Ainsworth's Strange Situation

Ainsworth's Strange Situation

1. Procedure

   • Lab with a two-way mirror, controlled observation
   • Assessed: proximity seeking, exploration and secure-base behaviour, stranger anxiety, separation anxiety, response to reunion
   • 1. Child encouraged to explore
     • Tests exploration and secure-base
   • 2. Stranger enters and tries to interact with child
     • Tests stranger anxiety
   • 3. Caregiver leaves and child + stranger stay
     • Tests stranger anxiety and separation anxiety
   • 4. Caregiver returns, stranger leaves
     • Tests reunion, exploration and secure-base
   • 5. Caregiver leaves child alone
     • Tests separation
   • 6. Stranger returns
     • Tests stranger
   • 7. Caregiver returns and is reunited with child
     • Tests reunion

2. Findings

   • Secure Attachment
     • Happily explore but regularly return
     • 60-75% of British toddlers
     • Usually show moderate separation anx and moderate stranger anx
     • Accept comfort in reunion stage
   • Insecure-avoidant Attachment
     • 20-25% of British toddlers
     • Explore freely but do not return to secure-base
     • Little care when the caregiver leaves and returns
     • Little stranger anx and don't require comfort in reunion stage
   • Insecure-resistant Attachment
     • 3% of British toddlers
     • Seek greater proximity then others so explore less
     • Large amounts of stranger/ separation anx
     • Resist comfort when caregiver returns

3. Evaluation

   • Secure babies go on to have good relationships etc but insecure-resistant bully (Kokkinos 2007) and have mental health problems (Ward 2006), good validity
   • Good inter-rater reliability as it has been done multiple times and agreed, Bick (2012) found that a trained Strange Situation group agreed on attachment type for 94% of babies tested
   • Takashi (1990) said that Japanese mothers and babies are rarely separated so you would expect high levels of stranger anxiety
   • Kagan (1982) suggested that the Strange Situation was more influenced by the temperament of the child rather than attachment, confounding variable
   • Solomon (1986) found a small minority of children displayed atypical attachments and this is known as disorganised attachment where they show a mix of resistant and avoidant behaviours