Ainsworth's Strange Situation

Question 1

What was the aim of Mary Ainsworth’s strange situation (1969) controlled observation?

Answer 1

The strange situation was developed by Ainsworth as a means of assessing the quality of a child’s attachment to the caregiver

Question 2

Describe the procedure of Mary Ainsworth’s Strange Situation controlled observation (1969)

Answer 2

• controlled observation procedure in a laboratory with a two-way mirror through which psychologists can observe the infant’s behaviour- infants were aged between 12 and 18 months and the sample compromised of 100 middle-class American families
• five categories used to judge quality attachment:
  1) proximity seeking (infant with good attachment will stay fairly close to the caregiver)
  2) exploration and secure-base behaviour (good attachment enables a child to feel confident enough to explore, using the caregiver as a secure base)
  3) stranger anxiety ( sign of becoming closely attached is a display of anxiety when a stranger approaches)
  4) separation anxiety (sign of becoming attached is to protest at separation from the caregiver)
  5) response to reunion with the caregiver after separation for a short period of time
• the procedure has 7 episodes each of which last about 3 minutes:
  🤖child is encouraged to explore by caregiver
  🤖 stranger enters and talks to parent
  🤖caregiver leaves
  🤖the caregiver returns and the stranger leaves
  🤖the caregiver leaves the child alone
  🤖 the stranger returns
  🤖the caregiver returns

Question 3

What were the findings and conclusions of Mary Ainsworth’s Strange Situation (1969)?

Answer 3

Ainsworth found that there were distinct patterns in the way infants behaved and she identified 3 main types of attachment:

• secure attachment (type B)
• insecure-avoidant attachment (type A)
• insecure-resistant attachment (type C)

60-75% secure attachment (generally thought of as the most desirable attachment type, associated with psychologically healthy outcomes):

• children happy to explore but seek proximity with the caregiver (secure base)
• show moderate separation anxiety and stranger anxiety
• require and accept comfort from caregiver on reunion

20-25% insecure avoidant:

• children explore freely but do not seek proximity (no secure base)
• show little/no separation anxiety or stranger anxiety
• do not require comfort at the reunion stage

3% insecure-resistant attachment

• children explore less and seek greater proximity
• show considerable stranger and separation anxiety
• resist comfort when reunited with carer

Question 4

What kind of caregiver is likely to have a securely attached infant?

Answer 4

When a caregiver is sensitive to their signals and respond appropriately to their needs

Question 5

What kind of caregiver is likely to have an insecure-avoidant child?

Answer 5

Likely to be insensitive and rejecting of their needs (Ainsworth 1979)

Question 6

What kind of caregiver is likely to have an insecure-resistant child?

Answer 6

Inconsistent in their response to the infant’s needs

Question 7

What are the evaluation points for Ainsworth’s Strange Situation controlled observation? (1969)

Answer 7

✅ there is support for the predictive validity of the strange situation- attachment type as defined by Strange Situation is strongly predictive of later development. Babies assessed as secure typically go onto to have better outcomes in many areas ranging from success at school to romantic relationships and adult friendships. In contrast, insecure-resistant attachment is associated with the worst outcomes including bullying in later childhood and adult mental health problems = evidence for the validity of the concept because it can explain future outcomes

✅ Strange Situation shows very good inter-rater reliability I.e. different observers watching the same children in the strange situation generally agree on what attachment type to classify them with. A recent study (Bick, 2012) found agreement on attachment type for 94% of tested babies for trained Strange Situation observers- this may be because the strange situation takes place under controlled conditions and because the behavioural categories are easy to observe = we can be confident that the attachment type of an infant identified in the strange situation does not just depend on who is observing them

❌ some doubt about whether the strange situation is a culture-bound test- the concern is that the test does not have the same meaning in countries outside Western Europe and USA; this is for 2 reasons: cultural differences in childhood experiences mean children respond differently to the strange situation. Also, caregivers from different cultures behave differently in strange situation. For example, Takahashi noted that the test doesn’t really work in Japan because mothers are rarely separated from their babies, meaning that they showed very high levels of separation anxiety consistently

❌ temperament may be a confounding variable- Ainsworth assumed that the main influence on separation and stranger anxiety was the quality of attachment. But it may seem possible that temperament however is a more important influence on behaviour in the strange situation; that is, the genetically influenced personality of the child = challenges the validity of the strange situation because its intention is to measure the quality of attachment, not to measure the temperament of the child, but this may be a confounding variable in the results

❌ Ainsworth may have missed at least one more attachment type- Main and Solomon pointed out that a minority of children display atypical attachments that do not fit within the types A, B or C, known as disorganised attachment, a mix of resistant and avoidant behaviours. Thus challenges Ainsworth’s notion of the initial attachment types and could question whether the strange situation alone is a useful method to identify different types of attachment