week 3: strange situation

week 3: strange situation

1. SS in 1970's, viewed as gold standard and main method of testing attachments, now new methods are compared to it, standardised assessment (timings/order), modified for certain groups (autism, adoption, cultural)

2. universality hypothesis - all children will form an attachment to one caregiver except in the most extreme case.

3. Romanian orphans even selected a caregiver in instituions, instituionalised children are more disorganised than children from the normal community, in extreme cases the children are 'unclassifiable' and formed no attachment

4. nomativity hypothesis = a majority of children will be secure across cultures, rates of insecurity vary across cultures, Great Britian = secure, German = avoidant, (VAN IJZENDOORN AND KROONENBERG 1988

5. SS ethical? causing children distress, watching and manipulating it. researchers not to purposefully cause distress & to cut the session shorter if children distressed. HOWEVER, some researchers stuck to the timings no matter what

6. SS only a snapshot of parent-child rels? child is 9 motnhs therefore, rels has built up and is established, Ainsworth measured A, B, C chldren at home and demonstrated a replication of the findings - cannot view the complexity of an attachment rels.

7. inadequate across cultures? German children having higher independence suggested to be a cohort effect, within cultural variation is greater than between culture. differences in how the procedure was applied in diff cultures, training the researchers might account for differences- level of reliability may not be adequate

8. some infants might find the situ more stressful than others- differences in temperament, adverse reactions to separation, some may be attune to sepation (daycare) and welcome strangers

   • however, they would be classified as avoidant for not reacting. LAMB ET AL 'An appraisal of behaviour based on observation in diverse contexts is likely to be more reliable and more valid than assessment in any single context'

9. only highly trained coders can use the procedure after extensive training - labour intensive and expensive. limits the amount of people who are SS trained. Alternate = Attachment Q sort = more accessible. SS= 9-20 months, the older the child gets the more it will remember/know what is coming (as we repeat the test on them) and they will become ditressed

   • ATTACHMENT Q-SORT, WATERS AND DEANE 1995, experts create assumptions about secure/insecure behaviour, expert determined statements - cross cultural similarity in descriptions of the 'secure child'
     • higher ecological validity and cross-cultural usefulness, watch child for 3 hrs at home and sort which cards match behaviour, mother ratings = less accurate> observers
       • continous scores> categories = the EXTENT to which a child is securely attached,

10. California Attachment Proceudre, Clarke-Stewart 2001. focusws on the activation of the attachment system, Criticism of Q sort- children are not distressed and therefore cannot display attachment,

    • 3 episodes 1. MYSTERIOUS LOUD NOISE (3 MINS) 2. WIZARD (6 MINS) 3. MECHANICAL ROBOT (3MINS)
      • CAREGIVER IS PRESENT THROUGHOUT- more sensitive measure for children who are accustomed to separation, uses the SS categories