Regular Article Maternal depressive symptoms and child behavior problems: Attachment security as a protective factor Paige N. Whittenburg1 , Jessica A. Stern2 , Bonnie E. Brett1 , M. Davis Straske1 and Jude Cassidy1 1Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA and 2Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA Abstract Maternal depressive symptoms (MDS) have been linked to both child internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Theory suggests that child attachment security may be a protective factor against the negative effects of MDS. This study examined child attachment security as a buffer of the link between MDS and child internalizing and externalizing behavior problems at two time points in a predominantly African American sample. Participants included mothers (N= 164; Mage = 29.68 years; 76% African American) and their preschool-aged children (60% girls; Mage = 44.67 months) recruited from four Head Start centers in low-income neighborhoods in Baltimore, Maryland. MDS were concurrently associated with child internalizing and externalizing behavior problems at both time points. No significant main effects of child attachment security on behavior problems emerged; however, child attachment moderated the association between MDS and child internal- izing behavior problems at Time 2, such that MDS predicted greater child internalizing problems when attachment security was low, and the effect was attenuated when attachment security was high. No interaction emerged for child externalizing problems. Findings suggest that secure attachment in early childhood can serve as a protective factor in the context of parental risk. We discuss implications for intervention and the intergenerational transmission of psychopathology. Keywords: attachment; behavior problems; maternal depressive symptoms; parenting (Received 2 April 2021; revised 22 November 2021; accepted 23 November 2021; First Published online 31 January 2022) Maternal depressive symptoms (MDS) involve affective symptoms such as depressed mood, feelings of hopelessness, and sleep dis- turbance. MDS occur at higher rates in mothers living in unsafe environments (Hill & Herman-Stahl, 2002). In addition, the stress associated with ethnic minority status and experiences of racism may increase the risk for depression among African American mothers of young children, making this a particularly important population to examine when considering the effects of MDS on child development (Baker et al., 2020; Segre et al., 2006). In fact, samples of mothers with children in Head Start comprised of substantial African American and Latina participants often report mean depressive symptoms at or above the clinical cutoff (Berlin et al., 2011; Lanzi et al., 1999; Spieker et al., 2005). Cummings and Davies (1994) suggest that MDS cascade through parental charac- teristics, parent–child interactions (e.g., negativity, intrusiveness, withdrawal), and marital functioning to shape child characteristics and in turn, child development. Research has found that MDS reduce effective parenting (Albright & Tamis-LeMonda, 2002) and increase children’s risk for emotional and behavioral problems (Brennan et al., 2000; Kouros & Garber, 2010; Lyons-Ruth et al., 1993, 1997). For instance, considerable research indicates positive associa- tions between MDS and child internalizing behavior problems— involving emotional distress and symptoms linked to depression and anxiety—and externalizing behavior problems—involving aggression, hyperactivity, and delinquency (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000). For example, a study of low-income families found that mothers’ elevated MDS when children were 1–5 years pre- dicted greater child internalizing and externalizing behavior prob- lems at age 7 (Lyons-Ruth et al., 1997). Similarly, another study of low-income families found that mothers who reported elevated MDS when their children were 4 years old had children with more internalizing behaviors (i.e., anxious and withdrawn) at age 6, and mothers who reported elevated MDS at when children were both 4 and 6 years of age had children with greater externalizing behavior problems at school and at home at age 6 (Alpern & Lyons-Ruth, 1993). Additionally, in a study of 224 youth and their mothers, McCarty and McMahon (2003) found that MDS were associated with lower quality parent–child relationships and lower social sup- port, which predicted more child internalizing and externalizing behavior problems across the school years; race did not moderate these links. Finally, in a sample of 184 African American mothers of Head Start children, MDS were positively associated with their preschoolers’ internalizing and externalizing behavior problems (Koblinsky et al., 2006). Together, these studies suggest that rela- tionship factors may play an important role in understanding MDS-related risk for child behavior problems across diverse pop- ulations (for related meta-analytic evidence linking maternal Corresponding author: Paige N. Whittenburg, email: paigewhittenburg@gmail.com Cite this article: Whittenburg, P. N., et al. (2023). Maternal depressive symptoms and child behavior problems: Attachment security as a protective factor. Development and Psychopathology 35: 678–688, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Development and Psychopathology (2023), 35, 678–688 doi:10.1017/S0954579421001802 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8691-277X https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1357-724X https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0943-2489 mailto:paigewhittenburg@gmail.com https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog?doi=https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802&domain=pdf https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 depression and child behavior problems see Goodman et al., 2011). Further, longitudinal analyses by Baker et al. (2020) suggest that there may be reciprocal relations between MDS and child behavior problems, particularly among African American families; thus, we consider the possibility of reciprocal effects in the present study. It is important to examine factors that may protect against child behavior problems in the face of parental risk because such prob- lems in childhood have lasting consequences for adolescent and adult functioning (e.g., Cicchetti & Cohen, 1995; Masten et al., 1990; Reef et al., 2011). One important contributor to child mental health that has been shown to protect against external stressors is the quality of the parent–child relationship, and specifically child attachment security. Attachment theory posits that children have a biologically based propensity to seek proximity to caregivers to ensure protection in times of trouble (Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1988). In service of this and through repeated interactions with caregivers, children form internal working models of relationships that pre- dictably guide social behavior (Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1988; Main et al., 1985). Attachment security, born out of experiences of sen- sitive and responsive caregiving, reflects the child’s confidence in the availability of a caregiver to provide a secure base in times of distress. Attachment avoidance (one type of attachment insecu- rity), on the other hand, results from experiences of rejecting or insensitive caregiving and reflects the child’s hesitancy to seek comfort and difficulty relying on others (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Theory and research suggest that attachment security may con- tribute to resilience (Masten, 2001; Rutter, 1985) by supporting children’s self-regulation of emotion (Calkins & Leerkes, 2011; Cassidy, 1994) and physiological responses to stress (Cassidy et al., 2013; Diamond, 2015); in contrast, forms of insecurity such as avoidance may undermine effective self-regulation and help- seeking, exacerbating psychological risk (Cassidy, 1994; Kotler et al., 1994). Meta-analytic evidence links avoidance specifically to increased risk of internalizing symptoms (Groh et al., 2012). Further, security has been shown to serve as a protective factor in the transmission of mental health risk, meaning that it “ameli- orate[s] a person’s response to some environmental hazard that predisposes to a maladaptive outcome” (Rutter, 1985, p. 600). For example, parenting stress has been shown to predict greater child aggression and attention problems at age 3 among children who were insecurely attached as infants, but not among those who were secure (Tharner et al., 2012). It is possible that security plays a similar protective role against some of the emotional and behav- ioral risks associated with MDS. To our knowledge, previous research on this topic is limited in that no studies have examined child attachment as a moderator of the link between MDS specifically (as opposed to MDS as part of a broader risk composite; Easterbrooks et al., 1993) and both child internalizing and externalizing behavior problems (as opposed to child fearfulness or child depressive symptoms; Bergman et al., 2008; Fox & Borelli, 2015; Milan et al., 2009). Further, the majority of studies on the moderating role of attachment have focused on predominantly White samples, limiting generalizability to more diverse populations. Thus, there is a critical need to examine child attachment as a moderator of MDS-associated risk for both inter- nalizing and externalizing behavior problems in populations of parents and children who have been underrepresented in research. The present study addresses these gaps by examining attach- ment security as a moderator of the link between MDS and child behavior problems (both internalizing and externalizing) in a pre- dominantly low-SES African American sample. African American families are often underrepresented in psychology research, yet they are overrepresented in exposure to systemic inequities— including racial discrimination, higher rates of poverty, and limited access to quality mental health care—that increase risk for mental health struggles, including MDS (e.g., Belle & Doucet, 2003). Thus, it is particularly important to examine resilience factors such as the quality of the parent–child relationship in this population (Stern et al., 2021), which may also be more at risk for insecure attach- ment due to exposure to ecological stressors (Bakermans- Kranenburg et al., 2004; Malda & Mesman, 2017; but see also Dexter et al., 2013 for evidence to the contrary). We focus on pre- school as a critical time to examine these processes because pre- venting behavior problems is imperative for a successful transition to kindergarten (Ladd & Price, 1987). Specifically, this study examines child attachment security assessed with an obser- vational laboratory procedure as a moderator of the association between MDS and child internalizing and externalizing behavior problems among mothers and their 3- to 5-year-old children from low-income neighborhoods in Baltimore, Maryland. To under- stand how these developmental processes unfold over time, we lev- erage data on MDS and child behavior problems from two time points. We hypothesize that MDS will be positively associated with internalizing and externalizing behavior problems at each time point and will predict relative increases in behavior problems over time. However, in line with resilience literature noting attachment security as a protective factor (Masten et al., 2021), we also predict that these main effects will be moderated by attachment security, such that children who are more securely attached to their mother will be less negatively affected by their mother’s depressive symp- toms. In addition to these primary hypotheses, we conducted two sets of exploratory analyses to test (a) if attachment avoidance might similarly interact with MDS to exacerbate risk for child internalizing and externalizing problems, and (b) if there were any reciprocal effects of child behavior problems predicting relative increases in maternal depression over time. Method Participants Mothers (N= 164; Mage = 29.68 years, SD= 6.35) and their 3- to 5-year-old children were recruited from four Head Start centers in low-income neighborhoods in Baltimore, Maryland. The sample (66 boys and 98 girls;Mage = 44.67 months, SD= 7.14) was diverse (mothers were 76% African American, 12% White/non-Hispanic, 12% other). The demographics of the 137 dyads included in the principal analyses (see Missing Data section; Mmateral age = 29.73 years, SD= 6.38; 58 boys and 79 girls; Mchild age = 44.94 months, SD= 7.02; mothers were 76% African American, 12%White/non- Hispanic, 12% other) were nearly identical to those of the larger sample. Participants were part of a larger parenting intervention study (see Cassidy et al., 2017, for details). Procedure Data were collected at two time points. At Time 1 (T1), mothers provided informed consent and completed a demographic ques- tionnaire and measures of MDS and child behavior problems. Time 2 (T2) data collection, approximately 4–6 months later (Mchild age = 51.87 months, SD= 6.07), began with a videotaped observational assessment of child attachment. Mothers then com- pleted the same questionnaires assessing MDS and child behavior problems in a separate room while the child completed tasks not Development and Psychopathology 679 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 relevant to the present study. The session ended with mothers being debriefed and compensated for their time. Measures Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale At T1 and T2, mothers completed this widely used 20-item self- report questionnaire that measures how often depressive symp- toms were experienced over the past week (e.g., “I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing”). Statements are rated on a 4-point frequency scale, ranging from 0 = rarely or never to 3 = most or all of the time. The measure shows good validity and good internal reliability across diverse samples (Clark et al., 2002; Radloff, 1977, 1991). Items were summed to derive the total score for depressive symptoms used in analyses (αT1 = 0.91, αT2 = 0.91; possible range = 0–60). Preschool Strange Situation At T2, child attachment security and avoidance were measured using an adapted version of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation Procedure (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Cassidy et al., 1992; see Solomon & George, 2016). In the preschool version, children and mothers participate in a 20-min video-recorded lab session that begins with play time with the mother present (approximately 3 min), followed by two separations of mother and child (one 3-min and one 5-min separation), each of which is followed by a 3-min reunion. The videos were coded for the quality of the reunion on two 9-point scales. Our a priori decision to use the continuous scores (rather than classifications) was based on (a) recent evidence that security is best captured using continuous scores (first from Fraley & Spieker, 2003, using the large NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development [2005] data set; further discussed by Fearon & Roisman, 2017, and Groh et al., 2014), and (b) in order to obtain greater power. High scores on security indicate positive and warm reunions between mother and child, typically character- ized by fluid conversation and often involving contact or close proximity; low scores indicate reunions that are less comfortable, less close in verbal or physical interaction, or show hostility, ambiv- alence, or odd behaviors such as freezing. High scores on avoidance indicate purposeful limiting of physical or psychological closeness by the child to the mother. A trained, reliable coder coded all video cases, with 26% coded at random by a second trained coder. Both coders were unaware of study hypotheses. Disagreements were resolved through conferencing. Interrater reliability was strong (ICCsecurity = .89, p< .001; ICCavoidance = .96, p< .001). Child Behavior Checklist 1.5–5 years At T1 and following the Strange Situation at T2, mothers com- pleted the standard 100-item report of their children’s behaviors for children ages 1.5–5 years (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000). The scale includes dimensions of children’s internalizing (e.g., “sulks”) and externalizing (e.g., “is disobedient”) behavior problems. Items are rated on a 3-point scale, where 0 = not true, 1 = somewhat/sometimes true, 2 = very/often true. This measure shows strong psychometric properties and is used widely in developmental research (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000; Nakamura et al., 2009). Items were summed to create subscale scores for internalizing (αT1 = 0.88, αT2 = 0.87; possible range = 0–72) and externalizing (αT1 = 0.92, αT2 = 0.92; possible range = 0–48) behavior problems. T-score distributions, reflecting clinical cutoffs for behavior problems, for the current sample are presented in Table 1. At T1, 5% of children scored in the subclinical range and 15% in the clinical range for externalizing behavior problems; 7% scored in the subclinical range and 18% in the clini- cal range for internalizing problems. At T2, 3% of children scored in the subclinical range and 10% in the clinical range for external- izing behavior problems; 1% scored in the subclinical range and 13% in the clinical range for internalizing problems. Analytic plan To investigate whether MDS were associated with child behavior problems over time, and whether these associations were moder- ated by child attachment, we ran two crosslagged panel models (CLPM) examining child internalizing problems (Model 1) and child externalizing problems (Model 2). This approach allows for examination of both (a) autoregressive paths—denoting the rank-order stability of individual differences in MDS and child behavior problems from T1 to T2—and (b) crosslagged paths— denoting the extent to which T1 levels of one variable relate to T2 levels of the other variable (Biesanz, 2012). In addition to these standard CLPM paths, we also entered child attachment security at T2, as well as its two-way interactions with MDS at T1 and T2, as predictors of child behavior problems at T2 to test our main study hypotheses. Analyses were completed in Mplus version 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017) and estimated using maximum likelihood (ML) to account for missing data (Graham, 2009; Schafer & Graham, 2002). For each model, we followed our a priori plan for the selection of empirically derived covariates: First, we ran an unadjusted model including all possible covariates. Child sex, as well as mater- nal age, race, education, and marital status were chosen a priori as covariates, as all have been identified as correlates or moderators of environmental effects on children’s developing behavior problems (e.g., Berlin et al., 2009; Cassiano et al., 2018; Coe et al., 2020; Kuruczova et al., 2020). Child sex (0 = boy; 1 = girl), marital status (0= not married; 1=married), maternal education (0= less than a GED; 1 = GED or above), and maternal race (0 = African American; 1 = not African American) were dichotomized. In addition, we included intervention status (0 = control group, 1 = intervention group; see Cassidy et al., 2017), as well as the Head Start site from which each dyad was recruited as an effect- coded covariate to account for clustering. Because our sample was not appropriate for multilevel modeling due to the small num- ber of clusters (N= 4), effect coding was used to return fixed-effect estimates similar to those from multilevel models (McNeish & Stapleton, 2016). Second, we removed all nonsignificant covariates and reran the simplified models to retain power and model parsimony. Results Missing data Of the original 164 dyads, 23 did not participate in the second lab- oratory visit, and four attachment assessments were lost due to technical error; thus, complete attachment data were available for 137 children. Complete maternal reports of child internalizing behavior problems at T2 were available for 139 children, and of externalizing behavior problems for 140 children. To maximize statistical power, ML estimation was used for the main analyses. Note that because ML’s use of missing data theory does not apply to cases missing both an X (attachment) and Y (T2 MDS and 680 Paige N. Whittenburg et al. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 behavior problems) variable, the final analytic sample included only the 137 children with valid attachment data. Participants who dropped out did not differ significantly from those who did not on Time 1 assessments of MDS, child internalizing or external- izing symptoms, or demographic characteristics (age, race, marital status, education). Preliminary analyses Descriptive statistics and correlations among main study variables are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. MDS were elevated in the present sample, with 46% and 44% of mothers reporting symp- toms above the clinical cutoff of 16 at T1 and T2, respectively. MDS were positively associated with both child internalizing and externalizing behavior problems at both time points, with moder- ate effect sizes (see Table 2). Table 3 displays the initial models including all potential cova- riates, and Table 4 shows the final models retaining only significant covariates. Intervention status, child sex, marital status, maternal race, and Head Start site were not significant and thus were dropped from the final models to retain power and model parsi- mony. Maternal age significantly predicted MDS at T2 and thus was retained as a covariate. Principal analyses Child internalizing behavior problems The final models are summarized in Figure 1 and Table 4. With regard to autoregressive paths, both MDS and child internalizing Table 1. Descriptive statistics of key study variables n (%) M (SD) Range T-score* M (SD) Mothers Depressive symptoms T1 17.80 (12.19) 0–48 Depressive symptoms T2 15.48 (11.70) 0–50 Age (years) 29.68 (6.35) 18–48 Education Some high school 31 (19%) High school degree/GED 76 (47%) Associate degree 5 (3%) Some college 44 (27%) 4-year degree 4 (1%) Advanced degree 4 (3%) Marital status Married 26 (16%) Steady relationship 68 (42%) Single 70 (42%) Race/ethnicity Black 125 (76%) White 20 (12%) Other 19 (12%) Children Age T1 (months) 44.67 (7.14) 36–62 Sex Girl 66 (40%) Boy 98 (60%) Attachment security 4.99 (1.70) 1–8 Attachment avoidance 2.57 (1.50) 1–6 Behavior problems Internalizing T1 11.07 (8.30) 0–48 53.99 (13.39) Externalizing T1 14.12 (8.57) 0–41 51.58 (11.13) Internalizing T2 9.59 (7.46) 0–41 51.59 (12.03) Externalizing T2 12.73 (8.83) 0–41 49.78 (11.47) Note. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2. *T-scores on the Child Behavior Checklist identify clinical levels of problem behavior. For the internalizing and externalizing behavior problem subscales, scores above 63 reflect clinical problems. Development and Psychopathology 681 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 problems showed significant stability from T1 to T2, ps < .001. Additionally, MDS were concurrently associated with child inter- nalizing problems at T1 and T2, ps < .001. With regard to cross- lagged paths, child internalizing symptoms at T1 did not predict relative increases in MDS from T1 to T2, p= .865, suggesting no child-driven effects on MDS. MDS at T1 predicted relative increases in child internalizing symptoms from T1 to T2, but this trend was only marginally significant, β= .25, p= .054. There were no significant effects of attachment security onMDS or child inter- nalizing at T2; however, a significant interaction emerged between MDS at T2 and child security predicting child internalizing at T2, p= .011. We probed this interaction using values that were at the mean, one standard deviation above, and one standard deviation below the mean of child security. Simple slopes analyses revealed that MDS at T2 were a significant positive predictor of child inter- nalizing behavior problems at T2 when child attachment security was low (−1 SD below the mean; b= .34, SE= .07; p< .001), and at themean (b= .23, SE= .06, p< .001), and the effect was attenuated when attachment security was high (þ1 SD above the mean; b= .13, SE= .06; p= .038) (Figure 2). Johnson–Neyman regions of significance tests revealed that MDS was no longer a significant predictor of child internalizing when attachment security wasþ1.8 SD above the mean (18% of the sample). Child externalizing behavior problems As in the previous model, autoregressive paths showed strong stability of MDS and child externalizing problems from T1 to T2, ps < .001. Additionally, MDS was concurrently associated with child externalizing problems at T1 and T2, ps < .05. With regard to crosslagged paths, child externalizing problems at T1 signifi- cantly predicted relative increases in MDS from T1 to T2, β = .16, p= .015, indicating child-driven effects. In contrast, MDS at T1 did not significantly predict child externalizing at T2, p= .858. There were no effects of attachment security on MDS or child externalizing at T2, and no significant interactions between attachment security and MDS at either time point. Exploratory analyses We also tested the same models using child attachment avoidance scores as themoderator (see Table 5). In the model predicting child internalizing symptoms, only maternal age was retained as a covariate. There was no effect of child attachment avoidance on MDS at T2, but, contrary to expectations, avoidance negatively predicted child internalizing at T2, accounting for T1 levels, β = −.23, p= .021. This effect was qualified by a significant interaction between avoidance and MDS at T2 predicting child internalizing at T2, β = .41, p= .048. Simple slopes analyses revealed that MDS at T2 predicted child internalizing at T2 when attachment avoidance was high (b= .31, SE= .06, p< .001) or at the mean (b= .20, SE= .06, p= .001), but not when avoidance was low (b= .08, SE= .07, p= .240). Johnson–Neyman regions of significance tests showed that MDS no longer predicted child internalizing when attachment avoidance was −.97 SD below the mean (37% of the sample). In the model predicting child externalizing symptoms, only maternal age was retained as a covariate in the final model. There was no effect of avoidance on MDS or child externalizing at T2, and no significant interactions between avoidance and MDS at T1 or T2 (see Table 5). Finally, to further probe the child-driven effects of externalizing on MDS, we conducted follow-up analyses to explore whether this effect might be moderated by child attachment security or avoid- ance. In this variation of the crosslagged path model, MDS at T2 was regressed on covariates, T1 MDS levels, child externalizing at T1, attachment security, attachment avoidance, and the two-way interactions between T1 externalizing and the attachment varia- bles. Maternal age and marital status were retained as significant covariates in the final model. There was no significant interaction between T1 externalizing and attachment security, β = −.03, p= .850. However, a significant interaction emerged between T1 externalizing and attachment avoidance, β = .32, p= .020. Simple slopes revealed that child externalizing problems at T1 predicted MDS at T2 when attachment avoidance was high Table 2. Correlation matrix of study variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. MDS T1 – 2. MDS T2 .69** – 3. Child internalizing T1 .44** .33** – 4. Child internalizing T2 .30** .36** .65** – 5. Child externalizing T1 .36** .42** .71** .61** – 6. Child externalizing T2 .29** .37** .56** .74** .77** – 7. Attachment security .09 .06 −.03 −.03 .00 .03 – 8. Attachment avoidance −.14 −.03 −.10 −.04 .00 −.07 −.54** – 9. Intervention status −.02 −.03 .04 −.02 .05 .00 −.03 .05 – 10. Child sex −.05 −.05 −.03 .06 −.10 −.12 −.23** .07 −.03 – 11. Married .00 .05 −.02 −.07 −.05 −.04 .05 −.07 −.25** .14 – 12. Maternal age .11 −.02 .09 .21* −.01 .16 .10 −.08 −.15 .02 .18* – 13. GED −.21** −.16 −.11 −.10 −.10 −.05 .03 −.03 .09 −.01 .04 −.27** – 14. Maternal race .10 .18* .08 .07 .27** .19* .07 .01 −.10 −.07 .11 .12 −.21** Note. *p< .05, **p< .01. MDS=maternal depressive symptoms. Child sex (0 = boy; 1 = girl), marital status (0 = not married; 1 =married), maternal education (0 = less than a GED; 1 = GED or above), and maternal race (0 = African American; 1 = not African American) were dichotomized and represent point biserial correlations. 682 Paige N. Whittenburg et al. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 (b= .40, p= .002) or at the mean (b= .23, p= .011), but not when avoidance was low (b= .06, p= .619). Johnson–Neyman regions of significance tests showed that externalizing no longer predicted MDS when attachment avoidance was −.45 SD below the mean (52% of the sample). Discussion This study examined child attachment as a moderator of the link between MDS and child internalizing and externalizing behavior problems in an economically stressed, predominantly African American sample at two time points. We found that mothers’ depressive symptoms were concurrently associated with elevated internalizing and externalizing problems in their preschool-aged children, replicating previous findings (Koblinsky et al., 2006). Further, baseline levels of MDS predicted relative increases in child internalizing over time. For child internalizing problems, this asso- ciation was moderated by child attachment security, such that MDS predicted increases in children’s internalizing problems when security was low; the association was attenuated for highly secure children, providing support for the study hypothesis in rela- tion to child internalizing behavior problems. This moderating effect was specific to internalizing: Attachment security did not moderate the association betweenMDS and externalizing behavior problems, contrary to predictions. Exploratory analyses revealed that attachment avoidance moderated the effects of MDS on child internalizing in a way thatmirrored results for attachment security; specifically, MDS predicted greater internalizing symptoms at T2 when avoidance was average or high, but not when it was low. This study provides key evidence that among families facing multiple contextual risk factors, a high-quality parent–child relationship may serve as an important protective factor against the intergen- erational transmission of internalizing symptoms. Our findings regarding internalizing problems are broadly con- sistent with previous research demonstrating that secure attach- ment protects against the transmission of depression from mother to child (Milan et al., 2009) and that securely attached chil- dren may be less affected by contextual and parental risk factors compared insecurely attached children (Cyr et al., 2014; Kobak et al., 2006). Our findings build on this work by moving beyond predominantlyWhite samples (e.g., Milan et al., 2009) to shed light on these processes amongmajority African American mothers and children. Results provide evidence that security plays a similarly Table 3. Initial crosslagged panel models examining longitudinal links between maternal depressive symptoms and child internalizing and externalizing behavior problems, moderated by child attachment security, with all covariates included Path Internalizing Externalizing β SE p β SE p Child behavior problems T2 on Intervention status −.02 .07 .784 .01 .06 .925 Child sex .06 .07 .323 −.03 .06 .612 Marital status −.06 .07 .363 .04 .06 .567 Maternal age .03 .08 .652 .09 .07 .202 Maternal education −.05 .07 .421 .01 .06 .883 Maternal race .08 .07 .279 −.01 .06 .912 Site A .05 .07 .469 .08 .06 .205 Site B .001 .07 .984 .01 .06 .926 Site C .05 .07 .479 .01 .06 .879 Child behavior problems T1 .47 .09 <.001 .76 .07 <.001 MDS T1 .20 .14 .137 −.06 .15 .716 Attachment security .11 .08 .203 .003 .09 .971 MDS T1 * Security .15 .24 .538 .31 .25 .216 MDS T2 * Security −.49 .19 .011 −.37 .23 .110 MDS T2 on Intervention status −.06 .06 .325 −.06 .06 .336 Child sex .04 .06 .566 .04 .06 .533 Marital status .09 .06 .172 .10 .06 .100 Maternal age −.18 .07 .009 −.17 .07 .009 Maternal education −.04 .07 .492 −.05 .06 .444 Maternal race .08 .07 .263 .04 .07 .541 Site A −.09 .06 .176 −.07 .06 .253 Site B .04 .07 .587 .03 .06 .608 Site C .08 .07 .221 .09 .07 .188 Child behavior problems T1 .01 .07 .932 .16 .07 .017 MDS T1 .71 .06 <.001 .66 .05 <.001 Attachment security .04 .06 .500 .04 .06 .472 MDS T1 with Child behavior problems T1 .45 .07 <.001 .39 .07 <.001 MDS T2 with Child behavior problems T2 .70 .11 <.001 .46 .19 .017 Note. MDS=maternal depressive symptoms. Child sex (0 = boy; 1 = girl), marital status (0 = not married; 1 = married), maternal education (0 = less than a GED; 1 = GED or above), and maternal race (0 = African American; 1 = not African American) were dichotomized. Site = effect-coded Head Start site. Boldface indicates statistical significance at p< .05. Predictors and covariates were allowed to covary. Table 4. Final crosslagged panel models examining longitudinal links between maternal depressive symptoms and child internalizing and externalizing behavior problems, moderated by child attachment security Path Internalizing Externalizing β SE p β SE p Child behavior problems T2 on Maternal age .06 .06 .326 .09 .06 .126 Child behavior problems T1 .45 .09 <.001 .75 .07 <.001 MDS T1 .25 .13 .054 −.03 .15 .858 Attachment security .11 .08 .180 .03 .09 .730 MDS T1 * Security .09 .23 .695 .28 .25 .276 MDS T2 * Security −.49 .19 .011 −.37 .23 .113 MDS T2 on Maternal age −.10 .06 .098 −.10 .06 .101 Child behavior problems T1 .01 .07 .865 .16 .07 .015 MDS T1 .71 .05 <.001 .65 .05 <.001 Attachment security .02 .06 .755 .02 .06 .734 MDS T1 with Child behavior problems T1 .45 .07 <.001 .39 .07 <.001 MDS T2 with Child behavior problems T2 .68 .11 <.001 .44 .20 .030 Note. MDS=maternal depressive symptoms. Boldface indicates statistical significance at p< .05. Predictors and covariates were allowed to covary. Development and Psychopathology 683 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 protective role in this underrepresented population, supporting the competence hypothesis in attachment theory (i.e., that secure attachment confers benefits for social-emotional development across diverse contexts; Mesman et al., 2016). Moreover, our study extends previous research by providing the first indication that this moderation may hold for a broad assessment of internalizing behaviors, and not simply for child depressive symptoms. Theory and research suggest that children who are securely attached develop more effective emotion regulation skills (Cassidy, 1994; Calkins & Hill, 2007; Calkins & Leerkes, 2011), in part because secure children have a history of having their dis- tress effectively responded to (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Leerkes, 2011). Children who develop emotion regulation skills that protect them against negative coping behaviors, such as rumination and worry, are at reduced risk for symptoms of psychopathology, including internalizing problems (Compas et al., 2017); thus, attachment security may protect against the risks associated with MDS in part via endowing children with protective emotion regulation skills. Notably, attachment security did not significantly moderate the association between MDS and child externalizing behavior prob- lems, which contrasts with some previous work. For example, Easterbrooks et al. (1993) found that children exposed to multiple risk factors (including MDS, though this factor was not independ- ently examined) who were also insecurely attached were at elevated risk for both internalizing and externalizing problems, as reported by mothers and teachers. One possibility is that security is a more potent buffer of externalizing symptoms that manifest in class- room settings, and that teacher reports are needed to capture key attachment-related variation in these symptoms. Another pos- sibility is that the present low-income, marginalized samplemay be exposed to additional stressors contributing to externalizing prob- lems (e.g., racial discrimination; financial stress) andmay therefore need multiple buffers beyond attachment security (e.g., other close, supportive relationships; positive racial socialization) to reduce MDS-related risk for externalizing behavior. Alternately, child externalizing behaviors may emerge as an attempt to cope with these unique stressors, so that attachment security may not decrease these behaviors because they are adaptations to a high- risk environment (Frankenhuis & Del Giudice, 2012). Exploratory analyses revealed that children’s attachment avoid- ance did not significantly predict child internalizing or externaliz- ing behavior problems, consistent with the results of Brumariu and Kerns’s (2010) review. However, attachment avoidance did mod- erate the association between MDS and child internalizing behav- ior problems. Specifically, when child avoidance was at least one standard deviation below the mean, MDSwere no longer positively associated with internalizing behavior problems. This suggests that avoidance specifically may undermine effective self-regulation in the context of some forms of parental risk. Given previous research linking attachment avoidance and increased risk for internalizing behavior problems (Groh et al., 2012), this finding underscores the importance of considering parent-child relationship quality when determining profiles of risk linked with the development of inter- nalizing behavior problems. Future research should consider how attachment insecurity in the form anxiety/resistance or disorgani- zation may also be more likely to exacerbate MDS-associated risk for behavior problems. With regard to main effects, our findings linking MDS to con- current levels of child internalizing and externalizing problems are consistent with considerable research (Baker et al., 2020; Goodman et al., 2011). This adds support to the notion that maternal mental health is consequential for children’s behavior problems across dif- ferent contexts and populations, including majority African American families in Head Start (e.g., Baker & Brooks-Gunn, 2020; Johnson &Kliewer, 1999). Moreover, we found evidence that child externalizing, but not internalizing, predicted relative increases in MDS over time, suggesting child-driven effects similar to Baker et al. (2020). Exploratory analyses revealed that this main effect was qualified by an interaction with child attachment avoid- ance, suggesting that it is the combination of child externalizing and avoidant attachment that predicts relative increases in MDS from T1 to T2 (a dual-risk model). These data speak to the impor- tant issue of bidirectional effects among children and their caregivers. Contrary to previous research (e.g., Fearon et al., 2010; Groh et al., 2012), however, we found no main effect of attachment on child internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. One possibility is that attachment security measured in relation to a sin- gle caregiver is less directly influential for this population of major- ity African American children, who often have multiple caregivers Figure 1. Final crosslagged models of maternal depressive symptoms and child internalizing (A) and externalizing (B) behavior problems, moderated by attachment security. Values indicate standardized path coefficients (straight lines) and covarian- ces (curved lines). MDS=maternal depressive symptoms; Int = child internalizing problems, Ext = child externalizing problems, *S = interaction with attachment security; Numbers 1 or 2 indicate that the construct was assessed at Time 1 or Time 2, respectively. 684 Paige N. Whittenburg et al. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 to whom they are attached, including fathers, grandparents, and fictive kin (see, e.g., Stern et al., 2021; Tyrell & Masten, 2021). A second possibility is that because mothers were the sole reporters of child behavior, it may be difficult for a single reporter to provide a full account of children’s behaviors in all contexts. Adding the perspectives of other caregivers or teachers may help to capture attachment-related variation in child behavior problems. We turn to this and other avenues for future research in the following section. Strengths, limitations, and future directions Findings should be considered in light of both the strengths and the limitations of the study. Strengths of the study include the use of reliable and well-validated measures such as the Preschool Strange Situation (Cassidy et al., 1992) and our focus on preschool-aged children, as the preschool period is critical for examining factors that reduce risk for behavior problems to support children’s successful transition to school. Future research could examine different age groups and follow families over time to shed light on the role of developmental timing and the chronicity of MDS. Additionally, our focus on a majority African American, eco- nomically stressed sample is both a strength and a limitation of the present study. Given that most previous research has focused on predominantly White samples, this study sheds light on a pop- ulation that is too often underrepresented in psychology research. It is important to understand howmaternal depression and attach- ment relate to behavioral outcomes in marginalized populations, particularly given that African American families are dispropor- tionately exposed to racism and other inequities that are consequential for physical and mental health (e.g., Belle & Doucet, 2003). Thus, attending to Black families’ mental health needs and reducing intergenerational transmission of mental health struggles are vital equity issues. At the same time, however, the focus on this population also limits generalizability. Future research that includes participants of a diversity of racial and ethnic groups (e.g., Latinx) and socioeconomic strata will be important. Importantly, because our sample was drawn from an urban, low-SES population, other contextual risk factors may be present (e.g., discrimination, neighborhood violence), contributing to both mother and child symptomatology. Further, attachment security may also act as a protective factor against these additional unmeas- ured risk factors. Future work should seek to measure these con- textual risk factors to enrich our understanding of the context in which MDS, child attachment, and behavior problems develop. Notably, mothers were reporters for both their own depressive symptoms and their children’s internalizing and externalizing behavior problems, raising potential issues of reporter bias and shared method variance when considering links between MDS and child behavior problems. Notably, however, shared method variance is not problematic for the central findings of the present study regarding moderation by attachment, given that interaction effects are likely to be attenuated, rather than inflated, in the 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Low MDS High MDS s melbor P roivahe B gnizilanretnI Low Security Mean Security High Security Figure 2. Child attachment security as a moderator of the link between maternal depressive symptoms and child internaliz- ing problems. MDS =maternal depressive symptoms. Maternal depressive symptoms at Time 2 were a significant positive predictor of child internalizing problems at Time 2 when child attachment security was low (−1 SD below the mean; b= .34; p < .001) and at the mean (b= .23, p< .001), and the effect was attenuated when attachment security was high (þ1 SD above the mean; b= .13; p= .038). These effects control for covariates, as well as Time 1 levels of MDS and child internalizing. Table 5. Final exploratory crosslagged panel models examining longitudinal links between maternal depressive symptoms and child internalizing and externalizing behavior problems, moderated by child attachment avoidance Path Internalizing Externalizing β SE p β SE p Child behavior problems T2 on Marital status −.16 .06 .009 – – – Maternal age .18 .06 .003 .13 .06 .029 Child behavior problems T1 .64 .06 <.001 .78 .05 <.001 MDS T1 −.21 .11 .059 −.06 .11 .574 Attachment avoidance −.23 .10 .021 −.10 .10 .286 MDS T1 * Avoidance .05 .21 .801 .03 .20 .894 MDS T2 * Avoidance .41 .21 .048 .06 .20 .762 MDS T2 on Marital status .11 .06 .064 – – – Maternal age −.12 .06 .053 −.10 .06 .112 Child behavior problems T1 .02 .07 .810 −.15 .06 .017 MDS T1 .72 .05 <.001 .66 .05 <.001 Attachment avoidance .07 .06 .258 .05 .06 .367 MDS T1 with Child behavior problems T1 .45 .07 <.001 .39 .07 <.001 MDS T2 with Child behavior problems T2 .07 .19 .731 .08 .19 .687 Note.MDS=maternal depressive symptoms. Marital status was dichotomized (0 = not married; 1=married). Boldface indicates statistical significance at p< .05. Predictors and covariates were allowed to covary. Development and Psychopathology 685 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 presence of shared method variance, even when one of the interac- tion terms is not a source of the shared variance (Siemsen et al., 2010). Even so, mothers’ cognitive biases related to depressive symptomology may impact their perceptions and reporting of their child’s behavior (e.g., De Los Reyes et al., 2008). In addition, child behavior in one contextmay not align with behavior in another (e.g., school). Future research drawing on other reporters (such as grand- parents, childcare providers, or teachers) may give a better idea of how the children might behave in different environments and how a caregiver other than the parent may see these behaviors. Clinical implications Rates of maternal depression tend to be particularly high among parents of children in Head Start (e.g., 41% reported by Lanzi et al., 1999); indeed, the proportion of mothers reporting clinically significant levels of depressive symptoms in the present sample (>40% at both time points) is likewise high compared to previous community samples. Given this high rate, there has been consid- erable interest in interventions to reduce maternal depression, and some evidence supports their success (e.g., Gelfand et al., 1996). Because secure attachment in early childhood is a key modifiable resilience factor buffering children from the negative effects of MDS, attending to improving parent–child relationship quality within interventions focused on parental depression could enhance children’s well-being. It is noteworthy that the few studies exam- ining child attachment within Head Start have reported elevated levels of insecure attachment (e.g., Hoffman et al., 2006; Spieker et al., 2005); our findings of the protective role of attachment secu- rity, along with the elevated risk for maternal depression within Head Start samples, highlight the importance of interventions to enhance attachment security within Head Start programs (Cassidy et al., 2017; see also Spieker et al., 2005). Relatedly, inter- ventions focused on parenting may provide particular benefit when they include resources for assessing and treating parental depression. Such multitargeted interventions could help protect children from the potential risks of MDS among children with insecure attachment and reduce the likelihood of the intergenera- tional transmission of internalizing problems. Moreover, multitar- geted interventions build positive spirals to benefit both mother and child: If a parent feels competent as a secure base for her child, her self-efficacy may increase and feelings of helplessness may decrease; and if children feel secure in their relationships with their caregivers, then they may be relatively buffered from the negative effects of maternal depression. Acknowledgments. We are grateful for the help of the following people: Jacquelyn Gross was instrumental in the study's design, data collection, coordination, tracking, and data management; Danielle Gregg and Elizabeth Thompson provided and coordinated laboratory space at the Family Center at Kennedy Krieger Institute in Baltimore, MD; Susan Paris and Bonnie Conley assisted with Strange Situation coding; and many hardworking and dedicated undergraduate research assistants assisted with data collection and coding.We are grateful to the families who generously participated in our study. Author contributions. Paige N. Whittenburg and Jessica A. Stern contributed equally to the article. Funding statement. This research was supported by The Zanvyl and Isabelle Krieger Fund. Manuscript preparation was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number F32HD102119 (to JS). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the views of the Krieger Fund or of the National Institutes of Health. Conflicts of interest. None. References Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2000).Manual for the ASEBA preschool forms & profiles. University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange stuation. Erlbaum, New York. Albright, M. B., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2002). Maternal depressive symp- toms in relation to dimensions of parenting in low-income mothers. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XA DS0601_03 Alpern, L., & Lyons-Ruth, K. (1993). Preschool children at social risk: Chronicity and timing of maternal depressive symptoms and child behavior problems at school and at home. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 371–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02929.x Baker, C. E., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2020). Early parenting and the intergenera- tional transmission of self-regulation and behavior problems in African American Head Start families. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 51, 220–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-019-00921-5 Baker, C. E., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Gouskova, N. (2020). Reciprocal relations between maternal depression and child behavior problems in families served by Head Start. Child Development, 91(5), 1563–1576. https://doi.org/10. 1111/cdev.13344 Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Kroonenberg, P. M. (2004). Differences in attachment security between African-American and white children: Ethnicity or socio-economic status? Infant Behavior andDevelopment, 27(3), 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2004.02.002 Belle, D., & Doucet, J. (2003). Poverty, inequality, and discrimination as sources of depression among U.S. women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.00090 Bergman, K., Sarkar, P., Glover, V., & O.’Connor, T. G. (2008). Quality of child-parent attachment moderates the impact of antenatal stress on child fearfulness. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 1089–1098. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01987.x Berlin, L. J., Ispa, J. M., Fine, M. A., Malone, P. S., Brooks-Gunn, J., Brady- Smith, C., Ayoub, C., & Bai, Y. (2009). Correlates and consequences of spanking and verbal punishment for low-income white, African American, and Mexican American toddlers. Child Development, 80(5), 1403–1420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01341.x Berlin, L. J., Whiteside-Mansell, L., Roggman, L. A., Green, B. L., Robinson, J., & Spieker, S. (2011). Testing maternal depression and attachment style as moderators of Early Head Start’s effects of parenting. Attachment & Human Development, 13, 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2010.488122 Biesanz, J. C. (2012). Autoregressive longitudinal models. InHoyle R. H. (Eds.), Handbook of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press, New York: 459–471. Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (Original ed. 1969). Basic Books, New York. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books. Brennan, P. A., Hammen, C., Andersen, M., Bor, W., Najman, J. M., & Williams, G. M. (2000). Chronicity, severity, and timing of maternal depres- sive symptoms: Relationships with child outcomes at age 5. Developmental Psychology, 36, 759–766. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.36.6.759 Brumariu, L. E., & Kerns, K. A. (2010). Parent-child attachment and internal- izing symptoms in childhood and adolescence: A review of empirical findings and future directions. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 177–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409990344 Calkins, S. D., & Hill, A. (2007). Caregiver influences on emerging emotion regulation: biological and environmental transactions in early development. InGross J., & ThompsonR. (Eds.),Handbook of emotion regulation. Guilford Press, New York: 229–248. Calkins, S. D., & Leerkes, E. M. (2011). Early attachment processes and the development of emotional self-regulation. In Vohs K. D., & Baumeister R. F. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (2nd ed.). Guilford Press, New York: 355–373. 686 Paige N. Whittenburg et al. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0601_03 https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0601_03 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02929.x https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-019-00921-5 https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13344 https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13344 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2004.02.002 https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.00090 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01987.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01341.x https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2010.488122 https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.36.6.759 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409990344 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 Cassiano, R., Provenzi, L., Linhares, M., Gaspardo, C. M., & Montirosso, R. (2018). Maternal sociodemographic factors differentially affect the risk of behavioral problems in Brazilian and Italian preterm toddlers. Infant Behavior & Development, 50, 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh. 2017.12.006 Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2-3), 228–249. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166148 Cassidy, J., Brett, B. E., Gross, J. T., Stern, J. A., Martin, D. R., Mohr, J. J., & Woodhouse, S. S. (2017). Circle of Security-Parenting: A randomized con- trolled trial in Head Start. Development and Psychopathology, 29, 651–673. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579417000244 Cassidy, J., Ehrlich, K. B., & Sherman, L. J. (2013). Child-parent attachment and response to threat: A move from the level of representation. In Mikulincer M., & Shaver P. R. (Eds.), Nature and development of social con- nections: From brain to group. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC: 125–144. Cassidy, J., Marvin, R. S., & the MacArthur Attachment Working Group. Attachment organization in preschool children: Coding guidelines. Unpublished manuscript, 1992, University of Virginia. Cicchetti, D. E., & Cohen, D. J. (1995),Developmental psychopathology, Vol. 2: Risk, disorder, and adaptation. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. Clark, C. H., Mahoney, J. S., Clark, D. J., & Eriksen, L. R. (2002). Screening for depression in a hepatitis C population: The reliability and validity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40, 361–369. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02378.x Coe, J. L., Micalizzi, L., Josefson, B., Parade, S. H., Seifer, R., & Tyrka, A. R. (2020). Sex differences in associations between early adversity, child tem- perament, and behavior problems. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 44, 490–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025420912012 Compas, B. E., Jaser, S. S., Bettis, A. H., Watson, K. H., Gruhn, M. A., Dunbar, J. P., Williams, E., & Thigpen, J. C. (2017). Coping, emotion regu- lation, and psychopathology in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis and narrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 143(9), 939–991. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/bul0000110 Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (1994). Maternal depression and child development. Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 35(1), 73–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01133.x Cyr, M., Pasalich, D. S., McMahon, R. J., & Spieker, S. J. (2014). The longi- tudinal link between parenting and child aggression: The moderating effect of attachment security. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 45(5), 555–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-013-0424-4 De Los Reyes, A., Goodman, K. L., Kliewer, W., & Reid-Quinones, K. (2008). Whose depression relates to discrepancies? Testing relations between informant characteristics and informant discrepancies from both inform- ants’ perspectives. Psychological Assessment, 20(2), 139–149. https://doi. org/10.1037/1040-3590.20.2.139 Dexter, C. A., Wong, K., Stacks, A. M., Beeghly, M., & Barnett, D. (2013). Parenting and attachment among low-income African American and Caucasian preschoolers. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(4), 629–638. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033341 Diamond, L.M. (2015). Stress and attachment. In Simpson J. A., & RholesW. S. (Eds.),Attachment theory and research: New directions and emerging themes. Guilford Press, New York: 97–123. Easterbrooks, M. A., Davidson, C. E., & Chazan, R. (1993). Psychosocial risk, attachment, and behavior problems among school-aged children. Development and Psychopathology, 5(3), 389–402. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S095457940000448X Fearon, R. M. P., & Roisman, G. I. (2017). Attachment theory: progress and future directions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 15, 131–136. https://doi:10. 1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.002 Fearon, R. P., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Lapsley, A.M., & Roisman, G. I. (2010). The significance of insecure attach- ment and disorganization in the development of children’s externalizing behavior: A meta-analytic study. Child Development, 81(2), 435–456. https://doi.org/0009-3920/2010/8102-0002 Fox, M. K., & Borelli, J. L. (2015). Attachment moderates the association between mother and child depressive symptoms. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 20(1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.24839/2164-8204. JN20.1.29 Fraley, R. C., & Spieker, S. J. (2003). Are infant attachment patterns contin- uously or categorically distributed? A taxometric analysis of strange situation behavior. Developmental Psychology, 39(3), 387–404, https://doi:10.1037/ 0012-1649.39.3.387 Frankenhuis, W. E., & Del Giudice, M. (2012). When do adaptive develop- mental mechanisms yield maladaptive outcomes? Developmental Psychology, 48, 628–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025629 Gelfand, D. M., Douglas, M. T., Seiner, S. A., & Jameson, P. B. (1996). Helping mothers fight depression: Evaluation of a home-based intervention program for depressed mothers and their infants. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25(4), 406–422. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2504_6 Goodman, S. H., Rouse, M. H., Connell, A. M., Broth, M. R., Hall, C. M., & Heyward, D. (2011). Maternal depression and child psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 14, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-010-0080-1 Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549–576. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. psych.58.110405.085530 Groh, A. M., Roisman, G. I., Booth-LaForce, C., Fraley, R. C., Owen, M. T., Cox, M. J., & Burchinal, M. R. (2014). The Adult Attachment Interview: Psychometrics, stability and change from infancy, and developmental ori- gins: IV. Stability of attachment security from infancy to late adolescence. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 79, 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12113 Groh, A. M., Roisman, G. I., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Bakermans- Kranenburg, M. J., & Fearon, R. P. (2012). The significance of insecure and disorganized attachment for children’s internalizing symptoms: A meta-analytic study. Child Development, 83, 591–610. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01711.x Hill, N. E., & Herman-Stahl, M. A. (2002). Neighborhood safety and social involvement: Associations with parenting behaviors and depressive symp- toms among African-American and Euro-American mothers. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1037//0893-3200.16.2. 209 Hoffman, K., Marvin, R., Cooper, G., & Powell, B. (2006). Changing toddlers' and preschoolers' attachment classifications: The Circle of Security interven- tion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 1017–1026, https:// doi:10.1037/0022-006X.74.6.1017 Johnson, P. D., & Kliewer, W. (1999). Family and contextual predictors of depressive symptoms in inner-city African American youth. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 8, 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1023/ A:1022087801526 Kobak, R., Cassidy, J., Lyons-Ruth, K., & Ziv, Y. (2006). Attachment, stress, and psychopathology: A developmental pathways model. In Cicchetti D., & Cohen D. (Eds.),Developmental psychopathology (2nd ed.). Wiley, Hoboken, NJ: 333–369. Koblinsky, S. A., Kuvalanka, K. A., & Randolph, S. M. (2006). Social skills and behavior problems of urban, African American preschoolers: role of parenting practices, family conflict, and maternal depression. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76(4), 554–563. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0002-9432.76.4.554 Kotler, T., Buzwell, S., Romeo, Y., & Bowland, J. (1994). Avoidant attachment as a risk factor for health. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 67, 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1994.tb01793.x Kouros, C. D., & Garber, J. (2010). Dynamic associations between maternal depressive symptoms and adolescents’ depressive and externalizing symp- toms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 1069–1081. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10802-010-9433-y Kuruczova, D., Klanova, J., Jarkovsky, J., Pikhart, H., & Bienertova- Vasku, J. (2020). Socioeconomic characteristics, family structure and trajectories of children’s psychosocial problems in a period of social transition. PloS One, 15(6), e0234074. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0234074 Ladd, G. W., & Price, J. M. (1987). Predicting children’s social and school adjustment following the transition from preschool to kindergarten. Child Development, 58, 1168–1189. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130613 Development and Psychopathology 687 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2017.12.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2017.12.006 https://doi.org/10.2307/1166148 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579417000244 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02378.x https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025420912012 https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000110 https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000110 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01133.x https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-013-0424-4 https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.20.2.139 https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.20.2.139 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033341 https://doi.org/10.1017/S095457940000448X https://doi.org/10.1017/S095457940000448X https://doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.002 https://doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.002 https://doi.org/0009-3920/2010/8102-0002 https://doi.org/10.24839/2164-8204.JN20.1.29 https://doi.org/10.24839/2164-8204.JN20.1.29 https://doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.3.387 https://doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.3.387 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025629 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2504_6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-010-0080-1 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530 https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12113 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01711.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01711.x https://doi.org/10.1037//0893-3200.16.2.209 https://doi.org/10.1037//0893-3200.16.2.209 https://doi:10.1037/0022-006X.74.6.1017 https://doi:10.1037/0022-006X.74.6.1017 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022087801526 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022087801526 https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.76.4.554 https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.76.4.554 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1994.tb01793.x https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9433-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9433-y https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234074 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234074 https://doi.org/10.2307/1130613 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 Lanzi, R. G., Pascoe, J. M., Keltner, B., & Ramey, S. L. (1999). Correlates of maternal depressive symptoms in a National Head Start Program sample. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 153(8), 801–807. https:// doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.153.8.801 Lyons-Ruth, K., Alpern, L., & Repacholi, B. (1993). Disorganized infant attach- ment classification and maternal psychosocial problems as predictors of hos- tile-aggressive behavior in the preschool classroom. Child Development, 64, 572–585. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02929.x Lyons-Ruth, K., Easterbrooks, M., & Cibelli, C. (1997). Infant attachment strat- egies, infant mental lag, and maternal depressive symptoms: Predictors of internalizing and externalizing problems at age 7. Developmental Psychology, 33, 681–692. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.4.681 Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation.Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1/2), 66–104. Malda, M., & Mesman, J. (2017). Parental sensitivity and attachment in ethnic minority families. In Cabrera N. J., & Leyendecker B. (Eds.), Handbook on positive development of minority children and youth. Springer: 71–88. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43645-6 Masten, A., Best, K., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425–444. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0954579400005812 Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X. 56.3.227 Masten, A. S., Lucke, C. M., Nelson, K. M., & Stallworthy, I. C. (2021). Resilience in development and psychopathology: Multisystem perspectives. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 17, 521–549. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-clinpsy-081219-120307 McCarty, C. A., & McMahon, R. J. (2003). Mediators of the relation between maternal depressive symptoms and child internalizing and disruptive behav- ior disorders. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 545–556. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0893-3200.17.4.545 McNeish, D. M., & Stapleton, L. M. (2016). The effect of small sample size on two-level model estimates: A review and illustration. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9287-x Mesman, J., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Sagi-Schwartz, A. (2016). Cross- cultural patterns of attachment. In Cassidy J., & Shaver P. R. (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (3rd ed.). Guilford Press, New York: 852–877. Milan, S., Snow, S., & Belay, S. (2009). Depressive symptoms in mothers and children: Preschool attachment as a moderator of risk. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1019–1033. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016164 Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (2017).Mplus version 7 user manual. Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, CA. Nakamura, B. J., Ebesutani, C., Bernstein, A., & Chorpita, B. F. (2009). A psychometric analysis of the Child Behavior Checklist DSM-oriented scales. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31(3), 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-008-9119-8 Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306 Radloff, L. S. (1991). The use of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale in adolescents and young adults. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20, 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01537606 Reef, J., Diamantopoulou, S., van Meurs, I., Verhulst, F. C., & van der Ende, J. (2011). Developmental trajectories of child to adolescent externalizing behavior and adult DSM-IV disorder: Results of a 24-year longitudinal study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 46, 1233–1241. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00127-010-0297-9 Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric disorder. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 147(6), 598–611. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.147.6.598 Schafer, J. L., &Graham, J.W. (2002).Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X. 7.2.147 Segre, L. S., O'Hara, M. W., & Losch, M. E. (2006). Race/ethnicity and peri- natal depressed mood. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 24(2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646830600643908 Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1094428109351241 Solomon, J., & George, C. (2016). The measurement of attachment security and related constructs. In Cassidy J., & Shaver P. R. (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (3rd ed.). Guilford Press, New York: 366–396. Spieker, S., Nelson, D., DeKlyen, M., & Staerkel, F. (2005). Enhancing early attachments in the context of Early Head Start: Can programs emphasizing family support improve rates of secure infant-mother attachments in low- income families?. In Berlin L. J., Ziv Y., Amaya-Jackson L. M., & GreenbergM. T. (Eds.), Enhancing early attachments: Theory, research, inter- vention, and policy. Guilford Press, New York: 3–33. Stern, J. A., Barbarin, O., & Cassidy, J. (2021). Working toward anti-racist perspectives in attachment theory, research, and practice. Attachment & Human Development, 1–31. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14616734.2021.1976933 Tharner, A., Luijk, M. P. C. M., Raat, H., IJzendoorn, M. H., Bakermans- Kranenburg, M. J., Moll, H. A., Jaddoe, V. W. V., Hofman, A., Verhulst, F. C., & Tiemeier, H. (2012). Infant attachment, parenting stress, and child emotional and behavioral problems at age 3 years. Parenting: Science and Practice, 12(4), 261–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2012.709150 Tyrell, F., & Masten, A. (2021). Father-child attachment in Black families: Risk and protective processes. Attachment & Human Development, 1–13. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2021.1976923 688 Paige N. Whittenburg et al. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.153.8.801 https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.153.8.801 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02929.x https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.4.681 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43645-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43645-6 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400005812 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400005812 https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227 https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-120307 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-120307 https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.17.4.545 https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.17.4.545 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9287-x https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016164 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-008-9119-8 https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01537606 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-010-0297-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-010-0297-9 https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.147.6.598 https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.7.2.147 https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.7.2.147 https://doi.org/10.1080/02646830600643908 https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109351241 https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109351241 https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2021.1976933 https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2021.1976933 https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2012.709150 https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2021.1976923 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001802 Maternal depressive symptoms and child behavior problems: Attachment security as a protective factor Method Participants Procedure Measures Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale Preschool Strange Situation Child Behavior Checklist 1.5-5 years Analytic plan Results Missing data Preliminary analyses Principal analyses Child internalizing behavior problems Child externalizing behavior problems Exploratory analyses Discussion Strengths, limitations, and future directions Clinical implications References