This article was downloaded by: [University of Sussex Library] On: 05 February 2015, At: 00:33 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgnt20
Children's Use of Inanimate Transitional Objects in Coping With Hassles a
Sandra L. Lookabaugh & Victoria R. Fu
b
a
Department of Child and Family Studies , University of Tennessee at Knoxville b
Department of Family and Child Development , Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Published online: 21 Oct 2013.
To cite this article: Sandra L. Lookabaugh & Victoria R. Fu (1992) Children's Use of Inanimate Transitional Objects in Coping With Hassles, The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 153:1, 37-46, DOI: 10.1080/00221325.1992.10753700 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1992.10753700
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 00:33 05 February 2015
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions
Th e Journal of Gene1ic Psvchology . / 53( I). 37- 46
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 00:33 05 February 2015
Children's Use of Inanimate Transitional Objects in Coping With Hassles SANDRA L. LOOKABAUGH Departmem of Child and Family Studies University of Tenn essee at Kn oxville VICTORIA R. FU Department of Family and Child Developme/11 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Stat e Uni versity
ABSTRACT. Thi s stud y examined children's use of inanimate transitional object s when coping with dail y hass les. Mothers of 50 preschoo lers rated their children on frequency of hass les , intensity of reaction to dail y hass les, coping effecti veness , and freq uency of object use. No significant differences were found between those chil dren with an inanimate transitional object and those without such an object. Among those children with an object , a significant object effect on frequency of hassles (p < .05) and a signifi cant object effect on coping effectiveness were found . A signi ficant age effect was also found , indicating that older children used their inanimate transitional objects more often th an younger children . Among those children with an in animate transitional object , significant positi ve re lationships were found between freq uency of hassles , intensity of reaction to hassles , coping effectiveness , and frequency of objec t use. The result s indicated that children who used their thumb as an inanimate tran si tional object experienced fewer hassles than children who used a soft object. The results also suggested that an increase in the number of hassles experienced was rel ated to more intense reaction s to hassles, less effective coping, and an increase in object use . The nature of the object and the developmental issue of separation- ind iv id ua tion are considered as we ll.
EXTENSIVE RESEARCH ON STRESS has focu sed on examining people 's reacti ons to rnajor Iife stressors. More recent! y, however, re searchers have become more interested in the minor stressful event s of everyday life . These irritatin g, fru stratin g, and di stress ing everyday events are referred to differenti all y as daily hassles (DeLangis, Coyne, Dakof, Folkm an, & Lazarus, 1982: Kanner, Coy ne , Schae fer, & Lazaru s, 198 1), chronic role stress (Pearline. 1983) , and microstressors (McLean, 1976). According to Lazarus and Folkman ( 1984 ), hass les ari se independentl y of life eve nts and usua ll y result 37
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 00:33 05 February 2015
38
Th e Joumal of Genetic Psychology
from the routine tasks of living . It has been suggested that "these kinds of stressors have been taken for granted and considered to be less important than more dramatic stressors" (McLean, 1976, p. 298) . However, when comparing two modes of stress management, daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events, Kanner et al. ( 1981) found that among adults daily hassles provide a " more direct and broader estimate of stress in life than major life events" (p. 21 ). This assertion could have been made on the basis of the assumption that these chronic, low-intensity threats that are associated with daily hassles may accumulate and persist over time (Lazarus & Cohen , 1977) and without effective coping and adaptation could lead to severe problems of adaptation (S inger & Davidson , 1986). Hence, it is of interest to examine the daily hassles in children's lives and how chi ldren cope with these stressfu l events. The present study examined preschool children's use of inanimate transitional objects as a means of coping with daily hassles. A transitional object may be the comer of a blanket , a teddy bear, a word , a mannerism, or the like (Winnicott , 1953). The assumed functions of transitional objects in coping with daily stressors have been reported in various articles. Winnicott ( 1953) stated that for children a transitional object is often necessary at bedtime, during times of loneliness, or as a defense against anxiety and stress. Children's appreciation for the presence of a favorite object has also been observed when they are tired or ill and during periods of inactivity (Boniface & Graham , 1979; Busch , 1974; Van IJendoom, Goossens, Tavecchio, Vergeer, & Hubbard , 1983). A transitional object often functions as a soother, aids the child in coping with anxiety and stress (Busch, Nagera , McKnight, & Pezzarossi, 1973), and appears to have arousal- and anxiety-reducing properties for children (Passman & Weisberg, 1975; Winnicott, 1953) . Stress studies in relation to children have focused primarily on hospitalized and handicapped children and children's adaptation to life events. Thus, children's reactions to daily hassles need to be investigated . The findings have practical implications for parent education and for the training of child-care staff and early childhood educators. The purpose of this study was to examine young children's use of inanimate transitional objects such as pacifiers, blankets , teddy bears , soft and hard objects , clothing , and thumbs . More specifically, this study examint;!d (a) the differences between frequency of daily hassles (defined as the number of hassles encountered), intensity of reaction (defined as the severity of the child 's reaction) , and coping effectiveness (defined as the child's level of dif-
This article is based on the master's thesis of Sandra L. Lookabaugh , which was completed under the direction of Victoria R. Fu . Address correspondence to Victoria R . Fu . Department of Family and Child Development , Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Stare University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-04 16.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 00:33 05 February 2015
Lookabaugh & Fu
39
ficulty in dea ling with specific hass les) between young children who have an inanimate transitio nal object and those who do not have such an object; (b) the differences between frequency of hassles, intensity of reaction , and coping effectiveness among children who do not have an inanimate transitional obj ect, children who use their thumb as a tran sitional object, and children who use a soft object as a trans itional object ; and (c) the relationship between freq ue ncy of hass les , inte nsity of reaction , coping effectiveness, and freque ncy of object use (defi ned as how often the child uses the inanimate object when fee ling hass led) among those children who have been identified as having an inanimate transitional object.
Method Subjects The sample consisted of 50 mothers whose children were enrolled at a universi ty child development laboratory or on the waiting list at that facility. The c hildre n (29 boys and 2 1 g irl s) ranged in age from 2 years , I month to 3 years , II months (mean age = 3 years). Based on demographic information , including age, sex, ordinal position , child-care arrangements , and the use of an inanimate tran sitional object , we divided the children into two groups: those with transitional obj ects and those without such an object. Of the 50 childre n, 17 were classified as not having an inanimate transitional object, and 33 were identifi ed as hav ing a transitional object . Among the latter group, 9 used their thumb , and 24 used a soft object.
In strument T he Hass les Scale for Preschool Children (HSPC) was developed for this study. The procedures for the development of this instrument were based on those used by Kanner et al. (1981). A list of common daily hassles of preschool children was generated by surveying 37 mothers of preschool children not included in the study sample . Each mother was given a description of what hass les are and the n asked to record the daily hass les her preschool child experienced in a 4-day period and her child 's behavioral reaction to each of the hass les experie nced. The mothers were then asked to identify any other hassles thei r children experience on a frequent basis but were not observed during the 4-day period. The 50 most commonly reported hassles form the HSPC , which was developed for use with children aged 2 to 4 years (see the Appendi x) . The description and scorin g method for each measure of the HSPC is described below.
40
The Jo urnal of Gen e1ic Ps ycholosv
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 00:33 05 February 2015
Frequency of hassles. Thi s measure indicates the number of hass les the child encountered over the prev ious 2 wee ks. If a hassle had been experienced in the last 2 weeks, it was circled . If a hass le had not been experie nced , it was left unmarked . A total frequency -of-hass les score fo r each c hild was derived by tota ling all the hass les circled. Intensity of reaction. Thi s measure indicates how intensely the child reacted to the hassles spec ified . The child 's reaction to each identi fied hass le was rated by the mother on a 5- point sca le, with scores ranging fro m slightly intense (I) to ex tremely intense (5). A total intensi ty-of-reactio n score fo r each child was derived by to taling the scores of thi s meas ure and dividing by 50 (the total number of hassles poss ibl e). Coping effectiveness. Thi s measure indicates the child 's level of diffi culty in dealing wi th the hass les spec ified . The child 's leve l of di ffic ulty in dealing with each identi fied hass le was rated by the mother on a 5-point scale, with scores ra nging fro m with slight difficulty (I) to with extreme diffic ulty (5) . A total coping-effectiveness score for each c hild was derived by totaling the scores of this measure and div iding by 50 . Object ava ilability. Thi s in fo rmatio n was gathered from only those mothers who identified the ir child as having an inanimate transitio nal object. They were as ked w hether or not the object was avail abl e to the c hild when the identi fied hass les were experie nced . This inform atio n was gathered to ascertain during w hi ch hass les the child 's object was avail able to comfort and soothe him or her. Frequency of obj ect use . Thi s measure was used onl y by those mothers who identified the ir child as having an inanimate tra nsitio nal object. Thi s measure indicates how ofte n the child used the object when ex periencing the ide ntified hass les . The subscale was rated o n a 5-point sca le, with scores ranging from seldom (1 ) to almost always (5). A total frequency-of-object-use score was deri ved by totaling the scores of the subscale and di viding by 50. Cronbach 's alphas were calcul ated to determine the internal consistency of the HSPC. The alpha coeffi cients for inte nsit y of reaction , coping effectiveness, and freque ncy of object use were .92 , .93, and .95, res pecti ve ly. Procedure Each mo ther was interv iewed indi viduall y and was asked to prov ide the fo llow ing in fo rmation about her child: age, sex, o rdinal pos iti on , child -care arrangements, w hether o r no t the child had an in animate transit ional o bject, and the type of object. Each mother was then as ked to complete the HS PC
Lookabaugh & Fu
41
(see the Appendix). The mother was asked to recall and identify all the hassles her child had encountered over the previous 2 weeks. She was then asked , by use of a structured interview format , to rate her child on eac h of the hassl es indicated according to intensity of reaction , coping effectiveness, and fre quency of object use.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 00:33 05 February 2015
Results Hassles , Intensity of Reaction , and Coping Effectiveness: Multivariate and Univariate Tests
Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were conducted using the general linear models procedures (SAS, 1982) . Test statistics for the MANOYAs reported are Rao's approximate F, which was used to co nvert Wilks 's lambda to F statistics. Tukey's multiple comparison tests were performed to determine which differences between the various classifications of means were statistically significant. A MANOYA was computed to evaluate mothers' perceptions of the differences between those children who were identified as having an inanimate transitional objec t and those children who did not have such an object in frequency of hass les, intensity of reaction , and coping effectiveness. No significant differences were found, F(3 , 46) = 1.85, p = . 1508 . A second MANOVA was computed to evaluate mothers ' perceptions of the differences between those children who use their thumbs as an inanimate transitional object, those children who use soft objects, and those children who do not have an inanimate tran sitional object in frequency of hassles, intensity of reaction , and coping effectiveness . A significant object effect was found , F(6 , 90) = 2.22, p = .048 1. Corresponding univari ate analyses showed a significant object effect on freq uency of hassles, F(2, 47) = 3.48, p = .0388, and a significant object effect on coping effectiveness, F(2 , 47) = 3.80, p = .0296. Post hoc analyses indicated that children who used soft objects had more hassles (M = 31 . 87) than children who used their thumbs (M = 18 . 88). Children who used soft objects (M = 1.34) were rated as less effective in coping with hassles than those children who used their thumbs (M = 0.75). A third MANOYA was computed to evaluate age differences (younger, 2 years, I month to 2 years, 7 months ; middle , 2 years, 8 months to 3 years, I month ; and older, 3 years, 2 months to 3 years , II months) in frequency of hass les, frequency of object use, intensity of reaction , and coping effectiveness . A significant age effect was found, F(8, 88) = 2. 13, p = .0411. Corresponding univariate analyses showed a significant age effect between the middle and older age groups on frequency of object use, F(2 , 47) = 4.08 , p = .0223. Post hoc analyses indicated that the older group of children used
42
The Jo urnal of Genetic Ps )'cho!ogy
thei r in animate transition al obj ec ts (thumb or soft object, M = 1.09) signifi ca ntl y more often than chil dre n in the middl e group (M = 0 .57) .
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 00:33 05 February 2015
Relationships Between Object Use, Frequ ency of Hassles, Intensity of Reaction, and Coping Effectiveness Pearson product-moment correl ation coefficients were calculated to determine the relationships betwee n frequency of hass les, intensity of reaction , coping effect iveness , and frequency of objec t use among children who have an inanim ate transitio nal objec t. Significant correlations were found between frequency of hass les and intensity of reactions (r = .91 , p = .000 I); frequency of hass les and coping effectiveness (r = .83, p = .000 I); frequency of hassles and frequ ency of objec t use (r = . 87, p = .000 I); intensity of reac ti on and coping effectiveness (r = . 92 , p = .000 I); intensity of reaction and frequency of objec t use ( r = .87 , p = .000 I) ; and coping effectiveness and frequenc y of objec t use (r = .71 , p = .000 I). Discussion
In th is stud y. we investi gated the effectiveness of coping with dail y hass les among two groups of presc hool children-those who have been identified as having an inanimate transitional object and those who did not have such an objec t. More spec ificall y, the differences between these two groups of children were examin ed in term s of frequenc y of hassles, intensity of reaction, and coping effecti ve ness. The HSPC was developed to measure mothers' perceptions of frequency of hass les , intensity of reacti on, and coping effectiveness. The results indica ted that thi s sca le has hi gh internal consistency. The resu lts indicated that there is a difference in children's reactions to hass les as a function of the nature of the object (i.e., thumb or soft object). Although the inanimate transitional objects were consistently available to the children when ex periencin g hassles , children who use their thumbs as an inanim ate transitional object had significantly fewer hass les reported than ·children who used soft objec ts . This difference may partially be exp lained in terms of the nature of the object as a coping mechani sm. Mothers of children who suck thei r thumbs may either take this action for granted or are less likely to associate thi s behavior as a coping mechanism used by the child when he or she is fee ling hass led. The coping function of the thumb may be less obvious to mothers because many children suck their thumbs as a habit , although thum b sucking may increase in times of stress. For mothers of chil dre n using soft objec ts, it may be more obvious when their child is feelin g hass led because the ex tern al objec t, functioning as a cop in g mechanism , must be ac ti ve ly so ught out and handl ed. Consequentl y. mothers of chil dren using
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 00:33 05 February 2015
Loo kabaugh & Fu
43
soft objects may perce ive the ir children as having more hass les th an mothers of childre n using the ir thumbs . The results indicated that mothers reported more effective coping among ch ildren who use the ir thumbs th an children who used so ft objects. Thi s differe nce may parti all y be exp lained in term s o f access ibility of the object to the child . Because the thumb is part of the body, children who use their thumb as a coping mechani sm always have access to it. Nonnutritive sucking of the thumb may be tranquili zing during periods of emoti o nal di stress, as reported by Passman and Halo ne n ( 1979) , and the thumb sucking may serve as a compensatory cop ing strategy in the case of temporary inaccess ibility of the attachment figure (Van IJendoorn et al. , 1983). Children who use soft objects may find the desired object less accessible or inaccess ible in certain situations to serve as a coping mechanism . Consequently, mothers of children using soft objects may perceive the ir children as coping less effectively than mothers of c hildren who use the ir thumbs. Among those children with inanimate transiti onal objects, significant corre latio ns were found betwee n frequency of hassles, inten sity of reaction, coping effectiveness, and frequency of object use. Specifically, within thi s group of childre n an increase in the number of hassles encountered was related to more intense reaction s to hassles , less effective coping, and an increase in o bject use. These findings seem to suggest that when children with inanimate transitional objects experience more hass les , the y tend to react more inte nsely, have more difficulty in copin g, and use the inanimate transitional objects mo re frequently. Age differences in frequency of object use were also found , with higher inc ide nce of object use among older preschoolers . Thi s could be a function of separati on-individuation . Younger children, in the earlier stage of this process, may be using both primary objects and in animate transitional objects simultaneously in coping with hass les . That is , they are beginning to become more attached to the inanimate objects while they are still inten se ly dependent on their primary objects . Children in the middle gro up are begi nning to vacillate between use of primary and inanimate transiti onal objects. They seemingly are using the latter less frequently than the older preschoolers use them. Older preschoolers are at a stage of further separation from their primary obj ects and hence are mo re dependent on the use of transiti onal objects in cop ing with hass les . Thi s demon strates more individuation and less dependency o n parent s and other signifi cant people. No significant diffe re nces were found between those children with inanimate transitional objects and those without such objects in freque nc y of hassles, intensity of reaction, and coping effectiveness. This lack of significant differences could poss ibly be attributed to the fact that , in general , all children are ex posed to a range of possible hassle situations . Each group was composed of children with a range of tolerance for hass les . Thus , differences in
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 00:33 05 February 2015
44
Th e Journal of G eneric Psychology
intensity of hassles might not be a function of object use. The findings of this study are congruent with those of Van IJendoorn eta!. (1983), who found that in a stressful , strange situation there are no differences in behavior between children who are attached to inanimate objects and those who are not so attached. The lack of significant differences between the two groups in coping effectiveness may be partially explained by the fact that children with inanimate transitional objects may actively use the objects as coping mechanisms , whereas children who are not attached to inanimate objects may use other forms of environmental stimuli, the mother or other significant persons, or some sort of mental representation, fantasies, or thoughts as possible coping mechanisms to serve soothing and psychologically supportive functions similar to inanimate objects. Cohen and Clark (1984) have suggested that children who are not attached to inanimate objects may have internal capacities to cope effectively. The findings of this study, which was based on a small sample, suggest that chi ldren who use their thumbs as inanimate transitional objects experience fewer hass les and cope more effectively than children who use soft objects. These findings warrant further investigation with a larger and more diverse population across a wider developmental span. In doing so, researchers may explore and better understand the choice of object as a function of age, sex, or temperamental differences; the differences in coping between children who use their thumb , a soft object, and those who use their thumb in conjunction with a soft object; and the use and choice of object as related to parental acceptance of these objects as coping mechanisms.
APPENDIX Items on the Hassles Scale for Preschool Children I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. II . 12 . 13. 14. 15 . 16.
Conflict or teasing among siblings or friends Sharing Another child not wanting to be his/her friend Not wanting to do as parent(s) says or demands Separation from parent(s) Staying with a babysitter Parental redirection or discipline Parent(s) not paying attention to the child Going to bed Taking a nap Not being able to sleep Waking up alone or being in room alone Wetting the bed Having to wake up (get up) Nightmares A toy breaking
Loo kabaugh & Fu
45
17. Competition 18. Someone not playing as the ch ild wants 19. Cleani ng up (putting toys . games, etc. , away)
20. Putting together or manipul ating small toys
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 00:33 05 February 2015
2 1. Havi ng to stop playing to do something
22. Not being able to find something Not getting something he/she wants or not getting hi s/her way Deciding what to pl ay Wanting to do things that are too diffi cult Not liking clothing se lected Changing clothes Trouble managing shoes , clothing, hair barrettes . etc. Spi ll s and messes 30. Taking a bath 3 1. Having hair washed 32. Brushing teeth 33. Getting dressed 34 . Toileting 35 . Not getting gum . cand y. sweets 36. Not gett ing to use specific dishes, utensi ls, etc . 37 . Not wanting to eat at mealtime 38 . Wanting somethin g different , than was prepared. to eat 39 . Someth ing "not quite ri ght" with food (bei ng picky abo ut food) 40 . Not wanting to try parti cul ar foods 41 . Go ing to the doctor or denti st 42 . Being sick 43 . Hav ing to wait 44. Being rushed 45 . Being bored 46 . Minor bumps, brui ses, scratches 47 . The weather (thunderstorms) 48. Having the TV interrupted or turned off 49. Wanting to watch something different on TV SO. New situations and new people 23. 24. 25. 26 . 27. 28. 29 .
REFERENCES
Boniface , D., & Graham , P. ( 1979). The three-year-old and hi s attachment to a spec ial soft obj ect. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 20, 217-224. Busch, F. (1974). Dimensions of the first tran si tional object. Psychoanalytic Study of the Ch ild. 29. 2 15- 229.
Busch . F. , Nagera, H., McKnight. J. , & Pezzarossi , G. ( 1973) . Primary transitional objects. Journ al of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 12, 193-214. Cohen, K. N., & Clark. J. A. ( 1984). Transi ti onal object att ac hments in early child hood and personali ty charac teristics in later life . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 , l 06- 11 l .
DeLangis, A., Coyne, J. C., Dakof, G. , Folkman , S., & Laza ru s, R. S . ( 1982). Relat ionship of dail y hass les, uplifts and maJor life event s to health statu s. Health Psvchologv, I . l 19- 136. Kanner, A. D .. Coy ne, J. C.. Sc haefer. C., & Lazarus, R. S. ( 198 1). Comparison
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 00:33 05 February 2015
46
Th e Journal of Gene1ic Psychology
of two modes of stress manage me nt: Dail y hass les and upli fts versus major life events . Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4 , ( 1), 1-39 . Lazarus , R . S., & Cohen , J. B . (1977). Environmental stress. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohl will (Eds.), Human behavior and th e environment : Current th eory and research (Vol. 2, pp . 89-128). Ne w Yo rk : Ple num Press. Lazarus , R . S ., & Folkman, S . ( 1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springe r. Mc Lean , P. (1976). De pressio n as a specific res ponse to stress. In I. G . Saraso n & C. D. Speil berge t (Eds.) , Stress and anxiety (Vol. 3, pp . 297- 323). Washington , DC: Hemisphere. Passman , R . H. , & Halonen , J. S . ( 1979). A deve lopmental stud y of youn g c hil dren 's attach ments to inanimate objects. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 134 ,
165- 178. Passman , R . H., & Weisberg, P. (1 975) . Mothers and blankets as agents fo r promotin g pl ay and ex plorati on by yo ung childre n in a novel e nvironment : T he effects of social and non-social att ac hme nt. Developmental Psychology, 1, 170- 177 . Pearline, L. I. ( 1983). Role strains and personal stress. In H . B . Kaplan (Ed .), Psychosocial stress: Trends in theory and research (pp . 3-32). San Diego , CA: Academ ic Press. SAS Institute , Inc. (1982). SAS user 's guide. Cary, NC: Author. Singe r, J. E. , & Dav idson , L. M . ( 1986). Specific ity and stress research . In M . H . Appley & R . Trumbull (Eds .), Dynamics of stress: Physiological, psychological and social perspective (pp . 47-6 1). New York: Ple num Press. Van !Jendoom , M . H ., Goosse ns, F. A . , Tavecchio, L . W. C. , Vergeer, M . M . , & Hubbard , F. 0 . A. ( 1983) . Att ac hme nt to soft objects: Its re latio nships with attac hments to the mother and with thumbsucking. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 14(2 ), 97-105 . Winni cott, D . W. (1953). Transiti o nal objects and transitional phe nomena . International Journal of Psychoanalysis , 34 , 89-97 .
Received November 26, 1990
The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgnt20
Children's Use of Inanimate Transitional Objects in Coping With Hassles a
Sandra L. Lookabaugh & Victoria R. Fu
b
a
Department of Child and Family Studies , University of Tennessee at Knoxville b
Department of Family and Child Development , Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Published online: 21 Oct 2013.
To cite this article: Sandra L. Lookabaugh & Victoria R. Fu (1992) Children's Use of Inanimate Transitional Objects in Coping With Hassles, The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 153:1, 37-46, DOI: 10.1080/00221325.1992.10753700 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1992.10753700
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 00:33 05 February 2015
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions
Th e Journal of Gene1ic Psvchology . / 53( I). 37- 46
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 00:33 05 February 2015
Children's Use of Inanimate Transitional Objects in Coping With Hassles SANDRA L. LOOKABAUGH Departmem of Child and Family Studies University of Tenn essee at Kn oxville VICTORIA R. FU Department of Family and Child Developme/11 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Stat e Uni versity
ABSTRACT. Thi s stud y examined children's use of inanimate transitional object s when coping with dail y hass les. Mothers of 50 preschoo lers rated their children on frequency of hass les , intensity of reaction to dail y hass les, coping effecti veness , and freq uency of object use. No significant differences were found between those chil dren with an inanimate transitional object and those without such an object. Among those children with an object , a significant object effect on frequency of hassles (p < .05) and a signifi cant object effect on coping effectiveness were found . A signi ficant age effect was also found , indicating that older children used their inanimate transitional objects more often th an younger children . Among those children with an in animate transitional object , significant positi ve re lationships were found between freq uency of hassles , intensity of reaction to hassles , coping effectiveness , and frequency of objec t use. The result s indicated that children who used their thumb as an inanimate tran si tional object experienced fewer hassles than children who used a soft object. The results also suggested that an increase in the number of hassles experienced was rel ated to more intense reaction s to hassles, less effective coping, and an increase in object use . The nature of the object and the developmental issue of separation- ind iv id ua tion are considered as we ll.
EXTENSIVE RESEARCH ON STRESS has focu sed on examining people 's reacti ons to rnajor Iife stressors. More recent! y, however, re searchers have become more interested in the minor stressful event s of everyday life . These irritatin g, fru stratin g, and di stress ing everyday events are referred to differenti all y as daily hassles (DeLangis, Coyne, Dakof, Folkm an, & Lazarus, 1982: Kanner, Coy ne , Schae fer, & Lazaru s, 198 1), chronic role stress (Pearline. 1983) , and microstressors (McLean, 1976). According to Lazarus and Folkman ( 1984 ), hass les ari se independentl y of life eve nts and usua ll y result 37
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 00:33 05 February 2015
38
Th e Joumal of Genetic Psychology
from the routine tasks of living . It has been suggested that "these kinds of stressors have been taken for granted and considered to be less important than more dramatic stressors" (McLean, 1976, p. 298) . However, when comparing two modes of stress management, daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events, Kanner et al. ( 1981) found that among adults daily hassles provide a " more direct and broader estimate of stress in life than major life events" (p. 21 ). This assertion could have been made on the basis of the assumption that these chronic, low-intensity threats that are associated with daily hassles may accumulate and persist over time (Lazarus & Cohen , 1977) and without effective coping and adaptation could lead to severe problems of adaptation (S inger & Davidson , 1986). Hence, it is of interest to examine the daily hassles in children's lives and how chi ldren cope with these stressfu l events. The present study examined preschool children's use of inanimate transitional objects as a means of coping with daily hassles. A transitional object may be the comer of a blanket , a teddy bear, a word , a mannerism, or the like (Winnicott , 1953). The assumed functions of transitional objects in coping with daily stressors have been reported in various articles. Winnicott ( 1953) stated that for children a transitional object is often necessary at bedtime, during times of loneliness, or as a defense against anxiety and stress. Children's appreciation for the presence of a favorite object has also been observed when they are tired or ill and during periods of inactivity (Boniface & Graham , 1979; Busch , 1974; Van IJendoom, Goossens, Tavecchio, Vergeer, & Hubbard , 1983). A transitional object often functions as a soother, aids the child in coping with anxiety and stress (Busch, Nagera , McKnight, & Pezzarossi, 1973), and appears to have arousal- and anxiety-reducing properties for children (Passman & Weisberg, 1975; Winnicott, 1953) . Stress studies in relation to children have focused primarily on hospitalized and handicapped children and children's adaptation to life events. Thus, children's reactions to daily hassles need to be investigated . The findings have practical implications for parent education and for the training of child-care staff and early childhood educators. The purpose of this study was to examine young children's use of inanimate transitional objects such as pacifiers, blankets , teddy bears , soft and hard objects , clothing , and thumbs . More specifically, this study examint;!d (a) the differences between frequency of daily hassles (defined as the number of hassles encountered), intensity of reaction (defined as the severity of the child 's reaction) , and coping effectiveness (defined as the child's level of dif-
This article is based on the master's thesis of Sandra L. Lookabaugh , which was completed under the direction of Victoria R. Fu . Address correspondence to Victoria R . Fu . Department of Family and Child Development , Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Stare University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-04 16.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 00:33 05 February 2015
Lookabaugh & Fu
39
ficulty in dea ling with specific hass les) between young children who have an inanimate transitio nal object and those who do not have such an object; (b) the differences between frequency of hassles, intensity of reaction , and coping effectiveness among children who do not have an inanimate transitional obj ect, children who use their thumb as a tran sitional object, and children who use a soft object as a trans itional object ; and (c) the relationship between freq ue ncy of hass les , inte nsity of reaction , coping effectiveness, and freque ncy of object use (defi ned as how often the child uses the inanimate object when fee ling hass led) among those children who have been identified as having an inanimate transitional object.
Method Subjects The sample consisted of 50 mothers whose children were enrolled at a universi ty child development laboratory or on the waiting list at that facility. The c hildre n (29 boys and 2 1 g irl s) ranged in age from 2 years , I month to 3 years , II months (mean age = 3 years). Based on demographic information , including age, sex, ordinal position , child-care arrangements , and the use of an inanimate tran sitional object , we divided the children into two groups: those with transitional obj ects and those without such an object. Of the 50 childre n, 17 were classified as not having an inanimate transitional object, and 33 were identifi ed as hav ing a transitional object . Among the latter group, 9 used their thumb , and 24 used a soft object.
In strument T he Hass les Scale for Preschool Children (HSPC) was developed for this study. The procedures for the development of this instrument were based on those used by Kanner et al. (1981). A list of common daily hassles of preschool children was generated by surveying 37 mothers of preschool children not included in the study sample . Each mother was given a description of what hass les are and the n asked to record the daily hass les her preschool child experienced in a 4-day period and her child 's behavioral reaction to each of the hass les experie nced. The mothers were then asked to identify any other hassles thei r children experience on a frequent basis but were not observed during the 4-day period. The 50 most commonly reported hassles form the HSPC , which was developed for use with children aged 2 to 4 years (see the Appendi x) . The description and scorin g method for each measure of the HSPC is described below.
40
The Jo urnal of Gen e1ic Ps ycholosv
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 00:33 05 February 2015
Frequency of hassles. Thi s measure indicates the number of hass les the child encountered over the prev ious 2 wee ks. If a hassle had been experienced in the last 2 weeks, it was circled . If a hass le had not been experie nced , it was left unmarked . A total frequency -of-hass les score fo r each c hild was derived by tota ling all the hass les circled. Intensity of reaction. Thi s measure indicates how intensely the child reacted to the hassles spec ified . The child 's reaction to each identi fied hass le was rated by the mother on a 5- point sca le, with scores ranging fro m slightly intense (I) to ex tremely intense (5). A total intensi ty-of-reactio n score fo r each child was derived by to taling the scores of thi s meas ure and dividing by 50 (the total number of hassles poss ibl e). Coping effectiveness. Thi s measure indicates the child 's level of diffi culty in dealing wi th the hass les spec ified . The child 's leve l of di ffic ulty in dealing with each identi fied hass le was rated by the mother on a 5-point scale, with scores ra nging fro m with slight difficulty (I) to with extreme diffic ulty (5) . A total coping-effectiveness score for each c hild was derived by totaling the scores of this measure and div iding by 50 . Object ava ilability. Thi s in fo rmatio n was gathered from only those mothers who identified the ir child as having an inanimate transitio nal object. They were as ked w hether or not the object was avail abl e to the c hild when the identi fied hass les were experie nced . This inform atio n was gathered to ascertain during w hi ch hass les the child 's object was avail able to comfort and soothe him or her. Frequency of obj ect use . Thi s measure was used onl y by those mothers who identified the ir child as having an inanimate tra nsitio nal object. Thi s measure indicates how ofte n the child used the object when ex periencing the ide ntified hass les . The subscale was rated o n a 5-point sca le, with scores ranging from seldom (1 ) to almost always (5). A total frequency-of-object-use score was deri ved by totaling the scores of the subscale and di viding by 50. Cronbach 's alphas were calcul ated to determine the internal consistency of the HSPC. The alpha coeffi cients for inte nsit y of reaction , coping effectiveness, and freque ncy of object use were .92 , .93, and .95, res pecti ve ly. Procedure Each mo ther was interv iewed indi viduall y and was asked to prov ide the fo llow ing in fo rmation about her child: age, sex, o rdinal pos iti on , child -care arrangements, w hether o r no t the child had an in animate transit ional o bject, and the type of object. Each mother was then as ked to complete the HS PC
Lookabaugh & Fu
41
(see the Appendix). The mother was asked to recall and identify all the hassles her child had encountered over the previous 2 weeks. She was then asked , by use of a structured interview format , to rate her child on eac h of the hassl es indicated according to intensity of reaction , coping effectiveness, and fre quency of object use.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 00:33 05 February 2015
Results Hassles , Intensity of Reaction , and Coping Effectiveness: Multivariate and Univariate Tests
Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were conducted using the general linear models procedures (SAS, 1982) . Test statistics for the MANOYAs reported are Rao's approximate F, which was used to co nvert Wilks 's lambda to F statistics. Tukey's multiple comparison tests were performed to determine which differences between the various classifications of means were statistically significant. A MANOYA was computed to evaluate mothers' perceptions of the differences between those children who were identified as having an inanimate transitional objec t and those children who did not have such an object in frequency of hass les, intensity of reaction , and coping effectiveness. No significant differences were found, F(3 , 46) = 1.85, p = . 1508 . A second MANOVA was computed to evaluate mothers ' perceptions of the differences between those children who use their thumbs as an inanimate transitional object, those children who use soft objects, and those children who do not have an inanimate tran sitional object in frequency of hassles, intensity of reaction , and coping effectiveness . A significant object effect was found , F(6 , 90) = 2.22, p = .048 1. Corresponding univari ate analyses showed a significant object effect on freq uency of hassles, F(2, 47) = 3.48, p = .0388, and a significant object effect on coping effectiveness, F(2 , 47) = 3.80, p = .0296. Post hoc analyses indicated that children who used soft objects had more hassles (M = 31 . 87) than children who used their thumbs (M = 18 . 88). Children who used soft objects (M = 1.34) were rated as less effective in coping with hassles than those children who used their thumbs (M = 0.75). A third MANOYA was computed to evaluate age differences (younger, 2 years, I month to 2 years, 7 months ; middle , 2 years, 8 months to 3 years, I month ; and older, 3 years, 2 months to 3 years , II months) in frequency of hass les, frequency of object use, intensity of reaction , and coping effectiveness . A significant age effect was found, F(8, 88) = 2. 13, p = .0411. Corresponding univariate analyses showed a significant age effect between the middle and older age groups on frequency of object use, F(2 , 47) = 4.08 , p = .0223. Post hoc analyses indicated that the older group of children used
42
The Jo urnal of Genetic Ps )'cho!ogy
thei r in animate transition al obj ec ts (thumb or soft object, M = 1.09) signifi ca ntl y more often than chil dre n in the middl e group (M = 0 .57) .
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 00:33 05 February 2015
Relationships Between Object Use, Frequ ency of Hassles, Intensity of Reaction, and Coping Effectiveness Pearson product-moment correl ation coefficients were calculated to determine the relationships betwee n frequency of hass les, intensity of reaction , coping effect iveness , and frequency of objec t use among children who have an inanim ate transitio nal objec t. Significant correlations were found between frequency of hass les and intensity of reactions (r = .91 , p = .000 I); frequency of hass les and coping effectiveness (r = .83, p = .000 I); frequency of hassles and frequ ency of objec t use (r = . 87, p = .000 I); intensity of reac ti on and coping effectiveness (r = . 92 , p = .000 I); intensity of reaction and frequency of objec t use ( r = .87 , p = .000 I) ; and coping effectiveness and frequenc y of objec t use (r = .71 , p = .000 I). Discussion
In th is stud y. we investi gated the effectiveness of coping with dail y hass les among two groups of presc hool children-those who have been identified as having an inanimate transitional object and those who did not have such an objec t. More spec ificall y, the differences between these two groups of children were examin ed in term s of frequenc y of hassles, intensity of reaction, and coping effecti ve ness. The HSPC was developed to measure mothers' perceptions of frequency of hass les , intensity of reacti on, and coping effectiveness. The results indica ted that thi s sca le has hi gh internal consistency. The resu lts indicated that there is a difference in children's reactions to hass les as a function of the nature of the object (i.e., thumb or soft object). Although the inanimate transitional objects were consistently available to the children when ex periencin g hassles , children who use their thumbs as an inanim ate transitional object had significantly fewer hass les reported than ·children who used soft objec ts . This difference may partially be exp lained in terms of the nature of the object as a coping mechani sm. Mothers of children who suck thei r thumbs may either take this action for granted or are less likely to associate thi s behavior as a coping mechanism used by the child when he or she is fee ling hass led. The coping function of the thumb may be less obvious to mothers because many children suck their thumbs as a habit , although thum b sucking may increase in times of stress. For mothers of chil dre n using soft objec ts, it may be more obvious when their child is feelin g hass led because the ex tern al objec t, functioning as a cop in g mechanism , must be ac ti ve ly so ught out and handl ed. Consequentl y. mothers of chil dren using
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 00:33 05 February 2015
Loo kabaugh & Fu
43
soft objects may perce ive the ir children as having more hass les th an mothers of childre n using the ir thumbs . The results indicated that mothers reported more effective coping among ch ildren who use the ir thumbs th an children who used so ft objects. Thi s differe nce may parti all y be exp lained in term s o f access ibility of the object to the child . Because the thumb is part of the body, children who use their thumb as a coping mechani sm always have access to it. Nonnutritive sucking of the thumb may be tranquili zing during periods of emoti o nal di stress, as reported by Passman and Halo ne n ( 1979) , and the thumb sucking may serve as a compensatory cop ing strategy in the case of temporary inaccess ibility of the attachment figure (Van IJendoorn et al. , 1983). Children who use soft objects may find the desired object less accessible or inaccess ible in certain situations to serve as a coping mechanism . Consequently, mothers of children using soft objects may perceive the ir children as coping less effectively than mothers of c hildren who use the ir thumbs. Among those children with inanimate transiti onal objects, significant corre latio ns were found betwee n frequency of hassles, inten sity of reaction, coping effectiveness, and frequency of object use. Specifically, within thi s group of childre n an increase in the number of hassles encountered was related to more intense reaction s to hassles , less effective coping, and an increase in o bject use. These findings seem to suggest that when children with inanimate transitional objects experience more hass les , the y tend to react more inte nsely, have more difficulty in copin g, and use the inanimate transitional objects mo re frequently. Age differences in frequency of object use were also found , with higher inc ide nce of object use among older preschoolers . Thi s could be a function of separati on-individuation . Younger children, in the earlier stage of this process, may be using both primary objects and in animate transitional objects simultaneously in coping with hass les . That is , they are beginning to become more attached to the inanimate objects while they are still inten se ly dependent on their primary objects . Children in the middle gro up are begi nning to vacillate between use of primary and inanimate transiti onal objects. They seemingly are using the latter less frequently than the older preschoolers use them. Older preschoolers are at a stage of further separation from their primary obj ects and hence are mo re dependent on the use of transiti onal objects in cop ing with hass les . Thi s demon strates more individuation and less dependency o n parent s and other signifi cant people. No significant diffe re nces were found between those children with inanimate transitional objects and those without such objects in freque nc y of hassles, intensity of reaction, and coping effectiveness. This lack of significant differences could poss ibly be attributed to the fact that , in general , all children are ex posed to a range of possible hassle situations . Each group was composed of children with a range of tolerance for hass les . Thus , differences in
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 00:33 05 February 2015
44
Th e Journal of G eneric Psychology
intensity of hassles might not be a function of object use. The findings of this study are congruent with those of Van IJendoorn eta!. (1983), who found that in a stressful , strange situation there are no differences in behavior between children who are attached to inanimate objects and those who are not so attached. The lack of significant differences between the two groups in coping effectiveness may be partially explained by the fact that children with inanimate transitional objects may actively use the objects as coping mechanisms , whereas children who are not attached to inanimate objects may use other forms of environmental stimuli, the mother or other significant persons, or some sort of mental representation, fantasies, or thoughts as possible coping mechanisms to serve soothing and psychologically supportive functions similar to inanimate objects. Cohen and Clark (1984) have suggested that children who are not attached to inanimate objects may have internal capacities to cope effectively. The findings of this study, which was based on a small sample, suggest that chi ldren who use their thumbs as inanimate transitional objects experience fewer hass les and cope more effectively than children who use soft objects. These findings warrant further investigation with a larger and more diverse population across a wider developmental span. In doing so, researchers may explore and better understand the choice of object as a function of age, sex, or temperamental differences; the differences in coping between children who use their thumb , a soft object, and those who use their thumb in conjunction with a soft object; and the use and choice of object as related to parental acceptance of these objects as coping mechanisms.
APPENDIX Items on the Hassles Scale for Preschool Children I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. II . 12 . 13. 14. 15 . 16.
Conflict or teasing among siblings or friends Sharing Another child not wanting to be his/her friend Not wanting to do as parent(s) says or demands Separation from parent(s) Staying with a babysitter Parental redirection or discipline Parent(s) not paying attention to the child Going to bed Taking a nap Not being able to sleep Waking up alone or being in room alone Wetting the bed Having to wake up (get up) Nightmares A toy breaking
Loo kabaugh & Fu
45
17. Competition 18. Someone not playing as the ch ild wants 19. Cleani ng up (putting toys . games, etc. , away)
20. Putting together or manipul ating small toys
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 00:33 05 February 2015
2 1. Havi ng to stop playing to do something
22. Not being able to find something Not getting something he/she wants or not getting hi s/her way Deciding what to pl ay Wanting to do things that are too diffi cult Not liking clothing se lected Changing clothes Trouble managing shoes , clothing, hair barrettes . etc. Spi ll s and messes 30. Taking a bath 3 1. Having hair washed 32. Brushing teeth 33. Getting dressed 34 . Toileting 35 . Not getting gum . cand y. sweets 36. Not gett ing to use specific dishes, utensi ls, etc . 37 . Not wanting to eat at mealtime 38 . Wanting somethin g different , than was prepared. to eat 39 . Someth ing "not quite ri ght" with food (bei ng picky abo ut food) 40 . Not wanting to try parti cul ar foods 41 . Go ing to the doctor or denti st 42 . Being sick 43 . Hav ing to wait 44. Being rushed 45 . Being bored 46 . Minor bumps, brui ses, scratches 47 . The weather (thunderstorms) 48. Having the TV interrupted or turned off 49. Wanting to watch something different on TV SO. New situations and new people 23. 24. 25. 26 . 27. 28. 29 .
REFERENCES
Boniface , D., & Graham , P. ( 1979). The three-year-old and hi s attachment to a spec ial soft obj ect. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 20, 217-224. Busch, F. (1974). Dimensions of the first tran si tional object. Psychoanalytic Study of the Ch ild. 29. 2 15- 229.
Busch . F. , Nagera, H., McKnight. J. , & Pezzarossi , G. ( 1973) . Primary transitional objects. Journ al of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 12, 193-214. Cohen, K. N., & Clark. J. A. ( 1984). Transi ti onal object att ac hments in early child hood and personali ty charac teristics in later life . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 , l 06- 11 l .
DeLangis, A., Coyne, J. C., Dakof, G. , Folkman , S., & Laza ru s, R. S . ( 1982). Relat ionship of dail y hass les, uplifts and maJor life event s to health statu s. Health Psvchologv, I . l 19- 136. Kanner, A. D .. Coy ne, J. C.. Sc haefer. C., & Lazarus, R. S. ( 198 1). Comparison
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 00:33 05 February 2015
46
Th e Journal of Gene1ic Psychology
of two modes of stress manage me nt: Dail y hass les and upli fts versus major life events . Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4 , ( 1), 1-39 . Lazarus , R . S., & Cohen , J. B . (1977). Environmental stress. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohl will (Eds.), Human behavior and th e environment : Current th eory and research (Vol. 2, pp . 89-128). Ne w Yo rk : Ple num Press. Lazarus , R . S ., & Folkman, S . ( 1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springe r. Mc Lean , P. (1976). De pressio n as a specific res ponse to stress. In I. G . Saraso n & C. D. Speil berge t (Eds.) , Stress and anxiety (Vol. 3, pp . 297- 323). Washington , DC: Hemisphere. Passman , R . H. , & Halonen , J. S . ( 1979). A deve lopmental stud y of youn g c hil dren 's attach ments to inanimate objects. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 134 ,
165- 178. Passman , R . H., & Weisberg, P. (1 975) . Mothers and blankets as agents fo r promotin g pl ay and ex plorati on by yo ung childre n in a novel e nvironment : T he effects of social and non-social att ac hme nt. Developmental Psychology, 1, 170- 177 . Pearline, L. I. ( 1983). Role strains and personal stress. In H . B . Kaplan (Ed .), Psychosocial stress: Trends in theory and research (pp . 3-32). San Diego , CA: Academ ic Press. SAS Institute , Inc. (1982). SAS user 's guide. Cary, NC: Author. Singe r, J. E. , & Dav idson , L. M . ( 1986). Specific ity and stress research . In M . H . Appley & R . Trumbull (Eds .), Dynamics of stress: Physiological, psychological and social perspective (pp . 47-6 1). New York: Ple num Press. Van !Jendoom , M . H ., Goosse ns, F. A . , Tavecchio, L . W. C. , Vergeer, M . M . , & Hubbard , F. 0 . A. ( 1983) . Att ac hme nt to soft objects: Its re latio nships with attac hments to the mother and with thumbsucking. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 14(2 ), 97-105 . Winni cott, D . W. (1953). Transiti o nal objects and transitional phe nomena . International Journal of Psychoanalysis , 34 , 89-97 .
Received November 26, 1990
