ainsowrths stranger situation + types of attachments

Question 1

Outline ainsworth strange situation

Answer 1

•	devised in order observe key attachment behaviours to assess quality of child’s attachment. 
•	used to see how infants react to stressful situations e.g separation from the caregiver (separation anxiety) +  presence of stranger (stranger anxiety). 
•	aimed to encourage exploration by putting the infants into a novel situation. 
METHOD: observers watched behaviours displayed between infants + caregiver from behind one-way mirrors in a lab + collected data/15 s on various different criteria for 3 min, also measured the intensity of the behaviour on a scale of 1-7. 
TSS - consisted of 8 different episodes used to highlight/provoke certain behaviours. e.g, parent leaving the room, and stranger being presented and the parent returning. The data was then collated to make a total of 100 middle-class American infants.
FOUND: 60-75% of the children showed secure attachment, 20-25% insecure-avoidant and 3% ambivalent.

Question 2

Evaluate Ainsworth strange situation

Answer 2

EVAL
Imposed Etic: designed by American researcher + based on British study (BOWLBY) + so findings may not relate to other cultures. e.g, Ainsworth suggests lack of pleasure on reunion = insecure-avoidant BUT other cultures may suggest that behaviour shows a normal independent child. TISB GROSSMAN + GROSSMAN - German children tended to be classified at insecurely attached based on Ainsworth’s guidelines. TMBB different child rearing practices, indicating cultural variation TISB TAKAHASHI - noted the this does not work with Japanese children bc rarely separated from their mothers, .:. we would expect to see a higher % of Insecure-Resistant attachments. Based on BOWLBY, ∴ children will develop less stable adult relationships based on their attachment type + so AINSWORTH’s categories = potentially neg consequence for children in other cultures. BUT, ability to classify children into attachment types allows us to predict + prevent mental health issues in their future.
Follows a predetermined script ∴ high inter-rater reliability as behaviours where operationalized, TS TSS = reliable technique for assessing types of attachment, as different observers agree on their assessment of child attachment types. TISB WORTHER: found 78% of German children classified in the same way between the ages of 1-6. BUT, although it is a high %, still not 100%. TMBB LAMBS argument - claims TSS is highly artificial as child is placed in unfamiliar settings .:. may act differently than they would at home. ALSO, the scripts may not reflect how the mother would normally act around the child ∴ less externally valid as it lacks ecological validity.

Question 3

Strange situation IDA

Answer 3

Nomothetic → suggests all children can be characterised (based on their behaviour in TSS) into just 1/3 attachment types. BUT, later research suggests that some children do not fit into one of these categories (insecure–disorganised), ∴ idiographic approach may be more appropriate.

Question 4

outline VAN IZENDOORN + KROONENBERG

Answer 4

META ANALYSIS of studies from 8 countries
→ found highest % in insecure avoidant children: GERMANY
→ found highest % in insecure resistant (ambivalent) children: JAPAN
→ SECURE attachment = most common in all countries
→ Variations within cultures was greater than variations between cultures, TMBB differences in socio-economic factors and levels of stress that varied between samples used within each country.

Question 5

eval VAN IZENDOORN + KROONENBERG

Answer 5

Comparison is aided by standardised methodology. use of TSS as a procedure means that a comparison can be made across cultures, and ∴ reliability is therefore high

Not globally representative: V+K recognised data from less Western-oriented cultures were required to establish a more global perspective attachment classifications, pointing out that Africa, South America, + Eastern European socialist countries were not represented.

Overall findings are misleading - As a disproportionately high number of the studies reviewed were conducted in the USA (18/32), the overall findings would have been distorted by these. ∴ apparent consistency between cultures might not genuinely reflect how much attachment types vary between cultures.

Large sample size: incr. internal validity by reducing the impact on anomalies caused by bad methodology + individual diffs.

Question 6

Related research for cultural variations in attachment

Answer 6

McMAHON: used TSS to asses infant-mother attachments among Dogon people of Mali to compare w/ north American samples. Found kids raised w/ Dogon practices have higher levels of secure attachments + no insecure avoidant attachments. TS natural, traditional style of raising kids leads to secure attachments as levels of secure attachments where higher
HOWEVER
KYOUNG: used TSS to compare Korean + American families. Found Korean infants didn’t stay close to mom AND Korean moms more likely to play w/ infant when they got home BUT there was a similar proportion of securely attached kids, TS non-traditional child rearing can lead to secure attachments. EMPOSED ETIC: interpret non-American infant behaviour against American standard.

GROSSMAN + GROSSMAN: German children tended to be classified at insecurely attached based on Ainsworth’s guidelines. TMBB different child rearing practices, indicating cultural variation

Question 7

Cultural variation in attachment IDA

Answer 7

Secure attachments seem the norm in a wide variety of cultures, supporting BOWLBY’s idea that attachment is innate + universal HOWEVER research shows cultural practices can have an influence on attachment types. E.g, McMAHON: suggests nurture as sticking close to parent still developes a secure attachment. TS there is an interaction between the two