7. Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’: Attachment Types Flashcards
who did research into the ‘Strange situation’
Ainsworth and Bell (1970)
Ainsworth’s ‘Strange situation’ research:
aim
Ainsworth and Bell (1970) aimed to assess individual differences in attachment by using the Strange Situation.
Ainsworth’s ‘Strange situation’ research:
procedure
106 middle class American infants were observed with their mothers in a laboratory setting to assess their ‘attachment type’
The observation was a controlled, covert, non-participant observation.
The infants (aged 12-18 months) were observed over a sequence of 8 short episodes, in which a mother and stranger take it in turns to enter the room, interact with the child and leave the room to observe 4 key behaviours:
- separation anxiety
- reunion behaviour
- stranger anxiety
- exploration behaviour
what is meant by separation anxiety
the child’s reaction to the caregiver leaving
what is meant by reunion behaviour
the child’s reaction when the caregiver returns
what is meant by stranger anxiety
the child’s reaction to a stranger (person of whom they are unfamiliar)
what is meant by exploration behaviour
the child’s willingness to explore their environment
Ainsworth’s ‘Strange situation’ research:
findings
Ainsworth found there were 3 different types of attachment:
- secure attachment (66%)
- insecure-avoidant (22%)
- insecure-resistant (12%)
Ainsworth’s ‘Strange situation’ research:
conclusion
it was concluded that the sensitivity of the caregiver had a significant impact on the attachment type of the infant
differences between the attachment types: separation anxiety
secure AT can be distressed when the mother leaves, and their play is reduced (moderate separation anxiety) whereas insecure-avoidant AT shows no or little distress when mother leaves (no separation anxiety) whereas insecure-resistant AT shows extreme distress when the mother leaves, little or no play (extreme separation anxiety)
differences between the attachment types: reunion behaviour
secure AT approaches the mother, is easily comforted, shows joy and happiness when the mother returns whereas insecure-avoidant AT ignores or avoids the mother in return and doesn’t seek contact whereas insecure-resistant AT may go to the mother but can’t be easily comforted
differences between the attachment types: stranger anxiety
Secure AT plays with the stranger while the mother is there (used as a safe base) but can’t be comforted by the stranger when the mother leaves - moderate stranger anxiety whereas insecure-avoidant AT can be easily comforted by strangers (doesn’t need to use mother as a safe base) - low stranger anxiety whereas insecure-resistant show extreme stranger anxiety
differences between the attachment types: exploration behaviour
secure AT are keen to explore whereas insecure-avoidant AT are willing to explore whereas insecure-resistant AT are unwilling to explore
why may a child have a secure attachment type
caregiver is sensitive to the child’s needs
why may a child have an insecure-avoidant attachment type
caregiver is indifferent to the child’s needs
why may a child have an insecure-resistant attachment type
caregiver is sometimes rejecting and sometimes over sensitive to the child’s needs
Ainsworth’s ‘Strange situation’ research:
EVALUATION
- Strengths
P: easy to replicate cross culturally
E: methodology is controlled and standardised so it can be used not only in Western cultures like America and Germany but in a wide range of other cultures as well
E: eg, same settings and methodology have been replicated in eastern cultures such as Japan
L: the methodology is a useful tool that is easy to replicate, which has demonstrated variations both within and between cultures
E: also means the findings can be easily tested for reliability
Ainsworth’s ‘Strange situation’ research:
EVALUATION
- Limitations
P: lacks ecological validity
E: artificial laboratory setting may not reflect real life behaviour
E: eg, children may respond differently in the strange situation than they would at home and therefore may be judged inaccurately
L: findings can’t be generalised to real life attachment behaviours
P: bases attachment type in the observation of the relationship between mother and infant only
E: ignores the father, which gives an inaccurate view on a child’s attachment type
E: eg, nat be insecurely attached to the mother but securely attached to the father
L: results can’t be generalised to other attachment figures
P: raises ethical issues
E: intends to cause mild distress to the infants, many see as unacceptable
E: in episode 6, 20% of infants reportedly cried ‘desperately’, showing their distress
L: goes against the psychological code of ethics by lack of protection from harm
E: however, Ainsworth suggests the SS adheres to ethical guidelines as it is no more disturbing than real-life experiences
P: classification system doenst fit all infants
E: some children in SS showed attachment behaviour that was inconsistent w the 3 main attachment types
E: Main and Solomon (1986): added a fourth type ‘D’ (disorganised attachment) for children who were inconsistent and didn’t fit into one of Ainsworth’s 3 types (eg cry first time mother leaves but not second)
L: suggests the study was unsuccessful at classifying all infants
P: suffered demand characteristics
E: mothers knew they were being observed so may have acted unnaturally
E: may have behaved more sensitively towards their child than usual, causing the infant to behave differently too
L: lowers internal validity of the research into attachment types
