4

Question 1

Who proposed the Strange Situation?

Answer 1

Ainsworth (1970s)

Question 2

Define the Strange Situation

Answer 2

Controlled observation designed to test the quality of an infant’s attachment to their caregiver

Question 3

Who was Ainsworth a student of?

Answer 3

Bowlby

Question 4

What 4 behaviours were assessed during the Strange Situation?

Answer 4

• Exploration + secure base behaviour (good attachment: infants explore, using caregiver as a secure base)
• Stranger anxiety (good attachment: anxiety towards strangers)
• Separation anxiety (good attachment: anxiety when separated from caregiver)
• Response to reunion (good attachment: caregiver’s return greeted with pleasure, infant seeks their comfort)

Question 5

What type of observation is the Strange Situation?

Answer 5

• Controlled, overt observation (though 2 way mirror)

Question 6

How many episodes in the Strange Situation

Answer 6

Beginning + 7 others

Question 7

How long did each Strange Situation episode last?

Answer 7

Approx 3 mins

Question 8

Outline the episodes in the Strange Situation + what behaviour was being observed during each episode

Answer 8

Beginning) Caregiver + infant enter unfamiliar playroom

1) Infant encouraged to explore (exploration/secure base)
2) Stranger enters, talks to caregiver, approaches infant (stranger anx)
3) Caregiver leaves. Infant + stranger left together (separation + stranger anx)
4) Caregiver returns. Stranger leaves (reunion + exploration/secure base)
5) Caregiver leaves infant alone (separation anx)
6) Stranger returns (stranger anx)
7) Caregiver returns (reunion)

Question 9

What were the findings of the original Strange Situation?

Answer 9

3 main behaviour patterns emerged, so 3 main attachment types were concluded

Question 10

What are the 3 main attachment types found in the Strange Situation?

Answer 10

Type A : Insecure-avoidant attachment
Type B : Secure attachment
Type C : Insecure-resistant attachment

Question 11

What is Type A (insecure-avoidant)?

Answer 11

Low anxiety, weak attachment

• Infants explore, without returning to safe base
• Little separation or stranger anxiety
• Little pleasure or avoidance of reunion with caregiver

Question 12

What is Type B (secure attachment)?

Answer 12

Good attachment, most desirable

• Infants explore, regularly returning to safe base
• Moderate separation and stranger anxiety
• Positive response to reunion, seeking comfort

Question 13

What is Type C (insecure-resistant)?

Answer 13

High anxiety, very strong attachment

• Infants explore less, seeking proximity
• High separation and stranger anxiety
• Resist comfort during reunion

Question 14

What percentage of British infants are insecure-avoidant (A)?

Answer 14

20-25 %

Question 15

What percentage of British infants are secure (B)?

Answer 15

60-75 %

Question 16

What percentage of British infants are insecure-resistant (c)?

Answer 16

Approx 3 %

Question 17

Give 2 positive evaluation points for Ainsworth’s Strange Situation

Answer 17

Later life research supports 3 attachment types

• Type B infants have better outcomes: childhood (better school achievement, less involvement in bullying - Kokkinos, 2007), adulthood (better mental health - Ward, 2006)
• Type C infants + those not fitting any category have worst outcomes

Methodology

• Clear, easily observable categories gave good inter-rater reliability
• Trained observers agreed in 94% cases (Bick et al, 2012)

Question 18

Give 3 negative evaluation points for Ainsworth’s Strange Situation

Answer 18

May be a fourth attachment type

• Original categories don’t fit the entire population
• Main + Solomon (1986) identified Type D : disorganised attachment
• Type D involves mixture of avoidant + resistant behaviours + often get psychological disorders
• Type D often stems from neglect/abuse

Methodology

• May have measured genetic anxiety levels, not attachment security
• Kagan (1982) suggested different behaviours were result of diff genetically-influenced anxiety levels, not diff attachment types
• Means internal validity may be low (not assessing attachment)

Methodology

• Overt observation
• Mothers may adapt behaviour due to social desirability
• Results in change in infant behaviour
• External validity reduced (not representative of everyday)

Question 19

What is a 4th negative evaluation point about Strange Situation that provoked a new study?

Answer 19

The findings may be culturally-bound, only representing individualist cultures

Question 20

Who conducted a study to investigate cultural variations in attachment type?

Answer 20

Ijzendoorn + Kroonenberg (1988)

Question 21

What type of study did Ijzendoorn + Kroonenberg do?

Answer 21

Meta analysis

Question 22

Outline Ijzendoorn + Kroonenberg’s procedure?

Answer 22

• Meta analysis
• Used 32 attachment studies that had used the Strange Situation
• Studies from 8 countries (assessing difference within + between countries)

Question 23

What were Ijzendoorn + Kroonenberg’s findings?

Answer 23

• In all countries, secure attachment (B) most common
  (75% in England, 50% in China)
• In individualist countries, insecure-avoidant (A) 2nd most common (matching Ainsworth’s original study) + insecure-resistant least common (less than 14%)
• In collectivist countries, insecure-resistant (C) 2nd most common (not matching Ainsworth’s original study) (over 25%) + insecure-avoidant (A) least common
• Variations were 1.5X greater within countries than between countries
  (Secure in USA varied from 90%-46%)

Question 24

Outline an example of the Strange Situation used in an individualist culture

Answer 24

• Italian Study
• Simonelli et al (2014)
• 76 , 1yr old babies
• Strange Situation Procedure
• Secure = 50%
• Insecure-avoidant = 36%
• Insecure-resistant = 14%
• An individualist culture, so fit Ainsworth’s original attachment findings

Question 25

Outline an example of the Strange Situation used in a collectivist culture

Answer 25

- Korean Study - Jin et al (2012) - 87 babies - Strange Situation Procedure - Secure = Most - Insecure-resistant = Rest - Insecure-avoidant = Only 1 - A collectivist culture, with mothers traditionally being very involved and attentive in child-rearing, so didn’t fit Ainsworth’s original findings

Question 26

What can be concluded from the analysis of the cross-cultural studies on attachment?

Answer 26

- Attachment is similar cross-culturally (secure always most common) - Attachment has some cross-cultural variations due to... 1) Individualist/collectivist culture (avoidant 2nd most common in individualist countries, resistant 2nd most common in collectivist countries) 2) Child-rearing techniques in that culture (Korea + Japan, resistant 2nd most common due to highly involved parenting styles)

Question 27

Give 2 positive evaluation points for the cultural variation attachment studies

Answer 27

Methodology - Meta-analysis uses a large sample size, getting a better understanding of the country as a whole (e.g. 15 US studies) - Results are more generalisable + representative of whole country Methodology - Often used indigenous researchers (e.g. Korea - by Jin) - Indigenous researchers collect data with more internal validity (unaffected by confounding variables of stereotypes + miscommunication) - BUT not all researchers were indigenous (e.g. Morelli + Tronick - foreign but did one of US studies)

Question 28

Give 2 negative evaluation points for the cultural variation attachment studies

Answer 28

Methodology - Hard to keep controlled, identical methodology worldwide - Variations in environment, etc, may confound results by impacting infant behaviour - May be hard to make valid comparisons between the studies Issue - imposed etic - Attachment may not be measurable in same way in all countries - E.g. UK + USA - Lack of positive reunion = insecure attachment Germany - Lack of positive reunion = independence (encouraged) but attachment may still be strong - Internal validity may be low if the method doesn’t validly measure attachment everywhere

Question 29

What is imposed etic?

Answer 29

Imposing an idea/technique that works in one culture, to another culture