Infant Crying and Maternal Responsiveness: A Rejoinder to Gewirtz and Boyd

Abstract

The criticisms leveled by Gewirtz and Boyd focus on 1 of 6 analyses upon which Bell and Ainsworth based their interpretation of findings--namely, cross-quarter correlations of measures of infant crying and maternal response. It is maintained that these measures were approximate, and that they were independent of each other in cross-quarter correlations. It is also maintained that the statistical procedures were appropriate to a small sample of subjects in naturalistic, longitudinal research. The three "illustrative" cases offered by Gewirtz and Boyd as ways of testing a contrary hypothesis are considered. These cases assumed maternal behavior patterns which, it is argued, do not occur. Finally, other evidence is cited, both from other studies and from within the Bell-Ainsworth paper itself, that supports the interpretation that Gewirtz and Boyd claim to have been unjustified.