Attachment- Ainsworth strange situation and cultural variations

Question 1

Who were the participants in the SS

Answer 1

Infants aged 9-18 months

Question 2

How many ‘situations’ were standardised for all infants are carers

Answer 2

7

Question 3

How did the observer record the children

Answer 3

Through a one-way mirror using a camera

Question 4

What type of sampling was used

Answer 4

Time sampling

Question 5

How often was the infants behaviour recorded

Answer 5

Every 15 seconds

Question 6

How was the behaviour rated

Answer 6

On a 7 point LIKERT scale

Question 7

How many behavioural categories were the infants measured against

Answer 7

5

Question 8

What were the 5 behavioural categories that infants were measured against

Answer 8

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

Question 9

What were the 7b situations and what behaviour were they measuring

Answer 9

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

Question 10

What were the results from the SS

Answer 10

Secure → 70% of the sample
Insecure-Avoidant → 15% of the sample
Insecure-Resistant → 15% of the sample

Question 11

What did Ainsworth suggest about the results

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

What is type A

Answer 12

Insecure-avoidant

Question 13

What is type As proximity seeking behaviour

Answer 13

Infant is indifferent towards caregiver & play is little affected by their presence or absence. (lack of proximity seeking and secure base behaviour)

Question 14

What is type A’s reunion behaviour

Answer 14

Infant is unresponsive when caregiver returns.
(absence of reunion behaviours)

Question 15

What is type A’s exploration and secure-base behaviour

Answer 15

Infant freely explores.

Question 16

What is Type A’s separation anxiety behaviour

Answer 16

Separation anxiety: Infant is unconcerned by mother’s absence and avoidant of both caregiver and stranger equally. (no separation anxiety)

Question 17

What is Type A’s stranger anxiety behaviour

Answer 17

Infant avoids stranger. (some stranger anxiety)

Question 18

What is type B

Answer 18

Securely attached

Question 19

What is type B’s proximity seeking behaviour

Answer 19

Infant will show toys to care giver and go to them during play. (proximity seeking)

Question 20

What is type B’s reunion behaviour

Answer 20

Infant quickly calms when caregiver returns.
(positive reunion behaviour)

Question 21

What is type B’s exploration and secure-base behaviour

Answer 21

Infant plays happily when caregiver is present. (secure base behaviour)

Question 22

What is type B’s separation anxiety behaviour

Answer 22

Infant distressed when caregiver leaves. (separation anxiety)

Question 23

What is type B’s stranger anxiety behaviour

Answer 23

Infant is avoidant of stranger, but friendly when caregiver present. (some stranger anxiety)

Question 24

What is type C

Answer 24

Insecure-resistant

Question 25

What is type C’s proximity seeking behaviour

Answer 25

Infant is upset, tearful and unwilling to explore even when caregiver present. (high proximity seeking and low secure base behaviour)

Question 26

What is type C’s reunion behaviour

Answer 26

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)

Question 27

What is type C’s exploration and secure-base behaviour

Answer 27

Limited exploration with caregiver and stranger.

Question 28

What is Type C’s separation anxiety behaviour

Answer 28

Infant is very distressed when caregiver leaves.
(high separation anxiety)

Question 29

What is type C’s stranger anxiety behaviour

Answer 29

Infant actively resists stranger’s attempts to comfort them. (high stranger anxiety)

Question 30

Who added the fourth attachment type

Answer 30

Main and Soloman

Question 31

What is the fourth attachment type

Answer 31

Insecure-disorganised

Question 32

What type of behaviour does insecure-disorganised include

Answer 32

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.

Question 33

Evaluation, reliability
- Ainsworth

Answer 33

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.

Question 34

Evaluation, validity
- Ainsworth

Answer 34

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.

Question 35

Evaluation, ecological validity
- Ainsworth

Answer 35

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.

Question 36

Evaluation, ethics
- Ainsworth

Answer 36

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.

Question 37

Evaluation, generalisability
- Ainsworth

Answer 37

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.

Question 38

What was Ijzendoorn’s aim

Answer 38

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.

Question 39

What was Ijzendoorn procedure

Answer 39

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.

Question 40

How many different studies did Ijzendoorn look at

Answer 40

32 different studies from 8 different countries

Question 41

Who had highest type A in Ijzendoorn’s study

Answer 41

Germany
35%

Question 42

Who has highest type B in Ijzendoorns study

Answer 42

GB
75%

Question 43

Who has highest type C in Ijzendoorn’s study

Answer 43

Japan and Israel
29%

Question 44

Conclusions from Ijzendoorn’s study

Answer 44

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.

Question 45

Evaluation, supports universal law
- Ijzendoorn

Answer 45

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.

Question 46

Evaluation, reliability
- Ijzendoorn

Answer 46

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.

Question 47

Evaluation, validity
- Ijzendoorn

Answer 47

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.

Question 48

Evaluation, generalisability
- Ijzendoorn

Answer 48

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.