attachment Flashcards
reciprocity
A description of how two people interact. Mother-infant interaction is reciprocal in that both infant and mother respond to each other’s signals and each elicits a response from the other.
Interactional synchrony
Mother and infant reflect both the actions and emotions of the other and do this in a co-ordinated (synchronized) way.
What are the three features of attachment
Proximity with primary caregiver
The infant shows distress at separation from that person (separation anxiety)
This distress ends on reunion with the carer.
Fear of strangers and handling by other
people (stranger anxiety).
Secure-Base Behavior - Making regular contact with the ones your attached to. Infants when playing regularly return to their caregivers
What is type of experiment is used to caregiver - infant interaction?
observations are used to investigate caregiver- infant
interaction
Most use controlled observations
Infants are often not aware and don’t care that they are being observed-
What are the methodological issues with controlled observations?
Ethical issues- consent (mother consenting for herself and infant); distress if baby is
in an unfamiliar setting
HOWEVER
Good ecological validity despite controlled setting as babies may not realise they
are being observed
Supporting evidence for caregiver-infant interaction (2)
Feldmann (2007) From 3 months interaction increases and is more frequent- it involves close attention to each others verbal signals and facial expressions
Feldmann and Eidelmann (2007)
Mothers pick up on and respond to
infant alertness 2/3 of the time
Supporting evidence for reciprocity
Brazleton et al (1975)- the
interaction between caregiver and
infant is like a ‘dance’
Supporting evidence for Interactional synchrony
‘temporal co-ordination of micro-level
social behaviour’ Feldmann (2007)
Meltzoff and Moore (1977)
Still face experiment
Observed infants as young as 2 weeks old
Adult displayed 3 facial expressions/ distinctive gestures
Filmed by independent observers
Findings:
There was an association between the expression or gesture
the adult had displayed and the actions of the baby
The imitation was intentional
Conclusion:
Interactional synchrony is important for the development of
mother-infant attachment
Isabella et al (1989)
Observed 30 mothers and infants
Assessed their degree of synchrony and quality of
attachment
Findings:
High levels of synchrony were associated with better
quality mother-infant attachment
Evaluation for meltzoff and moore (1977) and Isabella et al (1989)
Both studies support the claim that babies make
meaningful social interactions with their carers and are
important for social development and caregiver- infant
attachment. Findings from these studies could be used to
advice working parents or those who thinking about
returning to work but are worried about the quality of
their attachments with their child/ren. Parents/ carers
can confidently return to work and be advised to
encourage interactional synchrony with their infant/s for
high quality attachments.
k
However there are methodological issues with Isabella et al and Meltzoff and Moore (1977) procedure. Gratier (2003) argues that what is being observed is not interactional synchrony but hand movements or changes in expression. This is a limitation as it is difficult to be certain that the infant is consciously imitating. We cannot really know that imitation has a special meaning as we are observing from an adult perspective. However, despite this limitation controlled observations are the most appropriate research method to investigate interactional synchrony/ mother- infant interaction.
However, there are methodological issues with Isabella et al and Meltzoff and Moore (1977) procedure.
Gratier(2003) argues that what is being observed is not interactional synchrony but hand movements or changes in expression. This is a limitation as it is difficult to be certain that the infant is consciously imitating. We cannot really know that imitation has a special meaning as we are observing from an adult perspective. However, despite this limitation controlled observations are the most appropriate research method to investigate interactional synchrony/ mother- infant interaction.
The strength of using a controlled observation to investigate caregiver-infant interaction is that both mother and infant are filmed from different angles.
The investigation is
able to capture fine detail of this
interaction which can be analysed later.
Additionally as the infants being used in
these investigation are so young they
are unaware that they are being
observed and likely to behave naturally.
This is a strength as the findings are
likely to have good validity.
Critics have claimed that the
interactional- synchrony explanation
of caregiver- infant interaction is
incomplete.
Fieldman (2012) points out that synchrony simply describes behaviour that occurs at the same time, however it is not useful in telling us its purpose. This makes the explanation limited and descriptive.
For a better understanding of caregiver- infant interactions, further research may need to be completed for us to fully understand the purpose of interactional synchrony.
what is attachment?
Attachment
Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
Majority of babies become attached to their mothers first (around 7 months)- primary attachment figures
Infants were more likely to form secondary attachments with their fathers
75% of infants formed an attachment with their father by the time they were 18months
Father attachment was less important Grossman (2002)
Longitudinal study looking at both parents behaviour and its relationship to the quality of children’s’ attachment into their teens.
Findings:
Quality of infant attachment with mothers was related to children’s attachment in adolescence
The quality of fathers play with infant was related to the quality of adolescent attachments
Conclusion:
Fathers have a different role in attachment- play and stimulation not nurturing
Tiffany Field (1978)
Filmed four month old babies in face to face interaction with
Primary caregiver mothers
Secondary caregiver fathers
Primary caregiver fathers
Findings:
Primary caregiver fathers, like mothers, spent more time smiling, imitating and holding infants than secondary caregiver fathers
Conclusion:
Fathers can be nurturing attachment figures
The key to attachment is the level of responsiveness and not the gender of the parent
Research into the role of the father is contradictory and
inconsistent,
Grossman (2002) found that fathers as attachment figures is less important and they have a different role in attachment- play and stimulation not nurturing. However, Field 1978 found that fathers can be nurturing attachment figures and that the key to attachment is the level of responsiveness and not the gender of the parent. Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that infants were more likely to form secondary attachments with their fathers by 18 months. These contradictory findings make it difficult to conclude the role of fathers in attachment, which not only limits our understanding but means that further research needs to be done to fully understand the role of fathers. This is necessary as conclusive research into the role of fathers could have an economic impact for individuals and society, it could lead to a change in social attitudes and policies around paternity leave. The government and many organisations have begun to recognise that fathers can be nurturers and the introduction of shared paternity leave in the UK supports this.
Most of the research into the role of fathers have included heterosexual males and couples,
this provides a limited view into the role of fathers as they ignore same sex couples and single parents. MacCallum and Golomobok (2004) found that children growing up in single or same-sex parents do not develop any differently than those form two parent heterosexual families. This is an important finding as it means that fathers as secondary attachment figures are not as significant as initially thought, which means that infants can develop healthy without this secondary attachment.
Explain the economic implication into the role of the father in attachment
Research into the role of fathers has far reaching implications for the economy due to its impact on
employments laws and policy. Showing the relative importance of fathers and their ability to play an equal
role of caregiver sensitivity and therefore welfare of children could impact the paternity laws. This
research has already influenced a shift towards shared parental leave and increased paternity leave for
new fathers.
This has implications for the employers in terms of paying for productivity which they are not seeing. In
addition parental leave is partially funded by both the employer and the government which has
implications for funding if both partners seek to take leave. The shared parental leave however is a double
edged sword, whilst it may reduce males in the workforce as they seek to take more leave when they have
children, this would allow mothers to take less leave and therefore return to work, allowing them to
resume contribution to the employer or in some cases parents may choose to divide the leave so each
works part time, which may mean less cover issues in some workforces.
Consequently the impact is likely to be one which levels the gender pay gap as parents seek more equality
in the workplace and childcare – taking equal advantage of the roles played by mothers and fathers or
taking joint primary attachment status.
Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
Procedure:
60 babies - 31 male, 29 female
all from glasgow majority from skilled working class families
babies and mothers visited
researchers asking mothers about the kind of protest their babies showed in 7 everyday separations eg parent leaving the room
Findings: Between 25-32 weeks 50% showed separation anxiety towards a particular adult, usually the mother (specific attachment)
Attachment tended to be with the person who was most interactive and sensitive to infant signal and facial expressions (reciprocity)
By 40 weeks 80% had specific
attachments and 30% displayed
multiple attachments
Conclusion: Responsiveness appeared to be the key to attachment Intensely attached infants had mothers who responded quickly to their demands and, interacted with their child Infants who were weakly attached had mothers who failed to interact
Schaffer and Emerson (1964
Their investigation had good external validity,
the study was carried out in the Ps home and most of the observation was done by the parents who reported to the researcher. This is a strength as the behaviour of the babies were unlikely to be affected by observer’s presence and behaved naturally. The high external validity of the study increased our confidence in the findings. []
Schaffer and Emerson (1964
Another methodological strength of their investigation was that it was carried our longitudinally, the same Ps were investigation over a long period of time.
This increased the internal validity of the research as there was no confounding variable of individual differences between Ps which would have affected the findings.
Schaffer and Emerson (1964
However, their investigation includes a limited sample of 60 babies from a similar social class, city and district,
which means it has low population validity. It was also conducted over 50 years ago and for this reason has low temporal validity. The investigation ignores cultural and social variation and historical period on child rearing practices, which makes it difficult to generalise the findings outside the research sample and conclusively claim that all infants develop attachment in the four stages identified by Schaffer and Emerson.
Schaffer and Emerson (1964
Lastly, although Schaffer and Emerson have reported that children can develop multiple attachments,
there is inconsistencies on when this occurs. Bowlby argues that most babies form one main attachment (before 2 ½ years) before multiple attachments, whilst Van Iljzendoorn found that babies form multiple attachments from the outset as multiple caregivers are the norm in some cultures. These inconsistencies limit our understanding into multiple attachments and require further investigation to clarify when babies become attached to multiple caregivers.
what are the 4 stages of attachments proposed by Schaffer and Emerson
Asocial attachment
Indiscriminate attachment
Specific attachment
Multiple attachments
Asocial attachment
0-6 Weeks
Very young infants are asocial in that many kinds of
stimuli, both social and non social, produce a
favourable reaction, such as a smile, Very few
produce protest.
Indiscriminate attachment
6 weeks to 7 months
Infants indiscriminately enjoy human company.
They get upset when an individual ceases to interact
with them. From 3 months smile more at familiar
faces and comforted easily be a regular care giver.
Specific attachment
Expresses protest when separated from one
particular individual.- primary attachment figure
They attempt to stay close to the person, and show
wariness of strangers.
Multiple attachments
Children begin to attach to others- secondary
attachment. By 18 months the majority of infants
have formed multiple attachments.
What are the problems of studying attachment through animals (3)
Generalising animal behaviour to human behaviour can be difficult- we are different!
We can not simply extrapolate findings from animal studies to humans as we have developed different and have different evolutionary explanations for our behaviour
Mammals and humans more closely related to humans.
Konrad Lorenz study on geese
procedure:
Divided a clutch of goose eggs
half the eggs were hatched with the mother in its natural environment]
The other half was hatched in an incubator where the first moving object they saw was Lorenz
Findings:
the incubator groups followed Lorenz everywhere the control group hatched in the presence of their mother . when the groups were mixed the control group continued to follow the mother and the experimental group followed Lorenz.
Conclusion:
called imprinting where a mobile bird species attach to and follow the first moving object they see. Lorenz identified a critical period. in which imprinting needs to take place. If imprinting doesnt take place a chick doesnt attach themselves to a mother figure
Sexual imprinting-
An animal’s process of figuring out its proper mate- mate preference
When birds sexually imprint on another
species, they will try to mate with
members of that group.
Lorenz found that when a bird sexually
imprints on a human, the bird will try to
mate with a human — but not the one
who raised it.
Imprinting is innate irreversible and permanent
Lorenz study limitation
Guiton et al (1966), disagrees with Lorenz
and has questioned some of his
observations. He argued that with
experience chick learnt to prefer mating
with other chickens despite imprinting on
yellow washing up gloves. This suggests
that the effects of imprinting are not as
permanent like Lorenz suggests.
There is an issue with extrapolating Lorenz’s findings from birds to humans
Humans are closer to mammals than birds and it seems that attachment in birds is quite different from humans. Mammals show more emotional attachment and are able to form attachments at any time unlike birds. For this reason, it is not appropriate to generalise Lorenz’s idea to humans. It would be more appropriate to investigate human attachment if it is safe and ethical to do so.
Harry Harlow’s research on baby monkeys (1958)
procedure:
Harlow (1958) tested the idea that a soft object serves some of the functions of a mother. In one experiment he reared 16 baby monkeys with two wire model ‘mothers’ In one condition milk was dispensed by the plain wire ‘mother’ and in the second by the cloth covered ‘mother’
Findings
Baby monkeys cuddled the soft object in preference to the wire one and sought comfort from the cloth one when frightened regardless of which dispensed milk. It showed that ‘contact comfort’ was more important to the monkey than food when it came to attachment behavior.
Harlow (1958) concluded
Harlow concluded there was a
critical period for normal
development
Mother had to be introduced to
mother within 90 days for an
attachment to form
After this time attachment was
impossible and damage caused
by deprivation was irreversible
Harlow followed monkeys
who had been deprived
of real mothers into
adulthood
The monkeys reared with wire monkeys were the most dysfunctional, aggressive, less sociable, bred less often and unskilled at mating
As mothers some
attacked , neglected and
even killed their young
Harlow’s findings have practical value.
His insight into animal attachment has important applications to a range of practical contexts such as helping social workers understand risk factors in child neglect and abuse. Additionally, Harlow’s research has implication for proper attachment figures for monkeys in zoos and breeding programmes in the wild.
Harlow’s research has been heavily criticized as being unethical.
It is clear that the monkey’s in his study were harmed psychologically as they were distressed and anxious; their suffering was presumably human-like. However the counter-argument to this is that Harlow’s research findings were sufficiently important and has furthered our understanding into the severe effects of neglect and the importance of attachment for healthy development.
Application of Lorenz and Harlow’s research imprinting
Orphan lambs
The fleece of another lamb who has died is wrapped around the orphan lamb
Mother of the lamb whose infant died will now look after the orphan lamb
Evolutionary theory
The tendency to form attachments is INNATE!
Tendency is present in both infants and mothers
Learning Theory
Infants have no INNATE tendency to form attachments
We are born a blank slate
They learn to become attached
What is classical conditioning?
Learning through association
Associating two stimuli so we begin to respond to one the way we respond to the other
What is Operant conditioning?
Learning through reinforcement
Learning to repeat or stop behaviour depending on its consequences or rewards
Unpleasant consequence- less likely to repeat behaviour
Pleasant consequence- more likely to repeat behaviour- behaviour has become reinforced
classical conditioning and attachment
Infant learns to associate the mother with food, and with a sense of pleasure
Infant learns to associate the mother with food, and with a sense of pleasure Food unconditioned stimulus
Being fed gives us pleasure- not learnt, its an unconditioned response
Caregiver neutral stimulus- produces a neutral response from infant
When same person provides food overtime they become associated with food, when the baby sees this person they immediately expect food
Neutral stimulus (mum) becomes conditioned stimulus =conditioned response (pleasure when they see caregiver)-
conditioning has taken place
Operant conditioning and attachment
Explains why babies cry for comfort- important behaviour in building attachment
Crying leads to a response from caregiver- feeding/ correct response
Crying is reinforced
Reinforcement is a two- way process:
Baby- crying gets a response so is repeated
Caregiver (negative reinforcement because crying stops) escaping crying/ baby stops crying is reinforcing
attachment as a secondary drive
Attachment is a conditioned behaviour
Hunger is a primary drive (innate, biological motivator- motivated to eat to reduce hunger)
Sears et al (1957) suggested that
as caregivers provide food, primary drive becomes
generalised to them.
Attachment is a secondary drive learned by
association between caregiver and the satisfaction of primary drive
There is counter-evidence for the learning theory of attachment from animal and human research into attachment.
Lorenz found that geese imprinted before they were feed; Harlow found that monkeys attached to the soft surrogate; Schaffer and Emerson found that infants formed primary attachment with mother, even if they did not feed them. These studies are a problem for the learning theory as they show that feeding is not a key element to attachment; the learning theory cannot explain why attachments. This invalidates the learning theory of attachment and highlight that it may not be a reliable theory. Therefore we cannot confidently rely on its claims and must acknowledge that there is an alternative explanation for attachment.
The learning theory ignores other factors associated with learning attachments.
Research into care-giver infant interaction have highlighted the importance of interactional synchrony, Meltzoff and Moore 1977); Isabella et al (1989), and reciprocity Brazelton et al (1975), for developing attachments. These studies contradict the learning theory, they demonstrate that attachments are more complex than the theory suggest, acknowledging that food is not as important in the formation of attachments. This invalidates the learning theory of attachments and suggests that it is limited.
Behaviour and physical characteristics
change and evolve with each
generation- we become adapted to
our environment
Any trait/ characteristic/ behaviour
which:
Increases survival or
Increases chances of
reproductive success
Increases survival of offspring
is naturally selected and is passed on
to offspring
Monotropic
mono = ONE
indicates one particular attachment is different from all others and of central importance to the child’s development.
Internal working models
The mental representations that we all carry with us of our attachment to our primary caregiver.
They are important in affecting our future relationships because they carry our perception of what relationships are like.
Critical period
The time within which an attachment must form if ir is to form at all.
John Bowlby looked at the work or
Lorenz and Harlow and concluded:
Attachment is biologically
pre-programmed into children at
birth (innate)
Attachment is important for
survival. The parent provides an
emotional safe base.
The determinant of attachment is not food, but care and responsiveness of the parent to the infant’s emotional need to feel secure.
Explanations of Bowlby’s monotropic theory
Bowlby believed that infants form
one very special attachment with
their mother/ mother substitute
More time spent with mother/
mother figure the better
Once this monotropic attachment
has formed a child could form
multiple attachments
Law of continuity:
the more constant and predictable a child care the better quality of their attachment
Law of accumulated
separation:
the effects of separation from the mother adds up- ‘the safest does is zero dose’
Explanations of Bowlby’s Mono-tropic theory
Babies are born with innate cute
behaviors- social releasers
Social releasers activate the encourage
attention from adults and activate the
attachment system
Attachment is innate and reciprocal-
social releasers trigger response in
caregiver
An attachment is formed with the
person who responds most
sensitively to the infants social
releasers
There is a critical period around two
years when the infant attachment
system is active
Sensitive period-
a child is maximally sensitive at age two – an attachment must form within this time or the child will
find it harder to form one later
Key points of Bowlby’s Monotropic theory of Attachment (5)
Attachment is innate- biological drive to form
attachments
Social releasers from infant elicit caregiving
behaviour
Infant forms attachment with one primary
attachment figure- monotropy
Attachment must form in the critical period or it
will be harder to form one later
The attachment between infant and care giver
forms a foundation for future relationships-
internal working model
Discuss one social/ economic implication of Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment for mothers.
Bowlby’s WHO report in the 1950s was taken to suggest that babies needed the constant care of the mother for healthy psychological development. This led to ‘stay at home’ mothering.
Later evidence has shown that good substitute care childcare either in nurseries or by other family members eg father does not have a detrimental effect on social development.
As an example, then, this means that mother can happily return to work after having a child, remaining economically active.
There is evidence to support the role of social releasers in attachment and its importance in social interaction between infant and caregiver.
Brazleton et al (1975) observed mothers and babies during their interactions reporting the existence of interactional synchrony; the study was extended from an observation to an experiment. Primary caregivers were instructed to ignore their babies signals/ social releasers. They found that babies showed distress and some babies responded by curling up and laying motionless when they were ignored. Bailey et al (2007) found that the mothers who reported poor attachments to their own parents in the interviews were more likely to have children classified as poor according to the observation. These studies support and validates Bowlby’s claims about the importance of social releasers in eliciting caregiving/ developing attachment and that internal working model of attachments are passed through families. It also furthers our understanding into how attachments form.
Bowlby’s monotropic theory is controversial and has implications for the choices mothers make when their children are young
The law of accumulated separation and theory of monotropy may worry some working mothers and could effect whether or not they return to work; it places a burden on mother and blames them if anything goes wrong in the child’s life. Whilst this may not have been Bowlby’s intention, the sensitive nature of his research has had implications on social policy, including the Government at the time not funding childcare for working mothers and has reinforced discriminatory social attitudes towards working mothers.
There is opposing evidence against Bowlby’s monotropic attachment- babies can only form one attachment to a primary caregiver, only after this has formed could they form multiple attachments.
Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that babies did not attach to one person first, this was developed around 10 months. This contradictory evidence invalidate Bowlby’s monotropic theory and limits our understanding into when babies form attachment
Name the 5 behaviors used to judge attachment in the strange situation
proximity seeking exploration and secure base behaviour stranger anxiety seperation anxiety response to reunion
Name the 7 episodes which each last 3 minutes in the strange situation
Child and caregiver enter a unfamiliar playroom
- The child is encouraged to explore - tests exploration and secure-base
- The stranger comes in and tries to interact with the child - tests stranger anxiety
- The caregiver leaves the child and stranger together - Tests separation anxiety and stranger anxiety
- The caregiver returns and the stranger leaves - Tests reunion behavior and exploration secure-base
- The caregiver leaves the child alone - Tests separation anxiety
- The stranger returns - Tests stranger anxiety
- The caregiver returns and is reunited with the child - tests reunion behavior
Name the 3 main types of attachment identified by Ainsworth
Insecure-avoidant attachment - TYPE A
Secure attachment - TYPE B
Insecure-Resistant attachment - TYPE C
Insecure-avoidant attachment - TYPE A
These children explore freely but do not seek proximity or secure-base.
They show little or no reaction when their caregiver leaves and they make little effort to make contact when the caregiver returns.
They show little stranger anxiety
Do not require comfort at the reunion stage.
20-25% of Infants
Secure attachment - TYPE B
These children explore happily but regularly go back to their caregiver.
They usually show moderate separation distress and stranger anxiety.
Require and accept comfort from the caregiver in the reunion stage.
60-75% of infants
Insecure-Resistant attachment - TYPE C
Seek greater proximity than others and so explore less.
They show huge stranger anxiety and separation distress.
Resist comfort from the caregiver at the reunion stage
3% of British toddlers
What is the strange situation?
A controlled observation designed to test attachment security. Infants are assessed on their response to playing in an unfamiliar room, being left alone, left with a stranger and being reunited with a caregiver
The strange situation conclusion
Majority of infants observed were securely attached
There are significant individual differences between infants
Caregiver sensitivity hypothesis- Differences in attachment type is based on sensitivity of mother.
Outline Ainsworth’s strange situation
Ainsworth used a ‘controlled observation’ to study infants and their caregivers in a situation that was new to them. She used a room with a one-way mirror through which the behaviour of the infant and the caregiver could be observed and recorded.
Time sampling was used at 15 second intervals and the intensity of the behaviour observed was scored on a scale of 1 to 7. The procedure involved seven episodes, each of which lasted three minutes involving interactions with the caregiver and a stranger e.g. being left and reunited. Observations about behaviour were categorised for the way the infant responded in these scenarios e.g. seeking proximity and contact. On the basis of the scores infants were categorised into types of attachment: Secure, Insecure avoidant, Insecure resistant depending on how they scored.
Kerns (1994)
Securely attached infants form best quality friendships
Insecurely attached have friendship issues
McCarthy (1990)
40 adult women who were assessed when they were infants to est. their attachment type.
Securely attached- best adult relationships and romantic relationships
Insecure- resistant- difficulties maintain relationships
Insecure avoidant- struggle with intimacy in romantic relationships
The attachment types identified in the Strange Situation has high predictive validity for later development/ relationships.
Babies assessed as securely attached go on to have better outcomes in many areas ranging from success at schools and adult relationships. Kerns (1994) found that Securely attached infants form best quality friendships, whilst Insecurely attached have friendship issues. McCarthy (1990) found that Securely attached- best adult relationships and romantic relationships; Insecure- resistant- difficulties maintain relationships and Insecure avoidant- struggle with intimacy in romantic relationships. This significant finding furthers our understanding about the importance of attachment types in adulthood.
Bick et al (2012)
Waters (1978)
Bick et al (2012) found 95% inter rater reliability rate for the Strange Situation.
Waters (1978) assessed 50 infants at 12 and at 18 months of age using the SS procedure. Waters found clear evidence for stable individual differences using Ainsworth’s behavior category data. The greatest consistency was seen in reunion behaviours after brief separations. 48 of the 50 infants observed were independently rated as being classified in the same category at 18 months.
The Strange Situation shows very good inter-rater reliability,
observers watching the same children in the Strange Situation generally agree on what attachment type to classify them with. Bick et al (2012) found an agreement on attachment type for 95% of tested babies. Waters found clear evidence for stable individual differences using Ainsworth’s behavior category data. The greatest consistency was seen in reunion behaviours after brief separations. 48 of the 50 infants observed were independently rated as being classified in the same category at 18 months. This means we can be confident that the attachment type of an infant identified in the Strange Situation does not depend on who is observing them.
A major methodological criticism of Ainsworth’s research is that the sample was restricted to 100 middle class Americans & their infants.
It could be argued that this is Eurocentric, so observations of non-Americans will judged according to American standards. Takahashi (1990) pointed out that in Japan mothers rarely leave their babies which explains why infants get very upset at the separation stage in The Strange Situation. Differences in upbringing are likely to account for different behaviour during the stages of the Strange Situation but to classify this as insecure attachment may be imposing western ideas on to non-western cultures.
Main and Solomon (1990) identified a 4th attachment type
disorganised attachment type found this in less than 4% of Ps. These infants have a mix of resistant and avoidant. These inconsistencies challenge Ainsworth’s original findings and limits its reliability.
