Strange Situation

Strange Situation

1. Attachment is a strong emotional bond between an infant and their caregiver. Attachment behaviour is ‘any form of behaviour that results in a person attaining or maintaining proximity to some other clearly identified individual who is conceived as better able to cope with the world. It is most obvious whenever the person is frightened, fatigued, or sick, and is assuaged by comforting and caregiving’ (Bowlby, 1982: 668).

2. Ainsworth was a student of Bowlby's. Bowlby - ethological theory of attachment (1958): Pre-attachment (0-2months) indiscriminate social responsiveness, Attachment in the making (1-6months) orientation to social stimuli directed towards one or more discriminated caregivers, clear-cut attachment (6-30months) maintenance of proximity to attachment figures, separation protest and wariness of strangers, Goal-corrected partnership (24-48months) insight into the caregiver’s feelings & goals leading to co-operative interaction & partnership. Bowlby stated that the role of the primary caregiver is to provide a safe haven in the event of a threat and a secure base from which to explore the environment. This formed the basis ofAinsworth’s work.

3. Earlier Studies

   • 26 Ugandan families with babies aged 1-24months for around 2 hours every fortnight for 9months. = identified different types of attachment: secure and insecure (1963, 1967). Securely: cried little and were happy to explore, and Insecurely: cried a lot and explored little. linked security of attachment to maternal sensitivity, as securely attached infants’ mothers were perceptive to nuances of infant behaviour.
   • 1971 & 1978: similar studies in Baltimore (children 4-54 weeks) collected narrative reports, marked in 5-minute intervals, and Analysed feeding, crying, face-to-face contact, exploration, obedience, bodily contact, and affectionate contact between the infant and the caregiver. She observed distinct individual differences in how sensitively, appropriately, and promptly mothers responded to infants’ signals and found that early maternal sensitivity was associated with more harmonious relationships in later weeks.

4. Evaluation

   • findings have helped provide empirical evidence for Bowlby’s attachment theory.
   • caregiver sensitivity theory supported by Wolff and Van Ijzendoorn (1997): Meta- analysis = correlation between parental sensitivity and attachment type (0.24) with more sensitive parents had securely attached children. However, in evaluation, critics of this theory argue that the correlation is only weak. This suggests that there are other reasons which may better explain why children develop different attachment types and that the maternal sensitivity theory places too much emphasis on the mother.
   • classifications identified = reliable & been replicated. Wartner et al (1994): Germany study = 78% of the children classified same way at 1 & 6 yrs.
   • highly artificial and therefore lacking in ecological validity (Lamb et al, 1985). only measures the child’s attachment to the mother when a child may have a different type of attachment to the father or grandparents (Lamb, 1977), making it lack validity as it only measure attachment style specific to the mother instead of a child’s general attachment. Different attachment behaviors on different occasions: attachments may change, perhaps because of changes in the child's circumstances, (mother becomes ill or the family circumstances change): issue with classifying a child’s attachment style based on a 20minute lab experiment - it lacks ecological validity.
   • ethicals: child is put under stress (separation and stranger anxiety), the study has broken the ethical guideline protection of participants. however, in its defence the separation episodes were curtailed prematurely if the child became too stressed. However - Marrone (1998): it is simulating everyday experiences, as mothers do leave their babies for brief periods of time in different settings and often with unfamiliar people (baby sitters)
   • Childcare: used to being left and would not find the separation distressing. Clarke-Stewart, Goossens & Allhusen (2001): children with experience in routine non-maternal care (child care) were classified as having a secure attachment in the California attachment procedure. Additionally they found that of the children in non-maternal care who were classified as insecure in the strange situation, 91% were classified as secure in the Califonia attachment procedure, whereas of the maternal-care children who were insecure in the strange situation, only 44% were secure in the California attachment procedure. They argue that attachment security in the California attachment procedure was more highly correlated with observed maternal sensitivity than was attachment security in the strange situation, particularly for children in nonmaternal care.
   • Sample: bias or culturally specific - hundered middle class American families = difficult to generalize outside of America and to working class families. Can be seen in Ainsworth’s Ugandan research: children in this study showed more distress at brief separations than US children, as Brief separations are rare in this culture. also evident in Japanese children as they are more likely to display resistant behaviour in the strange situation study (Rothbaum et al, 2000). Van Ljzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988) carried out a cross-cultural meta-analysis of the 2000 strange situation studies across 8 countries and found that secure attachment was the most common type in all cultures. Individualistic countries that support early independence had higher levels of avoidant attachment styles, whereas collectivist countries, such as Japan, had higher levels of ambivalent resistant styles. There was a greater variation within than between cultures. This highlights the ability to apply the strange si
   • age of the children, as the study doesn’t address attachment in older children.
     • Main and Cassidy (1988) found that in 84% of their sample infant attachment style was predictive of their attachment style in a 6years follow up. highlights effectiveness of the strange situation in predicting long-term attachment styles.

5. Procedure

   • 8 episodes: 1. mother & baby introduced to room containing toys, exploration behaviour in presences of mother is investigated. 2. baby explores. 3. Stranger enters room, baby’s reaction to the stranger in the presences of the mother is observed. 4. first separation episode (the mother leaving), the baby’s reaction to the separation is observed. 5. first reunion episode, baby’s reaction to the separation and reunion with the mother is observed. 6. the baby is left alone in the room (second separation episode) and its reaction to the mother’s absence is observed. 7. a stranger enters the room and the baby’s reaction to them in the mothers absence is observed. 8. the mother enters the room (second reunion episode) and the mother and baby’s reunion behaviour is observed.
   • Observers score the child’s behaviour on six 7-point rating scales on the frequency, intensity, and latency of specified behavioural components: Proximity and contact seeking, Maintenance of contact, Resistance to contact and comforting, Avoidance of proximity and contact, Search behaviour and Distance interaction.

6. Findings

   • Secure: happy to explore novel environments, upset by brief separations, but are easily comforted on mothers’ return. comprised the majority of the sample in Ainsworth’s (1971, 1978) studies, almost two-thirds. Such children feel confident that the attachment figure will be available to meet their needs. use attachment figure as a safe base to explore the environment and seek the attachment figure in times of distress (Main, & Cassidy, 1988). easily soothed by the attachment figure when upset. Infants develop a secure attachment when the caregiver is sensitive to their signals, and responds appropriately to their needs. This links back to Bowlby’s theory of attachment, as he stated that individuals who have experienced a secure attachment are ‘likely to possess a representational model of attachment figures(s) as being available, responsive, and helpful' (Bowlby, 1980, p. 242).
   • Insecure-avoidant: not upset by brief separation, but avoid and ignore mother on return. very independent of the attachment figure both physically and emotionally (Behrens, Hesse, & Main, 2007) and do not seek contact with the attachment figure when distressed. likely to have a caregiver who is insensitive and rejecting of their needs (Ainsworth, 1979): who may withdraw from helping during difficult tasks (Stevenson-Hinde, & Verschueren, 2002) and is often unavailable during times of emotional distress.
   • Insecure-resistant (sometimes ‘insecure-ambivalent): very upset by brief separation, and angry on mother’s return, seeking proximity, but also resisting it. adopt an ambivalent behavioral style towards the attachment figure. commonly exhibit clingy and dependent behavior, but will be rejecting of the attachment figure when they engage in interaction. fails to develop any feelings of security from the attachment figure. exhibit difficulty moving away from the attachment figure to explore novel surroundings. When distressed they are difficult to soothe and are not comforted by interaction with the attachment figure. results from an inconsistent level of response to their needs from the primary caregiver.
   • original classification system failed to represent the behaviour of children with known backgrounds of neglect or abuse. Main & Solomon (1986) therefore identified 4th category: Insecure-disorganised - seem disorganised/disorientated and apprehensive or fearful of their mother when she returns, by displaying anomalous movements or postures, freezing, and confusion in presence of parent. behaviours mirror the infant’s dilemma which is the inability to resolve stress and anxiety because the primary attachment figure is also the source of fear – ‘fright without solution’ (Hesse & Main, 2000).