Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation Flashcards
what were the aims of the study
To assess how infants aged 9-18 months behave under conditions of mild stress and novelty, to test:
Stranger anxiety
Separation anxiety
Reunion behaviour
The secure base concept
To assess individual differences between mother-infant pairs in terms of the quality of their attachments.
what does stranger anxiety mean
How distressed the infant became toward the stranger.
what is separation anxiety
How distressed the infant became when the mother left the room.
The most common way for children to act out their fears of separation is through tantrums and clinging.
what is the secure base concept
How willingly the infant explored the room using the mother as a safe base.
Good attachment enables a baby to feel confident to explore, using their caregiver as a secure base, i.e. a point of contact that will make them feel safe.
what is reunion behaviour
How the mother was greeted by the infant on her return to the room.
what is proximity seeking
The way that infants try to maintain physical contact or be close to their attachment figure.
what was the procedure
106 American infants (9-18 months) were observed.
The research room was a novel environment - a 9x9 foot space, often marked off into 16 squares to help record infant’s movements.
The Strange Situation comprised 8 episodes, each designed to highlight certain behaviours. Each episode lasted for three minutes.
The caregiver and stranger alternately stayed with the infant or left, which enabled observation of the infant’s response to:
Response to a stranger (Stranger Anxiety)
Separation from the caregiver (Separation Anxiety)
The novel environment, which aims to encourage exploration (the Secure Base concept)
Reunion with the caregiver (Reunion Behaviour)
How long did each episode last
Each episode lasted for 3 minutes
Observers recorded behaviour using the following behavioural categories:
Proximity and contact-seeking behaviours
Contact-maintaining behaviours
Proximity and interaction-avoiding behaviours
Contact and interaction-resisting behaviours
Search behaviours
Behaviour was also scored on an intensity scale of 1-7.
how many secs was the infants recorded at/ what is this an example of
Observers recorded what the infant was doing every 15 seconds.
This is an example of time sampling: an observer records behaviour at prescribed intervals.
what were the conclusions of the study
There are significant individual differences between infants, which can be represented using three broad categories/types.
Sensitive responsiveness is the major factor determining the quality of attachments, as sensitive mothers correctly interpret infants’ signals and respond appropriately to their needs.
Sensitive mothers tend to have securely-attached infants, whereas insensitive mothers tend to have insecurely-attached infants.
High inter-rater/observer reliability (consistency between observers)
Bick et al. (2012) found a strong level of agreement (0.94) between trained observers when assessing attachment types using the Strange Situation.
There is research evidence to support the Strange Situation Classification (SSC).
- Wartner et al. (1994) found that 78% of children were classified in the same way at ages 1 and 6 years.
- The fact that SSC is usually the same at different ages suggests that it is a reliable measure over time.
Ethical issues
Deliberate distress caused to infants in order to see their reactions – this could have caused psychological harm.
However, some argue that the stress caused was no greater than that of everyday experiences e.g. being left with an unfamiliar babysitter.
It could be argued that infants do not fit neatly into any one of the three attachment categories identified by Ainsworth. They might display behaviour that could relate to more than one attachment type
Main and Solomon (1986) identified a further group of children:
Insecure disorganised (Type D) - These children show inconsistent behaviour, confusion and indecision i.e. they show very strong attachment behaviour which is suddenly followed by avoidance or looking fearful towards their caregiver (a mixture of approach and avoidance behaviours).
This suggests that attachment types can be too restrictive
Low internal validity
The Strange Situation has been criticised for only measuring the quality of one particular relationship, as opposed to the attachment type of a child.
This is because Ainsworth only studied interactions between mothers and their infants, ignoring the role of other caregivers e.g. the father.
Main and Weston (1981) found that children behaved differently depending on which parent they were with e.g. children might be insecurely attached to their mothers, but securely attached to their fathers.
This suggests that the classification of an attachment type may not be valid because what we are measuring is the quality of one relationship rather than a personal characteristic
Issue of imposed etic
The procedure may be culture-bound in that it is specific to measuring attachment types in middle-class American infants, so may not be a valid measure in other cultures.
Therefore, the Strange Situation may not be suitable for use in all cultures as it might not have the same meaning - it contains elements unfamiliar to some cultures e.g. being left alone with strangers.
Lacks ecological validity
The study is an artificial way of assessing attachment, as it is lab based with mother and stranger acting to a ‘script’.
Brofenbrenner (1979) argued that infants’ attachment behaviour is much stronger in a lab than when at home because of the unfamiliarity of the environment
how did the mothers display demand characteristic
Mothers may have displayed ‘demand characteristics’.
They may have picked up on experimental cues and worked out that their behaviour was also being assessed. They may have been more attentive and responded more sensitively to their child’s needs than they would do normally.
what does the caregiver sensitivity hypothesis assume
The Caregiver Sensitivity Hypothesis assumes that sensitive responsiveness is the major factor determining the attachment type of the infant, as sensitive mothers correctly interpret infants’ signals and respond appropriately to their needs.
- Ainsworth’s research supports this as she found that sensitive mothers tend to have securely-attached infants, whereas insensitive mothers tend to have insecurely-attached infants.
However, attachment type may be explained by the Temperament Hypothesis as opposed to caregiver sensitivity.
It may be that certain innate personality/temperamental characteristics account for behaviour in the Strange Situation.
Perhaps some children are innately more vulnerable to stress, so each child will respond differently according to their innate temperament.
This does not support Ainsworth’s Caregiver Sensitivity Hypothesis, as it suggests that the infant’s behaviour is a greater indication of their temperament than how sensitively the caregiver responds to their needs
Ainsworth’s key findings: willingness to explore environment
Secure Attachment
(Type B): High – confident in exploring unfamiliar environment
Insecure-Avoidant
(Type A): High
Insecure-Resistant
(Type C): Low
Ainsworth’s key findings: stranger anxiety
Secure Attachment
(Type B): High
Insecure-Avoidant
(Type A): Low
Insecure-Resistant
(Type C): High
Ainsworth’s key findings: separation anxiety/protest
Secure Attachment
(Type B): Distressed, but often easy to soothe
Insecure-Avoidant
(Type A): Indifferent
(not concerned with mother’s absence)
Insecure-Resistant
(Type C): Intense Distress
Ainsworth’s key findings: Behaviour at reunion with caregiver
Secure Attachment
(Type B): Enthusiastic
- greeted mother positively on her return
Insecure-Avoidant
(Type A): Avoids contact
Insecure-Resistant
(Type C): Seeks and rejects
Ainsworth’s key findings: Caregiver’s behaviour
Secure Attachment
(Type B): Responds sensitively to child’s needs
Insecure-Avoidant
(Type A): Ignores infant
Insecure-Resistant
(Type C): Ambivalent
(sometimes responds to child’s needs - inconsistent
Ainsworth’s key findings: % of infants classified
Secure Attachment
(Type B): 66%
Insecure-Avoidant
(Type A): 22%
Insecure-Resistant
(Type C): 12%
