Aim Ainsworth (1969) The Strange Situation
Mary Ainsworth (1969) developed the Strange Situation as a method to assess the quality of a child’s attachment to a caregiver.
It is a controlled observation procedure in a lab (controlled environment) with a two-way mirror through which psychologists can observe an infant’s behaviour.
Procedure (categories)
Ainsworth (1969) The Strange Situation
Five categories are used to judge attachment quality:
Procedure (episodes)
Ainsworth (1969) The Strange Situation
The procedure has seven ‘episodes’, each lasting three minutes.
Findings and Conclusions
Ainsworth (1969) The Strange Situation
Ainsworth found distinct patterns in the way infants behaved. She identified three main types of attachment.
Secure Attachment (Type B: 60-75% of British toddlers):
Insecure-Avoidant Attachment (Type A: 20-25% of British toddlers):
Insecure-Resistant Attachment (Type C: 3% of British toddlers):
What are the strengths of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation?
What are the weaknesses of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation?
Why is there being predictive validity of attachment types a strength?
Attachment type predicts later development. For example, secure babies typically have greater success at school and more lasting romantic relationships.
In contrast, insecure-resistant attachment is associated with the worst outcomes, e.g. bullying (Kokkinos 2007) and adult mental health problems (Ward et al. 2006).
This is evidence for the validity of the concept because it can explain future outcomes.
Why is the Strange Situation showing very good inter-rater reliability a strength?
Different observers watching the same children generally agree on attachment type. Bick et al. (2012) found 94% agreement in one team.
This may be because the Strange Situation takes place under controlled conditions and because the behavioural categories are easy to observe.
So we can be confident that the attachment type of an infant identified in the Strange Situation does not just depend on who is observing them.
Why is it being a culture-bound test a weakness?
The test might not have the same meaning in countries outside Western Europe and the USA. Cultural differences in children’s experiences mean they respond differently. Also caregivers from different cultures behave differently.
Takahashi (1990) notes that Japanese mothers are rarely separated from infants, thus the infants show high levels of separation anxiety. This means the study lacks generalisability.
Why is temperament being a confounding variable a weakness?
Ainsworth assumed that the main influence on separation and stranger anxiety was the quality of the attachment.
But Kagan (1982) suggests that temperament (the child’s genetically influenced personality) is a more important influence on behaviour in the Strange Situation.
This challenges the validity of the Strange Situation because its intention is to measure the quality of attachment, not the temperament of the child (i.e. a confounding variable).
Why is there being other attachment types a weakness?
Ainsworth identified three attachment types: insecure-avoidant, secure, and insecure-resistant.
Main and Soloman (1986) pointed out that some children display atypical attachments that do not fit these types. This is disorganised attachment - a mix of avoidant and resistant behaviours. This challenges Ainsworth’s initial notion of attachment types and could question whether the Strange Situation is a useful method to identify these types.
What is secure attachment?
Generally thought of as the most desirable attachment type, associated with psychologically healthy outcomes. In the Strange Situation, this is shown by moderate stranger and separation anxiety and ease of comfort at reunion.
What is insecure-avoidant attachment?
An attachment type characterised by low anxiety but weak attachment. In the Strange Situation, this is shown by low stranger and separation anxiety and little response to reunion - an avoidance of the caregiver.
What is insecure-resistant attachment?
An attachment type characterised by strong attachment and high anxiety. In the Strange Situation, this is shown by high levels of stranger and separation anxiety and by resistance to be comforted at reunion.
Procedure
van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) Meta-Analysis
The researchers looked at the proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant attachments across a range of countries. They also looked at the differences within the same countries to get an idea of variations within a culture.
They found 32 studies of attachment where the Strange Situation had been used. These were conducted in eight countries, 15 in the USA. Overall the studies yielded results for 1,990 children.
The data were meta-analysed, results being combined and weighted for sample size.
Findings and Conclusions
van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) Meta-Analysis
Secure attachment was the most common classification in all countries, but ranged from 50% in China to 75% in Britain.
In individualist cultures rates of insecure-resistant attachment were similar to Ainsworth’s original sample (all under 14%) but this was not true for the collectivist samples from China, Japan and Israel where rates were above 25% (and where rates of insecure-avoidant attachment were reduced). This suggests that there were cultural differences in the distribution of insecure attachment.
Variations between results of studies within the same country were actually 150% greater than those between countries. In the USA, one study found 46% securely attached compared to one sample as high as 90%.
Germany had the highest percentage of insecure-avoidant attachment. The UK had the highest percentage of secure attachment. Israel has the highest percentage of insecure-resistant attachment.
Procedure
Simonelli et al. (2014) An Italian Key Study
These researchers assessed 76 12-month-olds using the Strange Situation to see whether the proportion of attachment types still matched previous studies in Italy.
Mothers were reasonably varied in terms of their education levels (57% university degree, 40% high school, 2% did not finish high school) and their professions (48% employees, 13% professionals, 39% did not work or worked part-time).
Findings and Conclusions
Simonelli et al. (2014) An Italian Key Study
Simonelli et al. found that 50% were secure, with 36% insecure-avoidant. This was a lower rate of secure attachment than found in previous studies.
The researchers suggested this was due to the increasing numbers of mothers working long hours and using professional childcare. Cultural changes can make dramatic differences in the patterns of attachment.
What are the strengths of the cultural variations in attachment?
What are the weaknesses of the cultural variations in attachment?
Why are the large samples a strength?
In van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis there was a total of nearly 2000 babies and their primary attachment figures.
Even Simonelli et al.’s study had large comparison groups from previous research, although their own samples were smaller.
This is a strength because large samples increase internal validity by reducing the impact of biased methodology or very unusual participants.
How may the samples not be representative of cultures?
van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis made comparisons between countries, not cultures. Within any country, there are different cultures each with different child-rearing practices. The fact that Kroonenberg found that there were 1.5 times greater variations within cultures than between cultures suggests that we need to avoid overfocusing on variations presented in this research.
For example, van Ijzendoorn and Sagi (2001) found attachment types in urban Tokyo in similar proportions to Western studies. A more rural sample over-represented insecure-resistant individuals.
This means that comparisons between countries (such as Italy or Korea) may have little meaning. The particular cultural characteristics (and thus caregiving styles) of the sample need to be specified.
Why is the Strange Situation method biased towards American/British culture?
The Strange Situation was designed by an American researcher (Ainsworth) based on a British theory (Bowlby). This theory and assessment may not be applicable to other cultures.
Trying to apply a theory or technique designed for one culture to another is known as imposed etic (etic means cultural universals) which disregards the notion of cultural emic (cultural uniqueness).
The idea that a lack of pleasure on reunion indicates insecure attachment is an imposed etic. In Germany, this behaviour might be seen more as independence than avoidance and not a sign of insecurity.
What alternative explanations are there for the similarities found between cultures?
Bowlby’s explanation for cultural similarities was that attachment is innate and universal so produces the same kind of behaviours all over the world.
van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg proposed an alternative possibility. They suggest that small cross-cultural differences may reflect the effects of the mass media.
Many books and TV programmes are broadcast around the world and create parenting norms, so similarities in child-rearing have become more common.