Ainsworth - strange situation Flashcards
What was the aim?
AIM - be able to observe key attachment behaviour as means of assessing the quality of child’s attachment to a caregiver.
What was the strange situation?
A controlled observation designed to test attachment security. → a way to systematically test the nature of attachment.
Designed to measure the security of attachment a child shows towards a caregiver
What was the procedure ?
- Controlled observation
- In a controlled lab 9x9 grid floor ( able to measure how far infants moved)
- Target age 12-18 mths
how was the data collected?
- Group of observers - reliability
a two way mirror which psychologists observed through - Record infants actions every 15 s
- Categories of behaviour listed and ranked on a scale of intensity 1-7
What were the behaviours measured ?
- proximity seeking
- exploration and secure based behaviour
- stranger anxiety
- separation anxiety
- response to reunion
What were the seven episodes ?
+ extra one
- Child is encouraged to explore
- A stranger comes in and tries to interact with the child
- Caregiver leaves child with stranger
- Caregiver returns and stranger leaves
- Caregiver leaves child alone
- Stranger returns
- Caregiver returns and is reunited with child
1) all enter the expiremental room
what do the seven episodes test?
- Exploration and security base
- Stranger anxiety - Stranger talks with mother / approaches baby
- Separation and stranger anxiety - stranger behaviour is geared to that of baby
- Tests reunion behaviour and exploration / secure base
( mother settles baby then leaves) - Separation anxiety
- Stranger anxiety
- Reunion behaviour
Findings
Similarities in behaviour
Exploratory decline from ep 2 onwards
Crying increased
Differences in behaviour
Observed three clusters of behaviour referred to as A/B/C to avoid labels
How many infants did she observe altogether?
106 middle class infants
whats the three attachment types?
- secure attachment (B)
- insecure - avoidant (A)
- insecure - resistant (C)
secure attachments
- children played happily and explored
- Regularly went back to caregiver (seeking proximity / base)
- Moderate separation / stranger anxiety
- Require and accept comfort from reunion stage - greeted her positively
- Mother showed sensitive support
insecure - avoidant
- Explore freely ( no orientation to adult)
- Do not seek proximity or show safe base behaviour
- Show little or no reaction when return / leaves → little effort to make contact
- Little stranger anxiety
- Do not require comfort at reunion stage
- Mother rejected / ignored infant
Insecure resistant
- Unconcerned with exploring
- Seek greater proximity so explore less
- Huge stranger / separation anxiety
- Resist comfort when reunited with parent
- Parent inconsistent
Strengths
Good inter-rater reliability
Different observers watch the same children - agree on what attachment type → as under controlled conditions / behavioural categories are easy to observe / distinguish
Research found that in a team of trained strange situation observers agreed on 94% of the attachment types for a group of infants.
Increases the confidence attachment types were classified was not just due to who was observing them and not individual biases exerted influence
Highly controlled - observational
Standardised procedures and clear behavioural categories
Standardised allows for systematic and consistent approach to studying attachment
- researchers have been able to replicate SS and compare results
Agreement held with Mary that there are 3 attachment types but overlooked a fourth —————————>
Real world application
Able to support infants who have disordered patterns of attachment. Circle security project
Aims to teach caregivers to understand infant’s signals
Limitation
Lacks ecological validity / methodological errors
Held in an environment not familiar like home
Observation is overt the mother knows so may show more sensitivity or demand characteristics
Other types of attachment - type 4
Main and Solomon - analysed the video types and proposed there was a type D - insecure disorganised
Lack consistent patterns of social behaviour and don’t have consistent attachment type
Not all children fit into 3 categories
LZJENDOORN ET AL
Through meta analysis of 80 studies found that 15% were this insecure disorganised
Culture bound
Developed in one culture - culture bound test → not valid in other cultures
E>g in some cultures infants are taught to be more independent or used to be cared for by many caregivers ( shows less anxiety) → would be misinterpreted in SS
As signs of insecure attachment
Cultural contexts need to be considered
The strange situation lacks validity
Questioning of whether it is measuring attachment at all
Kagan et all - suggests it is related to temperament than the relationship with attachment figure
Ainsworth neglected the role of other factors in eliciting the behaviours
SS only assessing anxiety not attachment
