalgleish, M. (1989). The emergence of tool-using in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 25(6), 894-912.

Cooper, C.S., Dunst, C.J., & Vance, S.D. (1990). The effect of social support on adolescent mothers' styles of parent-child interaction as measured on three separate occasions. Adolescence, 25(97), 49-57.

Corse, S.J., Schmid, K., & Trickett, P.K. (1990). Social network characteristics in abusing and nonabusing families and their relationships to parenting beliefs. Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1), 44-59.

Crais, E.R. (1990). World knowledge to word knowledge. Topics in Language Disorders, 10(3), 45-62.

Culp, R.E., Little, V., Letts, D., & Lawrence, H. (1991). Maltreated children's self-concept: Effects of a comprehensive treatment program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61(6), 114-121.

Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S. (1990). Mechanisms in the cycle of violence. Science, 250(Dec), 1678-1683.

Donenberg, G., & Baker, B.L. (1993). The impact of young children with externalizing behaviors on their families. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21(2), 179-198.

Downey, G., & Walker, E. (1989). Social cognition and adjustment in children at risk for psychopathology. Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 835-845.

Dubowitz, H., Zuckerman, D.M., Bithoney, W.G., & Newberger, E.H. (1989). Child abuse and failure to thrive: Individual, familial, and environmental characteristics. Violence and Victims, 4(3), 191-201.

Duchan, J.F. (1989). Evaluating adults' talk to children: Assessing adult attunement. Seminars in Speech and Language, 10(1), 16-27.

Dumas, J.., LaFreniere, P.J., Beaudin, L., & Verlaan, P. (1992). Mother-child interactions in competent and aggressive dyads: Implications of relationship stress for behavior therapy with families. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 21(1), 3-13.

Duncan, S., Jr., & Farley, A.M. (1990). Achieving parent-child coordination through convention: Fixed- and variable-sequence conventions. Child Development, 61, 742-753.

Fernald, A., & Kuhl, P. (1987). Accoustic determinants of infant preference or mother's speech. Infant Behavior and Development, 10, 279-293.

Field, T. (1977). Effects of early separation, interactive deficits, and experimental manipulation on infant-mother face-to-face interaction. Child Development, 48, 763-771.

Field, T.M. (1980). Interactions of high-risk infants: quantitative and qualitative differences. In D.B. Sawin, R.C. Hawkins, L.O. Walker, & J.H. Penticuff (Eds.). Exceptional infant, Volume 4, Psychosocial risks in nfant-environment transactions (pp. 120-143). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Field, T.M. (1986). Models for reactive and chronic depression in infancy. New Directions for Child Development, 34(Winter), 47-60.

Field, T. (1989). Individual and maturational differences in infant expressivity. New Directions for Child Development, 44(Summer), 9-23.

Field, T. (1992). Infants of depressed mothers. Development and Psychopathology, 4(1), 49-66.

Field, T., Healy, B.T., & LeBlanc, W.B. (1989). Sharing and synchrony of behavior states and heart rate in nondepressed versus depressed mother-infant interactions. Infant Behavior and Development, 12(3), 357-378.

Field, T., Vega-Lahr, N., Scafidi, F., & Goldstein, S. (1986). Effects of maternal unavailability on mother-infant interactions. Infant Behavior and Development, 9(4), 473-478.

Field, T., Vega-Lahr, N., Scafidi, F., & Goldstein, S. (1987). Working mother-infant interactions across the second year of life. Infant Mental Health Journal, 8(1), 19-27.

Field, T., Vega-Lahr, N., Goldstein, S., & Scafidi, F. (1987). Interaction behavior of infants and their dual career parents. Infant Behavior and Development, 10(3), 371-377.

Field, T., Guy, L., & Umbel, V. (1985). Infants' response to mothers' imitative behaviors. Infant Mental Health Journal, 6(1), 40-44.

Field, T., Healy, B.T., Goldstein, S., & Guthertz, M. (1990). Behavior-state matching and synchrony in mother-infant interactions of nondepressed versus depressed dyads. Developmental Psychology, 28(1), 7-14.

Field, T., Widmayer, S., Adler, S., & DeCubas, M. (1990). Teenage parenting in different cultures, family constellations, and caregiving environments: Effects on infant development. Infant Mental Health Journal, 11(2), 158-174.

Field, T., Morrow, C., & Adlestein, D. (1993). Depressed mothers' perceptions of infantbehavior. Infant Behavior and Development, 16(1), 99-108.

Fogel, A. (1977). Temporal organization in mother-infant face-to-face interaction. In R. Schaffer (Ed.), Studies in mother-infant interaction (pp. 119-152). London: Academic Press.

Fogel, A. (1992). Movement and communication in infancy: The social dynamics of development. Human Movement Science, 11(4), 387-423.

Fogel, A., Dedo, J.Y., & McEwen, I. (1992). Effect of postural position and reaching on gaze during mother-infant face-to-face interaction. Infant Behavior and Development, 15(2) 231-244.

Fraiberg, S. (1974). Blind infants and their mothers: An examination of the sign system. In M. Lewis & L.A. Rosenblum (Eds.), The effect of the infant on its caregiver (pp. 215-232). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Frankel, K.A., & Bates, J.E. (1990). Mother-toddler problem solving: Antecedents in attachment, home behavior, and temperament. Child Development, 61(3), 810-819.

Gable, S., Belsky, J., & Crnic, K. (1992). Marriage, parenting, and child development: Progress and prospects. Journal of Family Psychology, 5(3-4), 276-294.

Gardner, F.E. (1992). Parent-child interaction and conduct disorder. Educational Psychology Review, 4(2), 135-163.

Griffen, A.K., Wolery, M., & Schuster, J.W. (1992). Triadic instruction of chained food preparation responses: Acquisition and observational learning. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(1), 193-204.

Grossmann, K., & Grossmann, K.E. (1991). Newborn behavior, the quality of early parenting and later toddler-parent relationships in a group of German infants. In J.K. Nugent, B.M. Lester, & T.B. Brazelton (Eds.). The cultural context of infancy, Volume 2, Multicultural and interdisciplinary approaches to parent-infant relations (pp. 3-38). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co.

Gusella, J.L., Muir, D., & Tronick, E.Z. (1988). The effect of manipulating maternal behavior during an interaction on three- and six-month-olds' affect and attention. Child Development, 59(4), 1111-1124.

Hamblin, R.L., Buckholdt, D., Ferritor, D., Kozloff, M, & Blackwell, L. (1971). The humanization processes. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Henderson, B.B. (1991). Describing parent-child interaction during exploration: Situation definitions and negotiations. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs,117(1), 77-89.

Henry, J. (1963). Culture against man. New York: Random House.

Henry, J. (1966). Personality and aging--with special reference to hospitals for the aged poor. In J.C. McKinney & F.T. DeVyver (Eds.), Aging and social policy (pp. 281-301). New York; Meredith.

Henry, J. (1971). Pathways to madness. New York: Random House.

Homans, G.C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

Hyche, J.K., Bakeman, R., & Adamson, L.B. (1992). Understanding communicative cues of infants with Down syndrome: Effects of Mothers' experience and infants' age. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 13, 1-16.

Jarvis, P.A., Myers, B.J., & Creasey, G.L. (1989). The effects of infants' illness on mothers' interactions with prematures at 4 and 8 months. Infant Behavior and Development, 12, 25-35.

Jones, O.H.M. (1977). Mother-child communication with pre-linguistic Down's syndrome and normal infants. In H.R. Schaffer (Ed.), Studies in mother-infant interaction (pp. 379-401). New York: Academic Press.

Kirkham, M.A., Schilling, R.F., & Norelius, K. (1986). Developing coping styles and social support networks: An intervention outcome study with mothers of handicapped children. Child Care, Health and Development, 12(5), 313-323.

Koegel, R.L., & Koegel, L.K. (1988). Generalized responsivity and pivotal behaviors. In R.H. Horner, G. Dunlap, & R.L. Koegel (Eds.), Generalization and maintenance: Life-style changes in applied settings (pp. 41-66). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Kolko, D.J., Kazdin, A.E.,Thomas, A.M., & Day, B. (1993). Heightened child physical abuse potential: Child, parent, and family dysfunction. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8(2), 169-192.

Kozloff, M.A. (1979). A program for families of children with learning and behavior problems. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kozloff, M.A. (1998). Reaching the autistic child. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Kozloff, M.A. (1988). Productive interaction with students, children, and clients. Springfield, Il: Charles C Thomas.

Kozloff, M.A., Helm, D.T., Cutler, B.C., Douglas-Steele, D., Wells, A., & Scampini, L. (1988). Training programs for families of children with autism or other handicaps. In R. DeV. Peters & R.J. McMahon (Eds.), Social learning and systems approaches to marriage and the family (pp. 217-250). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Kozloff, M.A. (1994a). Improving educational outcomes for children with disabilities: Principles for asessment, program planning, and evaluation. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Kozloff, M.A. (1994b). Improving educational outcomes for children with disabilities: Guidelines and protocols for practice. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Kurtz, D.P., Gaudin, J.M., Howing, P.T., & Wodarski, J.S. (1993). The consequences of physical abuse and neglect on the school age child: Mediating factors. Children and Youth Services Review, 15(2), 85-104.

Landry, S.H., Garner, P.W., Pirie, D., & Swank, P.R. (1994). Effects of social context and mothers' requesting strategies on Down's syndrome children's social responsiveness. Developmental Psychology, 30(2), 293-302.

Leifer, M., Wax, L.C., Leventhal-Belfer, L., & Fouchia, A. (1989). The use of multitreatment modalities in early intervention: A quantitative case study. Infant Mental Health Journal, 10(2), 100-116.

Lyons-Ruth, K., Connell, D.B., Zoll, D., & Stahl, J. (1987). Infants at social risk: Relations among infant maltreatment, maternal behavior, and infant attachment behavior. Developmental Psychology, 23(2), 223-232.

MacDonald, J.D., & Gillette, Y. (1984). Conversation engineering: A pragmatic approach to early social competence. Seminars in Speech and Language, 5(3), 171-183.

Mahoney, G., & Powell, A. (1988). Modifying parent-child interaction: Enhancing the development of handicapped children. The Journal of Special Education, 22(1), 82-97.

Mahoney, G., Robinson, C., & Powell, A. (1992). Focusing on parent-child interaction: The bridge to developmentally appropriate practices. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12(1), 105-120.

Marfo, K. (1988). Parent-child interaction and developmental disabilities. New York: Praeger.

Marfo, K. (1992). Correlates of maternal directiveness with children who are developmentally delayed. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62(2), 219-233.

Martin, J. (1981). A longitudinal study of the consequence of early mother-infant interaction: A microanalytic study. Monographs for the Society for Research on Child Development, 46(3, Seriel No. 190).

McCollum, J.A. (1983). The development of behavioral synchrony in social communication. The exceptional infant. Final Report. Urbana, Il: Illinois University College of Education.

McGonigle, M.M., Smith, T. W., Benjamin, L.S., & Turner, C.W. (1993). Hostility and nonshared family environment: A study of monozygotic twins. Journal of Research in Personality, 27(1), 23-34.

Mead, G.H. (1956). The social psychology of George Herbert Mead. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Miller, N.B., Cowan, P.A., Cowan, C.P., Hetherington, E.M., & Clingempeel, W.G. (1993). Externalizing in preschoolers and early adolescents: A cross-study replication of a family model. Developmental Psychology, 29(1), 3-18.

Mitchell, D.R. (1987). Parents' interactions with their developmentally disabled or at- risk infants: A focus for intervention. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 13(2), 73-81.

Mollerstrom, W.W., Patchner, M.A., & Milner, J.S. (1992). Family functioning and child abuse potential. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48(4), 445-454.

Nwokah, E., & Fogel, A. (1993). Laughter in mother-infant emotionalcommunication. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research,6(2), 137-161.

Olson, S.L. (1992). Development of conduct problems and peer rejection in preschool children: A social systems analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 20(3), 327-350.

Olson, S.L., Bates, J.E., & Bayles, K. (1989). Predicting long-term developmental outcomes from maternal perceptions of infant and toddler behavior. Infant Behavior and Development, 12(1), 77-92.

Olson, S.L., Bates, J.E., & Bayles, K. (1990). Early antecedents of childhood impulsivity: The role of parent-child interaction, cognitive competence, and temperament. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 18(3), 317-334.

Olson, S.L., Bates, J.E., & Kaskie, B. (1992). Caregiver-infant interaction antecedents of children's school-age cognitive ability. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38(3), 309-330.

Palley, H.A., & Fisher, J., (1991). Societal deprivation, the underclass, and family deterioration in Baltimore: A structural analysis. Children and Youth Service Review, 13(3), 183-197.

Panzerine, S. (1988). Teen mothering: Behaviors and interventions. Journal of Adolescent Health Care, 9(5), 443-448.

Patterson, G.R. (1980). Mothers: The unaknowledged victims. Monograph of the Society for Research on Child Development, 45(15), Serial Number 186.

Patterson, G.R. (1982). Coercive family processes. Eugene, OR: Castaglia.

Patterson, G.R., & Reid, J.B. (1984). Social interaction processes within the family: The study of the moment-by-moment family transactions in which human development is embedded. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 5, 237-262.

Patterson, G.R., Reid, J.B., & Dishion, T.J. (1989). Antisocial boys. Eugene, Or: Cataglia. Peck, C. A. (1989). Assessment of social communicative competence: Evaluating environments. Seminars in Speech and Language, 10(1), 1-15.

Pettit, G.S., & Bates, J.E. (1989). Family interaction patterns and children's behavior problems from infancy to 4 years. Developmental Psychology, 25(3), 413-420.

Pettit, G.S., & Bates, J.E. (1990). Describing family interaction patterns in early childhood: A social systems perspective. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 11, 395-418.

Pettit, GS., Harrist, A.W., Bates, J.E., & Dodge, K.A. (1991). Family interaction, social cognition and children's subsequent relations with peers at kindergarten. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8(3), 383-402.

Pickens, J., & Field, T. (1993). Facial expressivity in infants of depressed mothers. Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 986-988.

Plooij, F.X., & van de Rijt Plooij, H.H. (1989). Evolution of human parenting: Canalization, new types of learning, and mother-infant conflict. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 4(2), 177-192.

Reimers, M., & Fogel, A. (1992). The evolutions of joint attention to objects between infants and their mothers: Diversity and convergence. Analise Psicologica, 10(1), 81-89.

Sanders, M.R., Patel, R.K., Le Grice, B., & Sheperd, R.W. (1993). Children with persistent feeding difficulties: An observational analysis of the feeding interactions of problem and non-problem eaters. Health Psychology, 12(1), 64-73.

Schaffer, H.R. (1984). The child's entry into a social world. London: Academic Press.

Schaffer, H.R., Collis, G.M., & Parsons, G. (1977). Vocal interchange and visualregard in verbal and pre-verbal children. In H.R. Schaffer (Ed.), Studies in mother-infant interaction (pp. 291-324). New York: Academic Press.

Schindler, F., & Arkowitz, H. (1986). The assessment of mother-child interactions in physically abusive and nonabusive families. Journal of Family Violence, 1 (3), 247-257.

Schutz, A. (1970). On phenomenology and social relations. (H.R. Wagner, Ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Seifer, R., Clark, G.N., & Sameroff, A.J. (1991). Positive effects of interaction coaching on infants with developmental disabilities and their mothers. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96(1), 1-11.

Shaw, D.S., Keenan, K., & Vondra, J.I. (1994). Developmental precursors of externalizing behavior: Ages 1 to 3. Developmental Psychology, 30(3), 355- 364.

Shonkoff, J.P., Hauer-Cram, P., Krauss, M.W., & Upshur, C.C. (1992). Development of infants with disabilities and their families: Implications for theory and service delivery. Monographs of the society for research on child development, 57(6), 1-153.

Shores, R.E. (1987). Overview of research on social interaction: A historical and personal perspective. Behavioral Disorders, 12(4), 233-241.

Sigman, M., Beckwith, L., Cohen, S.E., & Parmelee, A.H. (1989). Stability in the biosocial development of the child born preterm. In M.H. Bornstein & N.A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Stability and continuity in mental development: Behavioral and biological perspectives (pp. 29-42). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Simmel, G. (1971). On individuality and social forms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sobsey, D. (1994). Violence and abuse in the lives of people with disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Spiker, D., Ferguson, J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1993). Enhancing maternal interactive behavior and child social competence in low birth weight, premature infants. Child Development, 64(3), 754-768.

Stern, D.N. (1974). Mother and infant at play: The dyadic interaction involving facial, vocal, and gaze behaviors. In M. Lewis & L.A. Rosenblum (Eds.),The effect of the infant on its caregiver (pp. 187-214). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Straasberg, Z., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S. (1992). The longitudinal relation between parental conflict strategies and children's sociometric standing in kindergarten. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38(4), 477-493.

Strayhorn, J.M., & Weidman, C.S. (1989). Reduction of attention deficit and internalizing symptoms in preschoolers through parent-child interaction training. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28(6), 888-896.

Tannock, R., Girolametto, L., & Siegel, L.S. (1992). Language intervention with children who have developmental delays: Effects of an interactive approach. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97(1), 45-160.

Trevarthen, C. (1977). Descriptive analysis of infant communicative behavior. In H.R. Schaffer (Ed.), Studies in mother-infant interaction (pp. 227-270). New York: Academic Press.

Trickett, P.K. (1993). Maladaptive development of school-aged, physically abused children: Relationships with the child-rearing context. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(1), 134-147.

Tronick, E. (1980). The primacy of social skills in infancy. In D.B. Sawin, R.C. Hawkins, L.O. Walker, & J.H. Penticuff (Eds.). Exceptional infant, Volume 4, Psychosocial risks in infant-environment transactions (pp. 144-158). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Tronick, E.Z. (1989). Emotions and emotional communication in infants. American Psychologist, 44(2), 112-119.

Tronick, E.Z., & Gianino, A. (1986). Interactive mismatch and repair: Challenges to the coping infant. Zero to Three, 6(3), 1-6.

Tronick, E.Z., & Cohn, J.F. (1989). Infant-mother face-to-face interaction: Age and gender differences in coordination and the occurrence of miscoordination. Child Development, 60(1), 85-92.

Valsiner, J. (1987). Culture and the development of children's action. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

van de Rijt-Plooij, H.H.C., & Plooij, F.X. (1993). Distinct periods of mother-infant conflict in normal development: Sources of progress and germs of pathology. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34(2), 229-245.

van den Boom, D.C.(1991). The influence of infant irritability on the development of the mother-infant relationship in the first 6 months of life. In J.K. Nugent, B.M. Lester, & T.B. Brazelton (Eds.). The cultural context of infancy, Volume 2, Multicultural and interdisciplinary approaches to parent-infant relations (pp. 63-93). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co.

van den Boom, D.C. & Hoeksma, J.B. (1994). The effect of infant irritability on mother-infant interaction: A growth curve analysis. Developmental Psychology, 30(4), 581-590.

Volling, B.L., & Belsky, J. (1992). The contribution of mother-child and father-child relationships to the quality of sibling interaction: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 63(5), 1209-1222.

Weiss, B., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S. (1992). Some consequences of early harsh discipline: child aggression and a maladaptive social information processing style. Child Development, 63(6), 1321-1335.

Weistuch, L., & Lewis, M. (1985). The language intervention project. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 5, 97-106.

Wetherby, A.M., & Prizant, B.M. (1989). The expression of communicative intent: Assessment guidelines. Seminars in Speech and Language, 10(1), 77-91.

Wetherby, A.M., & Rodriguez, G.P. (1992). Measurement of communicative intent in normally developing children during structured and unstructured contexts. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 130-138.

Whipple, E.E., & Webster-Stratton, C. (1991). The role of parental stress in physically abusive families. Child Abuse and Neglect, 15(3), 279-291.

Wolery, M., Bailey, D.B., Jr., & Sugai, G.M. (1988). Effective teaching: Principles and procedures of applied behavior analysis with exceptional children. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.

Zirpoli, T.J., & Bell, R.Q. (1987). Unresponsiveness in children with severe disabilities: Potential effects on parent-child interaction. Exceptional Children, 34(1), 31-40.