Ainsworth's Strange Situation

Question 1

Ainsworth’s strange situation- Method

Answer 1

• 4 behavioural categories- proximity to caregiver, separation anxiety, stranger anxiety, reunion behaviour.
• Mother and child enter the playroom.
• The child is encouraged to explore.
• Stranger enters and attempts to interact with the child.
• Mother leaves whilst the stranger is present.
• Mother enters and stranger leaves.
• Mother leaves.
• Strangers enters.
• Mother returns and interacts with child.

Question 2

Ainsworth’s strange situation- Secure attachment

Answer 2

• High willingness to explore.
• High stranger anxiety.
• Some separation anxiety, easy to soothe.
• Happy when caregiver returned.
• 66% of infants.

Question 3

Ainsworth’s strange situation- Insecure avoidant attachment

Answer 3

• High willingness to explore.
• Low stranger anxiety.
• Indifferent separation anxiety.
• Avoid contact when caregiver returns.
• 22% of children.

Question 4

Ainsworth’s strange situation- Insecure resistant attachment

Answer 4

• Low willingness to explore.
• High stranger anxiety.
• High separation anxiety.
• Seeks and then rejects caregiver when return.
• 12% of infants.

Question 5

Ainsworth’s strange situation evaluation- (strength) Highly controlled observation

Answer 5

• Highly controlled observation and high inter-rater reliability.
• Ev- Camera, procedure of comings and goings, same room and materials used.
• Ex- Strong causality- can show that there are 3 types of attachment, and multiple studies have found similar results (VIK). Also strong inter observer reliability due to behavioural categories being operationalised.
• However, there was a lack of ecological validity. Setting was fake, and unfamiliar to the infants and parents. The children may have acted differently in their own homes, so it lacks scientificness in a natural observational study.

Question 6

Ainsworth’s strange situation evaluation- (criticism) Unethical

Answer 6

• Strange situation is unethical.
• Ev- The infants were put under mild stress, through separation and stranger anxiety.
• Ex- Infants were distressed and some were unable to be soothed. This was evident in Takahashi’s study in Japan, where the parents withdraw their infants from the study due to the level of distress.
• However, Ainsworth argued that the stress was only mild and similar to what infants experience in everyday life. This may be true in individualistic cultures but not in collectivist cultures like japan where parents never separate from their children.

Question 7

Ainsworth’s strange situation evaluation- (support) Support for Bowlbys monotrophy theory

Answer 7

• Provided support for Bowlby’s monotrophy theory.
• Ev- Evidence for securely attached children having a secure base, and therefore willing to explore and having an internal working model of trusting others and feeling loved.
• Ex- Therefore, attachment has evolved as Bowlby suggested to ensure successful future relationships in order to pass on their genes successfully, through secure attachments.
• However, Ainsworth had a gender bias. Her sample was only mothers and ignored the role of fathers and any other caregivers. She then generalised it to all caregivers minimising the differences.

Question 8

Cultural variation in attachment- Van Izjendoorn and Kroonenberg

Answer 8

• Meta analysis of 32 students in 8 countries that used the strange situation.
  Results
• Secure- Highest is Great Britain. Lowest is China.
• Insecure avoidant- Highest is West Germany. Lowest is Japan.
• Insecure resistant- Highest is Israel. Lowest is Great Britain.

Question 9

Cultural variations in attachment evaluation- No cultural variation

Answer 9

• There is no cultural variations in secure attachments.
• Ev- VIK found secure attachments were the highest % across all 8 countries.
• Ex- Secure attachments are universal and hence innate (most common). Ainsworth’s strange situation can be generalised across the world.
• However, imposed etic- method was western (assumption of separation from caregiver). This is not the case in collectivist cultures.

Question 10

Cultural variations in attachment evaluation- Cultural variations between cultures in insecure attachments

Answer 10

• There are cultural variations between cultures in secure attachments.
• Ev- Ainsworth assumes insecure avoidant was the most common and insecure resistant the least. However, in individualistic most common is insecure avoidant but collectivist is insecure resistant.
• Ex- Therefore, strange situation doesn’t accurately measure insecure attachment types universally due to imposed etic, therefore strange situation made children appear insecure resistant.
• Further criticism is it supports the idea of Ainsworth’s strange situation is unethical to apply to collectivist cultures, due to the amount of distress caused in similar studies where parents withdrew infants.

Question 11

Cultural variations in attachment evaluation- Insecure attachments in individualistic cultures

Answer 11

• However, there were also cultural variations , in insecure attachments in individualistic cultures.
• Ev- Germany- high insecure avoidant compared to a lower range in all other individualistic cultures.
• Ex- Therefore, insecure attachments aren’t the same even within the same cultures. Whereas, Ainsworth’s strange situation assumes to be independent from parents is unhealthy.
• Therefore, the strange situation does have cultural biases. They should have used indigenous researchers within the cultures to design a method to measure attachment, to ensure a derived rather than imposed etic.