Soft Object and Pacifier Attachments in Young Children: The Role of Security of Attachment to the Mother*

Abstract

A longitudinal study was conducted to evaluate the hypothesis that a healthy mother-infant relationship is a prerequisite for the development of a child's attachment to a blanket or other soft object. Security of attachment to mother was measured at 12 months with the Strange Situation Test and at 30 months with the Attachment Q-Sort. Most of the children with soft object attachments were rated as securely attached to their mothers at both ages. Children with pacifier attachments, on the other hand, were less often rated as securely attached and were more likely to show changes in security classification between 12 and 30 months. The results are discussed in terms of necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for the development of attachments to inanimate objects.

Attachment to inanimate objects and early childcare: A twin study

“…It is generally considered to be part of normal development (Winnicott, 1953; Bowlby, 1969/1982), and the ability to rely on an object that is accessible and manipulated by the child is thought to have a facilitative influence under anxiety-evoking situations (Passman, 1976). Most published studies show no association between object attachment and concurrent behavioral disturbances (e.g., Garrison and Earls, 1982), with some studies even showing a positive association between soft object attachment and attachment security to mothers (Lehman et al, 1992; although see van Ijzendoorn et al, 1983 for no such association). Still, it is by no means an essential developmental step, as many children do not develop such emotional dependencies toward non-social objects, and there may be some less optimal long-term associations related with this behavior (e.g., Cohen and Clark, 1984; Markt and Johnson, 1993).…”

“…The few empirical studies and surveys available on this developmental phenomenon, however, suggest that attachment to objects is not universal. In Western countries object attachments were indeed found to be common (e.g., van Ijzendoorn et al, 1983), with rates reaching as high as 60% (Passman and Halonen, 1979; Litt, 1981; Lehman et al, 1992). However, in other cultures, particularly those in which young children spend much of their time, both night and day, in close proximity to their mothers, rates of object attachments were found to be significantly lower (Gaddini and Gaddini, 1970; Hong and Townes, 1976; Litt, 1981).…”

Transitional object use, attachment, and help‐seeking behaviour in Taiwanese adolescents

“…It has been suggested that the use of a transitional object is related to secure attachments in infants between the ages of 12 and 30 months (Lehman, Denham, Moser, & Reeves, 1992), and that children with avoidant attachment styles rely more on transitional objects when anxious than do securely attached children (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). However, Passman (1987) found no evidence of an association between transitional object use (specifically, attachment to a blanket) and attachment patterns in infants between the ages of 20 and 41 months.…”

Sensory processing relates to attachment to childhood comfort objects of college students

“…Researchers examined differences in maternal attachment speculating that securely attached children use their comfort objects as a substitute for the caregiver (Lehman, Denham, Moser, & Reeves, 1992;Newson, Newson, & Mahalski, 1982;Winnicott, 1953). However, there is contradictory evidence from four-and eight-year-olds who failed to report that their favourite object reminded them of their caregiver (Lehman, Arnold, & Reeves, 1995).…”