Using a Lag Schedule of Reinforcement to Increase Response Variability in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders

Lag reinforcement schedules have been shown in previous research to be an effective intervention for teaching verbal and nonverbal response variability to individuals with developmental disabilities. In more recent research, variability itself has been considered a reinforceable behavior in its own right (Susa & Schlinger, The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 18, 125–130, 2012). Lag x schedules of reinforcement can be used to teach variability by using contingencies that require responses to differ from previous responses. The present study extended Susa and Schlinger’s, The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 18, 125–130, (2012) research by using 3 social questions instead of 1 in a random rotation and included probes to test for generality. A changing-criterion design was used to evaluate the results with one 11-year-old female participant diagnosed with autism. During baseline, the participant provided little variability, with rote responses. During the Lag 1 and Lag 2 phases, appropriate variable verbal responding increased with the use of echoic prompts, visual aids, and an error correction procedure. Further, the results also showed that the participant learned to vary her responses by demonstrating the ability to emit 11 novel prompted responses and 13 spontaneous responses.In addition, the participant was able to retain the skills learned in a maintenance probe conducted 4 weeks postintervention.     

Evaluating Stimulus-Stimulus Pairing and Direct Reinforcement in the Establishment of an Echoic Repertoire of Children Diagnosed with Autism

Many children with autism do not imitate adult vocalizations, an important skill in learning to talk. Pairing adult vocalizations with preferred stimuli has been shown to increase free-operant vocalizations but effects are temporary; thus, direct reinforcement may be necessary to establish durable vocal behaviors. In Experiment 1, directly reinforced echoic responses did not increase following stimulus-stimulus pairings in three children with autism. Similarly, pairings did not increase free-operant vocalizations in Experiment 2, a replication of Miguel et al. (2002). Experiment 3 demonstrated that shaping increased vowel frequency for one participant. Results suggest that variables are yet to be delineated that influence effectiveness of a stimulus-stimulus pairing procedure on vocalization frequency and acquisition of a verbal operant following such pairings.     

Emergence of Mands and Tacts of Novel Objects among Preschool Children

According to Skinner''s (1957) analysis of verbal behavior, the mand and the tact are functionally independent verbal operants, each of which is acquired through a unique history of reinforcement. The present study attempted to replicate the findings of Lamarre and Holland (1985), who empirically demonstrated functional independence of mands and tacts in typically developing preschool children. Five children participated. All were initially trained to complete two 4-piece assembly tasks. Four children were then trained to tact the four pieces that comprised one of the assembly tasks, and to mand for the four pieces that comprised the other task, using arbitrary vocal response forms. The remaining child received tact training only, and only on one task. The effects of training on the untrained operant were evaluated in a multiple-probe design across tasks. Following mand training, 4 out of 4 children reliably emitted tacts under testing conditions, while the effects of tact training differed across participants. The results differ from those of Lamarre and Holland, but are not necessarily surprising from the point of view of either Skinner''s analysis or more recent behavioral accounts of language. Future research should attempt to identify variables that affect transfer between mand and tact relations.     

Echoic and Self-Echoic Responses in Children

Eleven typically developing children were assessed on the accuracy of prompted self-echoic responses following a 5-s delay from their initial echoic response, replicating procedures in Esch, Esch, McCart, and Petursdottir (2010) that compared discrepancies between echoic and self-echoic scores of autistic and typically developing children following a 2-s delay. We compared the two studies in terms of age, level tested, and echoic/self-echoic discrepancy scores. Age and test level differences were found to be statistically significant. Results are discussed in terms of discrepant self-echoic performance and self-echoic rehearsal as it relates to participant age, test level, motivating variables, and the development of complex behavior.     

The effects of tact training on stereotypic vocalizations in children with autism

This study was a systematic extension of Karmali, Greer, Nuzzulo-Gomez, Ross, and Rivera-Valdes (2005) and Ahearn, Clark, MacDonald, and Chung (2007). We investigated the effects of a tact correction procedure on stereotypic vocalizations in 4 children diagnosed with autism who ranged in age from 6 to 16 years. Participants had limited vocal verbal repertoires and were primarily dependent on prompts for the emission of appropriate vocalizations. A multiple-baseline design across participants was used. Data were collected on instances of stereotypic vocalizations and independent tacts during baseline conditions and on instances of stereotypic vocalizations, independent tacts, and echoic-tacts during intervention. Procedural integrity and social validity data were also obtained. The results indicated a decrease in stereotypic vocalizations for 3 of the 4 participants and a slight increase in appropriate vocal verbal behavior (i.e., tacting) for all participants. The study provides support for the use of tact correction procedures to decrease stereotypic vocalizations and increase appropriate vocalizations in children with autism.     

Extending the Assessment of Functions of Vocalizations in Children with Limited Verbal Repertoires

The current study examined the effectiveness of an experimental functional analysis for assessing the functions of emergent vocal-verbal behavior in children with developmental disabilities. Experiment 1 consisted of a systematic replication of Lerman et al. (2005). Participants were 3 children with developmental disabilities, between the ages of 2 and 5 years, with limited vocal-verbal repertoires, who could emit at least two clear vocalizations. Results indicated that for all participants, targeted vocalizations functioned as mands, tacts, or both. The purpose of Experiment 2 was to address some of the limitations of Experiment 1 while using a different experimental design. Results of Experiment 2 suggested that participants'' targeted vocalizations served as tacts, echoics, or both. Results are discussed in terms of the utility of this methodology for the selection and development of effective language interventions as well as implications for our current knowledge of verbal behavior.     

Use of a Modified Chaining Procedure with Textual Prompts to Establish Intraverbal Storytelling

Echoic, tact, and textual transfer procedures have been proven successful in establishing simple intraverbals (Braam and Poling Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 4, 279–302, 1983; Luciano Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 102, 346–357, 1986; Watkins et al. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 7, 69–81, 1989). However, these strategies may be ineffective for some children due to the complexity of the targeted intraverbals. The current study investigated the use of a novel procedure which included a modified chaining procedure and textual prompts to establish intraverbal behavior in the form of telling short stories. Visual prompts and rule statements were used with some of the participants in order to produce the desired behavior change. Results indicated that the procedure was effective for teaching retelling of short stories in three children with autism.     

Effects of a Differential Observing Response on Intraverbal Performance of Preschool Children: A Preliminary Investigation

Axe (2008) speculated that some instances of intraverbal responding might be associated with limited or delayed acquisition because they require discrimination of multiple components of verbal stimuli. Past studies suggest that acquisition of responses under control of complex, multicomponent antecedent stimuli (e.g., conditional or compound stimulus control) can be facilitated with the introduction of a differential observing response (DOR; Dube & McIlvane, 1999; Gutowski, Geren, Stromer, & Mackay, 1995). The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effects of a DOR (i.e., repeating the question) on intraverbal responding with six neurotypical preschool children. Findings included that (a) accuracy of intraverbal performance increased when the experimenter prompted a DOR; (b) 1 of 6 participants overtly emitted the DOR for a second relation in the absence of prompts, which was correlated with increased accuracy; and (c) following mastery, response accuracy was variable for 3 participants. Based on these findings, prompted DORs may offer an effective, if temporary, aid to intraverbal instruction for neurotypical preschool children.     

A Functional Analysis of Non-Vocal Verbal Behavior of a Young Child With Autism

The functions of an American Sign Language response were experimentally evaluated with a young boy diagnosed with autism. A functional analysis procedure based on that reported by Lerman et al. (2005) was used to evaluate whether the target sign response would occur under mand, tact, mimetic, or control conditions. The target sign was observed most often in the mand and mimetic test conditions, very seldom in the tact test condition, and never in the control condition. These results support those reported by Lerman et al. and extend previous research by evaluating a non-vocal verbal response using a brief multi-element arrangement with a single control condition. The implications for language assessment and suggestions for future research are discussed.     

Empirical Applications of Skinner’s Analysis of Verbal Behavior with Humans

In Verbal Behavior, Skinner (1957) provided a conceptual framework and taxonomy for the controlling variables of language that defined independent verbal operants by their functional relations to antecedents and consequences (rather than by topography or meaning). Although professional interest in this area has recently increased within the behavior analytic community, Skinner''s conceptual framework may not yet have fully impacted the experimental literature. This quantitative review of the literature examined the studies on verbal behavior that were empirical in nature, concerned with human verbal behavior, and addressed at least one verbal operant (e.g., mand, tact, echoic, autoclitic, and/or intraverbal behavior) within the experiment. The results of this review suggest that a growing body of research exists to support many of the tenets of Skinner''s conceptualization and taxonomy but many areas of verbal behavior research have yet to be addressed. Continued research in this area is crucial for the development and implementation of effective verbal behavior interventions for people with disabilities.     

An Introduction to Joint Control

Lowenkron and colleagues (Lowenkron, 1984; 1991; 1998; 2006; Lowenkron and Colvin, 1992) describe a model that explains complex behavior using only well-established behavioral principles, concepts and terms. The model, called joint control, is especially useful for understanding complex and delayed discriminations within a purely behavioral framework and with no appeal to hypothetical concepts or structures. In it the listener is an active behaver rather than a processor of information. In fact, on this account the listener becomes a speaker. Several examples of the relevance of this approach to the explanation of complex behavior are provided, including cases of stimulus selection, conditional discrimination, and generalized identity matching.     

Anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antibody encephalitis: An important cause of encephalitis in young adults. A report of two cases

Encephalitis is a clinical syndrome which can include altered mental status, motor and sensory deficits, altered behavior including personality changes, speech and movement disorders and seizures. While the overall incidence of encephalitis is not known, it is common enough that most pediatric and adolescent medicine physicians will have seen at least one case. Peak times of risk include the newborn period and middle-to-late adolescence.¹ Dalmau J, Tüzün E, Wu HY, et al. Paraneoplastic anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor encephalitis associated with ovarian teratoma. Ann Neurol. 2007 Jan;61(1):25–36. doi:10.1002/ana.21050. PMID: 17262855.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] It is important for clinicians to have a working knowledge of the broad range of encephalitis etiologies: viral, post-viral, toxic, auto-immune, and paraneoplastic. We discuss two cases of encephalitis in young adult women with ovarian teratoma and production of anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) antibodies.     

Increasing Vocal Variability in Children with Autism Using a Lag Schedule of Reinforcement

Variability has been demonstrated to be an operant dimension of behavior (Neuringer, 2002; Page & Neuringer, 1985). Recently, lag schedules have been used to demonstrate operant variability of verbal behavior in persons with a diagnosis of autism (e.g., Lee, McComas, & Jawor, 2002). The current study evaluated the effects of a Lag 1 schedule on the vocal variability of 2 nonverbal children with a diagnosis of autism. Results showed systematic increases in variability during the Lag 1 schedule. Implications of lag schedules for speech and language training are discussed.     

Thirty Points About Motivation From Skinner’s Book Verbal Behavior

Skinner discussed the topic of motivation in every chapter of the book Verbal Behavior (1957), usually with his preferred terminology of “deprivation, satiation, and aversive stimulation.” In the current paper, direct quotations are used to systematically take the reader through 30 separate points made by Skinner in Verbal Behavior that collectively provide a comprehensive analysis of his position regarding the role of motivation in behavior analysis. In addition, various refinements and extensions of Skinner''s analysis by Jack Michael and colleagues (Laraway, Snycerski, Michael, & Poling, 2003; Michael, 1982, 1988, 1993, 2000, 2004, 2007) are incorporated, along with suggestions for research and applications for several of the points.     

(Un)Making home at the borderlands of the rural and the urban: Chinese migrant women’s narratives

This study examines the discourses collected in interviews with second-generation Chinese rural migrant women in Chongqing to unpack how they make sense of home. Guided by Blunt and Dowling’s (2006 Blunt, A., & Dowling, R. (2006). Home. New York, NY: Routledge.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) critical geography of home and Anzaldúa’s concept of borderlands, we interpret three overlapping themes: (a) constantly (re)making “home” that is neither here nor there; (b) bordering in-between aging parents and young child(ren); (c) social and political changes (un)making home in migration. Our findings endorse approaching “home” as a verb to better capture complex experiences with homing at borderlands.     

Evaluation of Verbal Behavior in Older Adults

Approximately 5% of older adults have a dementia diagnosis, and language deterioration is commonly associated with this disorder (Kempler, 2005). Several instruments have been developed to diagnose dementia and assess language capabilities of elderly adults. However, none of these instruments take a functional approach to language assessment as described by Skinner (1957). The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate a function-based assessment for language deficits of older adults. Thirty-one participants were categorized into a control group (n  =  15) and a dementia group (n  =  16) based on their score on the Dementia Rating Scale-2. Individuals with dementia performed significantly worse on the tact assessment than those without dementia. Participants from both groups performed better on measures of tacts than intraverbals or mands, even though topographically identical responses were required in these assessments. The data provide support for Skinner''s conceptualization of functionally independent verbal operants.     

An Underdiscussed Aspect of Chomsky (1959)

Chomsky''s (1959) review of Skinner''s (1957) Verbal Behavior has been influential and attributed with a role in the cognitive revolution. However, while counter reviews from within behavior analysis have noted that Chomsky misunderstood the subject matter, certain aspects of his scholarship have been underdiscussed. This includes several instances where Chomsky misquotes Skinner or takes his quotes out of context. Similar to the findings of Sokal (1996a, 1996b), it is speculated that the problems with Chomsky were overlooked by cognitive psychologists because his general outlook was accepted. Implications for the editorial review process are discussed.

Transgressing disciplinary boundaries . . . [is] a subversive undertaking since it is likely to violate the sanctuaries of accepted ways of perceiving. Among the most fortified boundaries have been those between the natural sciences and the humanities.—Greenberg (1990, p. 1), as quoted in Sokal (1996a)Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.—attributed to Bernhard Mannes Baruch (Montapert, 1964, p. 145)

Areas of study are sometimes profoundly affected by people outside them. For example, the linguist Noam Chomsky is familiar to many psychologists for his influence in the cognitive revolution, the major shift in the orientation of American psychology from behavioral to cognitive in the 1960s and 1970s (e.g., Auyang, 2000, p. 105; Erneling, 1997; Hunt, 1982, p. 217; Kosslyn & Rosenberg, 2001, p. 238). Some have even suggested that Chomsky''s (1959) review of B. F. Skinner''s (1957) Verbal Behavior, the latter''s theoretical account of how language can be explained in behavioral terms, was responsible for initiating the cognitive revolution (e.g., Bialystock, 1997; Harnish, 2002, p. 44).When Chomsky set out to write his review, he faced a daunting task. While apparently well read in certain areas such as political theory, there is little to indicate he had any previous exposure to psychology except for psychoanalysis (Barsky, 1997) and through linguists who have drawn upon psychology, such as Bloomfield (1933). Psychology in general in the early and mid-20th century was broad and diverse (e.g., Heidbreder, 1933; Hilgard & Bower, 1966), and so too was behavioral psychology. At that time “behaviorism” was used to refer a variety of behavior-oriented work, such as the strict methodological behaviorism of John B. Watson (e.g., Watson, 1913, 1924), the mathematical modeling with intervening variables of Clark L. Hull''s school (e.g., Hull, 1943, 1951, 1952), and the eclectic, molar, purposive behaviorism of Edward C. Tolman (e.g., Tolman, 1922, 1932, 1948), each with its own assumptions and terminologies. Skinner''s approach, radical behaviorism, differed from all of them in that he recognized the fundamental respondent-operant distinction (Skinner, 1935, 1937, 1938, p. 61ff., 1953, pp. 45–90), accepted the reality of private events, and rejected purely hypothetical mental constructs (Skinner, 1945). Verbal Behavior was very specifically based on Skinner''s approach, and any reviewer would have to understand this to do the job properly.Behavior analysts’ responses to Chomsky''s (1959) review of Verbal Behavior have not been positive (e.g., MacCorquodale, 1970; McLeish & Martin, 1975; Richelle, 1976); their counter reviews generally have noted that Chomsky fundamentally misunderstood the subject matter and emphasized major points where he differed from Skinner. The existing counter reviews, however, do not exhaust the problems with Chomsky. An especially important yet underdiscussed problem of Chomsky is the poor quality of his scholarship, which, to this author''s best knowledge, has not been previously addressed. The purpose of this paper is to address this issue and discuss its implications for future literature reviews.

Chomsky''s Review of Skinner

As noted above, Chomsky''s apparent understanding of radical behaviorism was poor, and at numerous points he makes claims not supported by the existing literature. Some parts of his review, such as citing a supporting claim that stimuli cannot be manipulated (Chomsky, 1959, p. 31, footnote 5) demonstrate severe problems with his understanding of the subject matter, and his handling of the most basic terms was so poor that Richelle (1976) said his “misunderstanding . . . would prompt most examination graders to read no further.”Many serious problems in this area have already been discussed by the above-mentioned counter reviewers; these include instances where Chomsky misattributed views to Skinner that clearly belong to others. For example, Chomsky (1959, p. 28) in describing response strength claimed: “The strength of an operant is defined by Skinner in terms of the rate of response during extinction. . . .” Skinner never claimed this, but rather defined it as the probability a response will occur under certain circumstances (Skinner, 1957, p. 22). MacCorquodale (1970) noted that rate of response during extinction was actually Hull''s definition of probability (Hull, 1943, pp. 260–262), and claiming that Skinner accepted this definition given his criticism of Hull''s work (Skinner, 1944) would be difficult to justify. Several other of Chomsky''s errors may have resulted from his failing to distinguish Skinner''s views from those of others. For example, Chomsky claimed that Skinner said “that children can learn language only through ‘meticulous care’ on the part of adults who shape their verbal repertoire through careful differential reinforcement” (Chomsky, p. 42) and that it is part of “the doctrine of Skinner and others that slow and careful shaping of verbal behavior through differential reinforcement is an absolute necessity” (op. cit., p. 42). Aside from the fact that other people''s doctrines are irrelevant here, nowhere does Skinner make this claim. Chomsky may have actually been reacting to Miller and Dollard (1941, p. 82), who in a discussion on language acquisition wrote: “The child is given meticulous training in connecting words to objects and connecting acts to words.” Skinner (1957), however, says almost nothing about language acquisition and certainly did not describe it as arising from a laborious and intentional shaping procedure. Chomsky (pp. 35, 52), perhaps supposing all responses would act like respondents, also wrongly indicated that a “strong” (operant) verbal response should, according to Skinner, necessarily be a high-pitched scream. However, as Skinner (1950, p. 196) noted,

In the sort of behavior adapted to the Pavlovian experiment (respondent behavior) there may be a progressive increase in the magnitude of response during learning. But we do not shout our responses louder and louder as we learn verbal material, nor does a rat press a lever harder and harder as conditioning proceeds. In operant behavior the energy or magnitude of response changes significantly only when some arbitrary value is differentially reinforced—when such a change is what is learned.

Not all of Chomsky''s errors involved confounding views or pure misunderstandings. There are several instances in Chomsky (1959) where Skinner is quoted out of context or the quote is incorrect such that Skinner''s views are not accurately portrayed. A few examples follow.

1. The above-mentioned false definition of response strength was again made when Chomsky (1959, p. 34) claimed that “Skinner has argued that this [rate of emission during extinction] is ‘the only datum that varies significantly and in the expected direction under conditions which are relevant to the “learning process.” The actual quote from Skinner (1950, p. 198) began with “Rate of responding appears to be the only datum which [sic] varies significantly. . . .” Extinction was not mentioned at all. Furthermore, this occurred in a discussion of learning theories, far removed from anything Chomsky discussed.
2. Chomsky (1959, p. 34) claimed that Skinner said that “the frequency of the response may be ‘primarily attributable to the frequency of occurrence of controlling variables’ . . . .” The actual sentence in Skinner (1957, p. 27) was “Nor can we be sure that frequency is not primarily attributable to the frequency of occurrence of controlling variables.” This occurred in a discussion of factors affecting frequency, during which Skinner emphasized that, contrary to the practice of “word counts” used in formal analyses of language, “it is also important to know the prevailing conditions,” that is, the circumstances under which they occur. Skinner was expressing a possibility or an uncertainty, which Chomsky failed to acknowledge.
3. Chomsky (1959, p. 34, footnote 9) quoted from Skinner (1950, p. 199) regarding allegedly using “the notion of probability in analyzing or formulating instances of even types of behavior which are not susceptible to this analysis.” Chomsky used this quote in a discussion in which he attacked Skinner''s usage of probability (and failed; see MacCorquodale, 1970). However, the passage from Skinner occurred at the end of a paragraph discussing complex activities that, as a whole, may never be repeated by the individual. In the same paragraph, Skinner (p. 199) said,

They are not simple unitary events lending themselves to prediction as such. If we are to predict marriage, success, accident, and so on, in anything more than statistical terms, we must deal with the smaller units of behavior which lead to and compose these unitary episodes. If the units appear in repeatable form, the present analysis may be applied.

Chomsky, however, attempted to apply this analysis to language behaviors, which typically involve a large number of units that may occur very frequently; thus the limitations that may apply to predicting marriage, success, accident, and so on as wholes are irrelevant to Skinner''s program. Chomsky acknowledged none of this.4. Chomsky (1959, p. 35, footnote 10), in discussing pitch, quoted Skinner as saying “Fortunately, ‘In English this presents no great difficulty’ since, for example, ‘relative pitch levels . . . are not . . . important,’” the “this” apparently referring to that pitch, among things, has linguistic functions (pp. 34–35). He further indicated (op. cit.): “No reference is made to the numerous studies of the function of relative pitch levels and other intonational features in English.” The implication is that Skinner ignored the importance of pitch and intonation in actual speech. But what Skinner (1957, p. 25) actually wrote was:

In English, this [energy level, speed of response, and even repetition entering into the construction of different forms of response] presents no great difficulty. Absolute levels of pitch and intensity are not “distinctive,” nor are relative pitch levels important. Changes in pitch, however, distinguish different types of utterance.

Skinner then discussed the functions of pitch in English. While Skinner and Chomsky may have disagreed about their exact functions, it is clear that Skinner did not contend that intonation or pitch in English were completely “unimportant” as Chomsky implied.5. Chomsky (1959, p. 52, footnote 42) quipped, “Similarly, ‘the universality of a literary work refers to the number of potential readers inclined to say the same thing’ (. . . i.e., the most ‘universal’ work is a dictionary of clichés and greetings).” However, the paragraph in Skinner (1957, pp. 274–275) this quote was taken from begins:

A reader seeks out other works of a given writer or other literature of a given type because of the reinforcement he has received. The reinforcement depends upon his own verbal behavior. A thematic correspondence between a reader and a literary work is likely to involve a matching of variables in the fields of motivation and emotion. The universality of a literary work refers to the number of potential readers inclined to say the same thing, at least in some measure. The success of a book is some indication of the number of people who possess a given kind of verbal behavior in strength.

In other words, a work has “universality” when readers would be likely to say something similar in content to the work, not specific utterances.6. Chomsky (1959, p. 53) claimed that “Skinner considers a sentence to be a set of key responses (nouns, verbs, adjectives) on a skeletal frame” and then proceeded to criticize Skinner as if this was his position. However, the actual quote was: “Others [other sentences] are nearly complete skeletal ‘frames’ upon which an exceptional response or two may be hung” (Skinner, 1957, p. 346), and this was not presented as the sole possibility. Rather, it was part of a much longer chapter (pp. 344–367) in which Skinner discussed how verbal responses are combined. Much of this involves a class of responses called autoclitics (p. 311ff.), which are verbal operants whose occurrence depends in part on the occurrence of other verbal operants; in Skinner''s hypothesis, grammar results from an interaction of autoclitics with other verbal operants. For example, when one is confronted by the appropriate stimulating conditions (seeing a hungry man) one would not only emit such responses as hungry and man, but also autoclitics related to the specificity of the situation (the) and occurrence (is) to produce a longer, structured utterance (The man is hungry; Skinner, p. 345). Not all sentences are necessarily created this way, and in the quote Chomsky cites, Skinner does indicate some may be partially or completely preformed; however, he certainly did not claim all were.     

Review of Attachment Theory: Familial Predictors,Continuity and Change,and Intrapersonal and Relational Outcomes

Initially, the major focus of attachment theory was the parent–child relationship, but Bowlby (1988 Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London: Routeledge. [Google Scholar]) also described the attachment system as active over the entire life course. Accordingly, a proliferation of research on attachment theory in the past two decades has addressed an array of familial predictors as well as intrapersonal and relational outcomes of attachment. The purpose of this review is to present: 1) measurement of attachment, 2) family violence, parental depression, and parental divorce as predictors of attachment, 3) (in)stability of attachment over time, 4) impact of attachment on emotion regulation and psychopathology, and 5) influence of attachment on romantic relationship. Special attention is paid to the role of attachment as a mediator between family of origin experiences and outcomes among youth and adults.