Attachment - SS Tool & Cultural Variations Flashcards
What is the strange situation tool?
-a tool to assess the strength/security of an attachment between an infant and a caregiver
What was Ainsworth’s method?
-controlled observation
How did Ainsworth measure the quality of an attachment?
Through the strange situation classification
What was Ainsworth’s sample?
100 middle class American infants and their mothers
How many variables did Ainsworth judge the child’s reaction to?
4
How did Ainsworth observe the children?
-through a 2 way mirror
What 4 behaviours did Ainsworth measure?
-willingness to explore the environment
-separation anxiety (how infant reacts when mother leaves)
-stranger anxiety (how infant reacts to being alone with a stranger)
-reunion behaviour (how the infant behaves when the mother returns)
How many episodes did Ainsworth have and how long was each?
-7 episodes, 3 minutes each
Describe the 7 episodes in Ainsworth’s procedure
1) CG enters room with child, child explores for 3 mins
2) stranger enters and joins the parent and infant and tries to interact with infant (measures stranger anxiety)
3) parent leaves the infant with the stranger (measures stranger and separation anxiety)
4) parent returns and stranger leaves, parent settles infant (reunions behaviour)
5) parent leaves child alone (separation anxiety)
6) stranger returns ( stranger anxiety)
7) parent returns and stranger leaves (reunion behaviour)
What did Mary Ainsworth find?
-3 types of attachment
Which 3 types of attachment did Ainsworth find and what % of each?
- secure -70% (of the sample of 100 middle class infants)
-insecure avoidant -20%
-insecure resistant- 10%
What type of caregiver do infants with a secure attachment have?
Responsive
What type of caregiver do infants with an insecure avoidant attachment have?
Unresponsive
What type of caregiver do infants with an insecure resistant attachment have?
Inconsistent
Were secure attachment infants willing to explore the environment?
Yes
Were insecure avoidant attachment infants willing to explore the environment?
Yes
Were insecure resistant attachment infants willing to explore the environment?
No
Did secure attachment infants have separation anxiety?
Yes, they were upset/subdued
Did insecure avoidant attachment infants have separation anxiety?
No, they were unconcerned
Did insecure resistant attachment infants have separation anxiety?
Yes, they were intensely distressed
Did secure attachment infants have stranger anxiety?
Yes, they were avoidant of strangers but were friendly when their mothers were present
Did insecure avoidant attachment infants have stranger anxiety?
No, they were avoidant of both mother and stranger
Did insecure resistant attachment infants have stranger anxiety?
Yes, they had extreme fear
How did secure attachment infants show reunion behaviour?
Positive/happy
How did insecure avoidant attachment infants show reunion behaviour?
Unresponsive when mother returned
How did insecure resistant attachment infants show reunion behaviour?
Clinginess mixed with rejection
Evaluate Ainsworth’s strange situation
-Van Izjendoorn- replicated and found consistent results
-lacks ecological validity (room with a two way mirror)
-criticised for imposed ethic- focuses on American child rearing practices
How does Van Izjendoorn and Kroonerberg’s research supports Ainsworth’s strange situation?
-replicated it in the USA
-found consistent results to Ainsworth
-65% were securely attached, 21% were insecure avoidant, 14% were insecure resistant
-supports secure is the most common attachment type so increases the validity
How does Ainsworth’s research lack ecological validity?
-controlled evt (room with a 2 way mirror)
-may not be appropriate generalise the findings to real life attachment types as infants may not behave the same as in their natural environment as they may be scared or explore the room less
-lowers external validity
How can the strange situation tool be criticised for imposed etic?
-based on American child rearing practices and ignores practices in other cultures
-e.g in Germany independence is encouraged so infants may show insecure avoidant attachment behaviours
-however this may be seen as desirable rather than insecure in this culture
-may not be appropriate to measure attachments in other cultures
Who conducted research into cultural variations in attachment?
Van Izjendoorn
What was the aim of Van Izjendoorn’s research?
-to investigate cross cultural variations in attachment
Describe Van Izjendoorn’s sample
32 studies of the strange situation from 8 countries using around 2000 children
What was the procedure/method in Van Izjendoorn’s research?
Meta analysis is the strange situation (controlled observation)
Create a summary table of the most/least common attachments types
Outline Van Izjendoorn’s findings
-secure attachment was the most common attachment type in all 8 countries
-insecure avoidant was the most dominant insecure type in western cultures
-insecure resistant was the most dominant insecure type in non western cultures (except china)
-there was a 150% greatest variation of attachments styles within a culture than between cultures
What was Van Izjendoorn’s conclusion of his research into cultural variations?
-there are cultural variations in attachment as insecure types were different
-although there must be similarities as secure attachment was the most common in all cultures
Evaluate cultural variations in attachment
-meta analysis- high population validity
-culture bias- over half conducted in the US
-criticised for imposed etic- based on American child rearing practices
How does Van Izjendoorn’s research have high population validity!
-meta analysis has a large sample of 2000 infants
-easier to generalise the findings that secure is the most common attachment style in all cultures to the rest of the target population
-increases the external validity
How does Van Izjendoorn’s research have culture bias?
-18 out if the 32 research studies were conducted in the US (individualistic western culture) and only 5 were conducted in collectivity (non western collectivist cultures)
-difficult to generalise the findings that secure was the most common attachment type accords all other cultures
-reduces the external validity
How can Van Izjendoorn’s research be criticised for imposed etic?
-based on American child rearing practices and ignores practices in other cultures (non American)
-e.g in Germany independence is encouraged so infants may show insecure avoidant behaviours in the SS but this may be seen as desirable within this culture
-SS may not be appropriate to measure attachment types across all cultures
