Observational attachment theory-based parenting measures predict children's attachment narratives independently from social learning theory-based measures.

Conceptually and methodologically distinct models exist for assessing quality of parent-child relationships, but few studies contrast competing models or assess their overlap in predicting developmental outcomes. Using observational methodology, the current study examined the distinctiveness of attachment theory-based and social learning theory-based measures of parenting in predicting two key measures of child adjustment: security of attachment narratives and social acceptance in peer nominations. A total of 113 5-6-year-old children from ethnically diverse families participated. Parent-child relationships were rated using standard paradigms. Measures derived from attachment theory included sensitive responding and mutuality; measures derived from social learning theory included positive attending, directives, and criticism. Child outcomes were independently-rated attachment narrative representations and peer nominations. Results indicated that Attachment theory-based and Social Learning theory-based measures were modestly correlated; nonetheless, parent-child mutuality predicted secure child attachment narratives independently of social learning theory-based measures; in contrast, criticism predicted peer-nominated fighting independently of attachment theory-based measures. In young children, there is some evidence that attachment theory-based measures may be particularly predictive of attachment narratives; however, no single model of measuring parent-child relationships is likely to best predict multiple developmental outcomes. Assessment in research and applied settings may benefit from integration of different theoretical and methodological paradigms.