Ainsworths “strange situation” Flashcards
1
Q
what were the range of behaviours that indicated attachment strength?
A
- proximity to the mother
- exploration/ safe base behaviour
- stranger anxiety
- separation anxiety
- reuinion response
- sensitive responsiveness of the mother to the infants needs
2
Q
what is the insecure avoidant attachment type (A)?
A
- keep distance from mum
- not using as secure base and explore freely
- low stranger anxiety
- low separation anxiety
- indifferent when mum returns not trying to gain comfort
- show little responsiveness to babies needs
3
Q
what is secure attachment type (B)?
A
- use mums as safe base to explore
- moderate stranger anxiety
- show separation anxiety
- happy reunion response= settle back to exploring quickly
- show sentive responsiveness
4
Q
what is insecure resistant attachment type(C)?
A
- don’t explore + clingy
- high stranger anxiety
- high separation anxiety
- when mum returns= mixed emotions
- crave and reject their attention
- mums inconsistent with sensitive responsiveness
5
Q
Ainsworth(1970-73): procedure
A
- 106 infants+mums in structured observation
- controlled lab setting for 3 mins
- 2 observed behind 1 way mirror recorded behaviour @ each stage
6
Q
Episode 1:
A
- experimenter inteoduces mother and baby to experimental room and leaves
7
Q
Episode 2:
A
- baby explores freely
- mother doesn’t interact
8
Q
Episode 3:
A
- stranger enters
- silent
- talks to mum
- approaches baby
9
Q
Episode 4:
A
- first separation episode
- stranger interacts w baby
10
Q
Episode 5:
A
- first reuinion epsiode
- mother greets and/or comforts baby
- tries to settle to play
- mother leaves
11
Q
Episode 6:
A
- second separation episode
- baby alone
12
Q
Episode 7:
A
- second separation continues
- stranger re enters
13
Q
Episode 8:
A
- second reunion episode
- mum enters
- stranger leaves
14
Q
Ainsworth (1970-73): Findings
A
- found 3 attachment types that correlated with sensitive responsiveness of the mother
- 66%= secure
- 22%= insecure avoidant
- 12%= insecure resistant
15
Q
Evaluting the strange situation: strength, standardised procedure
A
- high controlled lab experiment
- standardised procedure
- clear behavioural categories
- systematic and consistent approach at studying attachment
- able to replicate study
16
Q
Evaluating the strange situation: strength, predictive validity
A
- attachment styles identified have predictive validity
- secure= better social, emotional, academic outcomes in child and adult hood
17
Q
Evaluating the strange situation: strength, mccarthys research
A
- studies 40 women assessed using the strange situtation as children
- those with secure long lasting adult friendships= securely attached
18
Q
Evaluating the strange situation: limitation, culture-bound test
A
- not applicable in other cultures
- imposed etic= apply their own cultural standards to every culture
- other cultures kids more independent or have many caregivers
- could be misinterpreted as insecure attachment
19
Q
Evaluating the strange situation: limitation, lack ecological validity
A
- highly artificial
- lack ecological validity as done in lab
- mum knows behaviour is being monitored
- shows more sensitive responsiveness bc of demand characteristics
20
Q
Evaluating the strange situation: limitations, may not measure attachment but temperament
A
- Kagans temperament hypothesis= kids inherit high or low reactive temperament
- high= distressed babies
- low= low distress
- biological explanation explains varying infant behaviour
- mums behaviour also explained= struggle to interact w highly reactive babies
21
Q
ljenzdoorn’s (1988): procedure
A
- meta analysed 2000 infants from 32 studies from 8 countries
- classified babies and mums using strange situation
22
Q
ljzendoorn’s findings: general patterns
A
- secure attchment= most common in all countries
- insecure resistant= least common
- avoidant= more common in individualistic western cultures
- resistant= more common in collectivist non- western countries
- more variation within countries than between
23
Q
ljzendoorn’s findings: individual
A
- germany= most insecure avoidant 35%
- japan= most insecure resistant 27%
- china= least secure 50%
- Uk= avoidant 22%
- Uk= secure 75%
- Uk= resistant 3%
24
Q
what does ljzendoorn’s research suggest?
A
- secure most common in all countries
- potentially has a biological basis
- variations parenting style could explain
- Germany: parents encourage non clingy behaviour, little distress= avoidant
- Japen: spend lots of time with infants= extreme resistant reactions to separations
25
evaluating ljzendoorn: limitations, lack temporal validity
- Simonelli (2014) measured attachment using the strange situation in modern italy
- compared to historical italian families= lower secure and high resistant
- change to health coping mechanisms due to demands of modern life
- adjusting to frequent absent mother
26
evaluating ljzendoorn: strength, secure most common for all countries
- secure most dominant for all countries
- evidence for bowlbys theory
- biological drive to parent in a way that produces secure attachments
27
evaluating ljzendoorn: limitation, lack representativeness
- most studies represented only had 1 study w small sample
- sample not representative of country’s population
- cultures infants aren’t homogenous
- bc more variation found within countries than between countries
28
Evaluting ljzendoorn: strength, meta analysis included large sample
- large sample used in meta analysis
- poorly done study or unusual results have small effect
- increase confidence on validity of overall findings
29
Evaluting ljzendoorn: limitation, ethnocentrism
- using the strang situation to assess attachment= ethnocentrism
- study may suffer cultural bias from UK and US
- these cultures viewed as superior “secure”
- more prominent attachment in other cultures= “insecure”
- taking an emic concept and imposing etic
concept to wider world
