Attachment- Ainsworth strange situation and cultural variations Flashcards
Who were the participants in the SS
Infants aged 9-18 months
How many ‘situations’ were standardised for all infants are carers
7
How did the observer record the children
Through a one-way mirror using a camera
What type of sampling was used
Time sampling
How often was the infants behaviour recorded
Every 15 seconds
How was the behaviour rated
On a 7 point LIKERT scale
How many behavioural categories were the infants measured against
5
What were the 5 behavioural categories that infants were measured against
Proximity seeking → the infant’s eagerness to be near the caregiver;
Reunion behaviour → the infant’s reaction to a reunion with the caregiver;
Exploration and secure-base behaviour → the infant’s willingness to explore a novel environment, alone, with a caregiver or stranger;
Separation anxiety → the infant’s reaction to separation from the caregiver;
Stranger anxiety → the infant’s reaction to the presence of a stranger
What were the 7b situations and what behaviour were they measuring
Infant and caregiver are placed in a room with toys. The child is free to explore the room.
Use of caregiver as a secure base
A stranger enters, talks to the caregiver and attempts to play with child.
Stranger anxiety
The caregiver leaves child with stranger.
Separation anxiety
The caregiver re-enters, greets the infant and the stranger leaves.
Reunion behaviour
The caregiver leaves and the child is alone in the room.
Separation anxiety
The stranger re-enters the room and attempts to interact with the infant.
Stranger anxiety
The stranger leaves and the caregiver re-enters.
Reunion behaviour
What were the results from the SS
Secure → 70% of the sample
Insecure-Avoidant → 15% of the sample
Insecure-Resistant → 15% of the sample
What did Ainsworth suggest about the results
Ainsworth suggested that attachment types was determined by the primary carers’ behaviour. Each attachment type can be identified according to their behaviour on each PRESS factor.
What is type A
Insecure-avoidant
What is type As proximity seeking behaviour
Infant is indifferent towards caregiver & play is little affected by their presence or absence. (lack of proximity seeking and secure base behaviour)
What is type A’s reunion behaviour
Infant is unresponsive when caregiver returns.
(absence of reunion behaviours)
What is type A’s exploration and secure-base behaviour
Infant freely explores.
What is Type A’s separation anxiety behaviour
Separation anxiety: Infant is unconcerned by mother’s absence and avoidant of both caregiver and stranger equally. (no separation anxiety)
What is Type A’s stranger anxiety behaviour
Infant avoids stranger. (some stranger anxiety)
What is type B
Securely attached
What is type B’s proximity seeking behaviour
Infant will show toys to care giver and go to them during play. (proximity seeking)
What is type B’s reunion behaviour
Infant quickly calms when caregiver returns.
(positive reunion behaviour)
What is type B’s exploration and secure-base behaviour
Infant plays happily when caregiver is present. (secure base behaviour)
What is type B’s separation anxiety behaviour
Infant distressed when caregiver leaves. (separation anxiety)
What is type B’s stranger anxiety behaviour
Infant is avoidant of stranger, but friendly when caregiver present. (some stranger anxiety)
What is type C
Insecure-resistant
What is type C’s proximity seeking behaviour
Infant is upset, tearful and unwilling to explore even when caregiver present. (high proximity seeking and low secure base behaviour)
What is type C’s reunion behaviour
On caregiver’s return the infant shows a mixed reaction of clinginess & resistance where they may reach for caregiver and then push them away. (negative reunion behaviour)
What is type C’s exploration and secure-base behaviour
Limited exploration with caregiver and stranger.
What is Type C’s separation anxiety behaviour
Infant is very distressed when caregiver leaves.
(high separation anxiety)
What is type C’s stranger anxiety behaviour
Infant actively resists stranger’s attempts to comfort them. (high stranger anxiety)
Who added the fourth attachment type
Main and Soloman
What is the fourth attachment type
Insecure-disorganised
What type of behaviour does insecure-disorganised include
No consistent patterns of social behaviour;
Lack a coherent strategy for dealing with separation;
Show a combination of strong attachment behaviour and avoidance or fear.
Evaluation, reliability
- Ainsworth
A strength of Ainsworth’s procedure is that it is highly reliable due to a standardised procedure.
For example… (detail the evidence that shows the standardised procedure - e.g., 16 square room / 3 minute stages / clear manipulation over presence or absence of caregivers and strangers)
This suggests that… the study can be checked for consistent findings, improving the scientific reputation of Ainsworth’s study.
Evaluation, validity
- Ainsworth
In addition, the procedure shows high predictive validity.
For example… Hazan and Shaver (1987) published a love quiz questionnaire in a newspaper.
Securely attached children = happy, trusting love relationships in adulthood
Insecure avoidant children = typically feared intimacy
This shows that… Ainsworth’s attachment types can predict later relationships and could therefore have more practical applications.
Evaluation, ecological validity
- Ainsworth
It could be argued that the strange situation lacks ecological validity.
For instance… (explain how the situation is not realistic)
What’s more, although the infant is unlikely to show artificial behaviour, the parents behaviour is likely to be affected by social desirability bias, i.e., to imply they are fantastic parents.
This shows that… in some ways, the results of the strange situation lacks credibility.
Evaluation, ethics
- Ainsworth
Also, the ethics of the strange situation have been questioned.
For instance… some believe the procedure creates unnecessary distress on the infants, which in some cases was quite severe.
(Takashi - Japan - 90% had to be withdrawn due to distress)
This means that… there are mixed views on whether the situation is fully ethical, which could impact the reputation of the measure.
Evaluation, generalisability
- Ainsworth
It can be argued that the strange situation procedure is low in generalisability to other cultures.
For instance… SS method = US cultural norms on expected attachment behaviour and rearing techniques
What implications could this have when looking at other cultures results? Socially sensitive - could lead to racist judgements.
This shows that… the strange situation is likely to contain cultural bias and could therefore be considered ethnocentric.
What was Ijzendoorn’s aim
Using the Strange Situation, Van Ijzendoorn aimed to investigate whether attachment styles differ culturally.
To assess similarities and differences in the amount of type A, B and C attachments in separate samples.
What was Ijzendoorn procedure
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) conducted a meta-analysis of 32 different studies from 8 different countries that all used the Strange Situation technique to measure attachment.
How many different studies did Ijzendoorn look at
32 different studies from 8 different countries
Who had highest type A in Ijzendoorn’s study
Germany
35%
Who has highest type B in Ijzendoorns study
GB
75%
Who has highest type C in Ijzendoorn’s study
Japan and Israel
29%
Conclusions from Ijzendoorn’s study
In German culture, there is a greater emphasis on Type A attachments. This is possibly due to German emphasis on independence.
Type A was found more in Western cultures, whereas Type C was found more in Israel, China and Japan.
The data suggests that there are differences between cultures in attachment styles, which suggest parents raise their children differently across the world.
Despite variations with the insecure attachment styles, there are elements of consistency between cultures with SECURE attachment being the most common in all cultures (50-75%).
These finding supports the idea that secure attachment is ‘best’ for healthy development.
Evaluation, supports universal law
- Ijzendoorn
Research into cultural variations in attachment supports universal laws of behaviour to explaining attachment.
For example, Van Ijzendoorn found secure attachment to be the most common attachment type across all cultures they studied.
This suggests that Bowlby’s monotropic theory is correct as he viewed attachment to be innate.
The fact that Van Ijzendoorn found differing cultural norms had minimal impact on the popularity of type B (all countries averaged between 50-75%), suggests this could be hard wired.
Evaluation, reliability
- Ijzendoorn
The research into cultural variations in attachment can be considered high in reliability because it uses the Strange Situation procedure.
This is highly replicable because it uses standardised procedures. For example, as the observation has multiple standardised procedures like the 7x 3 minute episodes and manipulating the presence and absence of a caregiver, the study can be replicated with ease.
This means we can use the same procedure to check the consistency of findings such as Van Ijzendoorn.
Evaluation, validity
- Ijzendoorn
However, it could be argued that the findings of research into cultural variations in attachment lacks validity as it could be considered to be culturally biased.
In Van Ijzendoorn’s research the studies selected in the meta analysis are predominantly Western. For example, 18 studies from the US (making up 1230 of the 1990 participants) versus just 3 studies from the biggest continent in the world, Asia (only 121 participants). Additionally, there were no studies from the second biggest continent, Africa.
Therefore the findings of this research may not actually show meaningful differences and could be harmful in assuming Western ideas on attachment are best.
Evaluation, generalisability
- Ijzendoorn
In addition, it is hard to generalise the findings of the research to the whole culture being studied.
China only had a total of 25 infants in one study included in the data and this does not represent such a huge country.
In addition, Van Ijzendoorn found greater variation within cultures (1.5x greater variation between participants from the same culture) than actually between different cultures.
This suggests that forming conclusions on cross cultural differences in attachment types may be exceeding what the study actually found.
