Ainsworth et al (1978) - The Strange Situation

• The Strange Situation procedure was used to make sense of the data Ainsworth had collected through her naturalistic observations and to create a valid method of measuring attachments.
• She was not attempting to measure the amount of attachment but the quality.

AIMS:

• To assess how infants between 9 - 18 months (the age Bowlby would expect children to be most fearful of separation and strangers) behave under conditions of mild stress and novelty, in order to test stranger anxiety, separation axniety and the secure base concept.
• To assess individual differences between mother-infant pairs in terms of the quality of their attachments.

METHOD:

• The ** comprised 8 episodes each lasting approx. 3 mins except episode 1 which lasted for 30 secs.
• Every aspect if participants behaviour was observed and videotaped, with most attention give to reunion behaviours, the infants responses to their mothers' return.

METHOD CONT.

• Data was combined from several studies.
• The testing room was an unfamiliar environment (hence the name of the test) comprising an 7.5 m sq area divided into 16 squares to help record movement.
• 5 categories were recorded:

1. Proximity and contact-seeking behaviours.

2. Contact maintaining behaviours.

3. Proximity and interaction-avoiding behaviours e.g. having nothing to do with the mother.

4. Contact and interaction-resisting behaviours e.g. pushing mother away.

5. Search behaviours.

• Every 15 secs the category of behaviour displayed was recorded and scored on an intensity scale of 1 to 7.

1.  Mother, Infant & Observer - observor introduces mother and infant to room and leaves.

2.  Mother & Infant - Mother is passive whilst infant explores.

3.  Stranger, Mother & Infant - Stranger enters. 1st min: stranger silent.  2nd min: stranger converses with mother.  3rd min: stranger approaches infant.  After 3rd min, mother leaves.

4.  Stranger & Infant - First separation episode.  Stranger's behaviour is geared towards that of the infant.

5.  Mother & Infant - First reunion episode.  Stranger leaves. Mother greets and / or comforts infant, then tries to engage infant in play again.  Mother then leaves saying bye-bye.

6.  Infant - Second separation episode.  Infant is alone.

7.  Stranger & Infant - Continuation of second separation.  Stranger enters and gears behaviour towards that of the infant.

8.  Mother & Infant - Second reunion episode.  Mother enters, greets and then picks up infant.  Stranger quietly leaves.

• Generally infants explored the playroom and toys more enthusastically when just the mother was present rather than after the stranger entered or the mother was absent.
• Reunion behaviours reflected 3 types of attachment:

Type A - Insecure-Avoidant:  21% of infants ignored their mother and were indifferent to her presence.  Level of play wasn't affected by the mother's presence or absence.  Infants displayed little stress when she left and ignored or avoided her when she returned.  Infants reacted to the mother and stranger in similar ways, showing most distress when left on their own.

Type B - Secure:  67% of infants played contentedly when their mother was present, whether or not a stranger was present, but we distressed when she left.  On her return they sought comfort from her, calmed down and re-started to play.  Mother and stranger were treated very differently.

Type C - Insecure-Resistant:  12% of infants were fussy and wary, even with their mother present.  They were distressed by her leaving and sought contact with her on her return, but simultaneously showed anger and resisted contact (e.g. putting out their arms to be picked up, then fightingto get away once they had been picked up).  

• The study supports Bowlby's theory as it indicates that many children do show signs of distress when separated from their caregiver.
• Sensitive responsiveness is the major factor determining the quality of attachments, as sensitve mothers correctly interpret infants' signals and respond appropriately to their needs.
• Sensitve mothers tend to have securely-attached babies, whereas insensitive mothers tend to have insecurely attached babies.

EVALUATION - NEGATIVES:

• We do not know how many of the children were used to being placed in artifical situations such as this.  If a child mostly only knew its home environment, it may be responding as much to the location as the separation.
• The ** is an artificial way of assessing attachment, since uses a labaratory with mother and stranger acting to a script.  Far removed from everyday situations and therefore lacks ecological validity.  Brofenbrenner (1979) found that infants' attachment behaviour is much stronger in lab than at home due to strangeness of environment.
• Is the study measuring attachment or personality?
• The ** might not be suitable for use in all cultures as it contains elements unfamiliar to some cultures like being left with strangers.

• This study only measured the attachment in relation to the main care-giver.  
• Main & Weston (1981) found that children acted differently in the ** depending on which parent they were with.  Children might be insecurely attached ti their mothers, but securely attached to their fathers, illustrating that attachment types are linked to individual relationships with carers and are not set characteristics of children.
• This suggests that the ** might not be a valid measure of attachment types.
• The ** assumes that attachment types are fixed characteristics of chidren, but classicifcation can change if family circumstances, like mothers' stress levels, alter.  Thus attachment type is not a permanent characteristic.
• The ** has been labelled unethical, as it deliberately stresses infants to see their reactions.  However, could justify these methods since the stress caused is no greater than that of everyday experiences like being left with an unfamiliar babysitter or childminder.

EVALUATION - POSITIVES:

• The idenitfication by Ainsworth of the importance of parental sensitivity in creating secure attachments is backed up similar findings from studies using larger samples.
• The ** testing procedure has become a paradigm, the accepted method of assessing attachments.

• The ** is reliable though.  Van Ijzendoorn et al (1988) found strong reliability - so when tested repeatedly, the same type of results are obtained - for the ** in a meta-analysis of 2,000 infant-parent dyads over 32 studies they found very similar results, including cross-cultural studies.
• Main et al. (1985) found all infants identified before 18 months of age were still securely attached at 6 years of age and 75% identified as Type A still were.  The security of attachment was r=.76 (an astounding result showing that the correlation was a very, very strong positive), p=0.001 (and that there is a 99.9% liklihood that this is a true correlation).  We might conclude from this that early attachments are a predictor of later attachments
• Main & Solomon (1986) found an additional attachment type, Type D - Insecure-disorganised, displayed by a small number of children whose behaviour was a confusing mixture of approach and avoidance behaviours.  Ainsworth agreed with this extra type.
• The concept of the types of attachment behaviour appear to be supported by other research.  The idea is that the types of attachment drive other types of behaviour and as such provide an IWM.

• When assessed as adults, Lewis et al (2000) using the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI), a high level of inter-reliability was indicated between the tests in childhood and the adult AAI, with a strong correlation between adult and child attachment types:

Adult = autonomous   Child = secure

Adult = dismissive      Child = avoidant

Adult = enmeshed      Child = ambivalent

Adult = unresolved     Child = disorganised

• Ainsworth worked with Bowlby in the 1950's and went on to study mother-child relationships in the Ganda tribe of Uganda.
• Over 9 months observed 26 infant-mother pairs, ranging in age from 15 weeks to 2 years, for hours at a time.  Also carried out extensive interviews with the mothers. From this data she identified 3 attachment types:

Type A:  Insecure-avoidant:  Infants are willing to explore, have low stranger anxiety, are unconcerned by separation and avoid contact at the return of their caregiver.  Caregivers are indifferent to infants' needs.

Type B:  Securely attached:  Infants are keen to explore, have high stranger anxiety, are easy to calm and are enthusiastic at the return of their caregiver.  Caregivers are sensitive to infants' needs.

Type C:  Insecure-resistant:  Infants are unwilling to explore, have high stranger anxiety, are upset by separation and seek and reject contact at the return of their caregiver.  Caregivers are ambivalent to infants' needs, demonstrating simultaneous opposite feelings and behaviours.

Both Type A and C at least give babies a way to deal with stress.  Infants in these groups, whilst anxious, are still within the normal range of development.

• Solomon & Main identified a 4th category they called Type D - Disorganised.  These babies were utterly overwhelmed; some seemed utterly terrified by their parents re-entering, others approached and retreated with a dazed expression.  Unable to make an attachment.  Research has shown that most children with this attachment type are raised in families who've suffered some significant form of trauma, loss or maltreatment.
• Babies with this pattern have been shown to be most at risk of behavioural and emotional problems and relationship difficulties.

• In 1978 Ainsworth repeated her Uganda study in Baltimore, visiting 26 infant-mother pairs every 3-4 weeks for the frst year of life.  Each visit lasted 3-4 hours.  Interviews and naturalistic observations were used, with observations playing a significant role.
• Ainsworth identified two important features of attachment, both with an adaptive survival value:

1. Infants seek proximity to their mothers, especially when feeling threatened.

2.  Secure attachments allow infants to explore, behaviour that aids cognitive and social development, using their attached figure as a safe base to explore from and return to.

• Ainsworth wanted to see if the essential elements of homelife that she had observed could be translated to a standard lab setting for controlled scientific study, so she devised a procedure called the Strange Situation.
• The ** has become the most widely used standardised way to assess the quality of a child's attachment to their caregiver.
• Psychologists thought that HOW babies respond to being separated from their mother would be important information in assessing the quality of the attachment but Ainsworth discovered that it's the REUNION of ther infant with their caregiver that's really important.  It's these reunion behaviours that predict developmental outcomes 2, 3, 5, 10 years down the line.
• The ** was developed in 1964 after Ainsworth's observation studies in Uganda and Baltimore.  She realised that academia wouldn't accept data based solely on these naturalistic observations, so he need a lab experiment to provide results which she could then relate back to her obs.
• The ** features 8 "episodes" including 2 separations:  one separation where the stranger is present all the way through and a second separation where the stranger arrives.

• The focus of the coding of the behaviours is around these reunions and the behaviours are clearly defined and include staying close and maintaining physical contact.  The observors are looking at the way in which a child is able to use the mother as a source of emotional support and comfort to deal with the stress that has arisen from the separation, but then to do that effectiely and return to the environment to play, using the mother as a secure base again.
• Without Ainsworth's ** procedure, attachment may have just remained a theory, with no evidence to back it up.
• When Ainsworth first published, health professionals saw Type A attachments as the most independent and therefore the most positive "plays all the time, doesn't cry, doesn't need mum - isn't that the best?!"  Ainsworth argued that it was not, since she is distressed but she's inhibiting her attachment behaviour and activating her own exploratory behaviour - not going to the parent and getting soothed, not getting her cup refilled.
• Through repeated experience of mum being avilable, sensitive to their behaviour, responsive to emotional distress, the child develops an internal working model of the mum being available as a source of comfort, security and help.  As well as a complimentary image of self as being worthy of those things.

• Contrary to much expert opinion from 1880's - 1960's, Ainsworth found that mothers who responded to their infants cries sensitively in the first 6 months cried much less as 1 year olds.  These infants were also more compliant and obedient in their first year and co-operative with necessary transitions, they also explored more and developed more cognitive skills sooner than babies whose mothers had been less sensitive to their early needs.
• Mothers who allowed babies to set the time and pace of feedings tended to have less difficult and more secure children by the end of the first year.
• This is the core of attachment theory - the idea of the IWM - and it's what the ** is trying to assess.
• Research is fairly consistent that secure attachment has a protective function for later development.
• Ainsworth said she had an advantage over people who'd had kids, since she didn't have a stake in any particular method.
• She was advocating "never miss an opportunity to hold a baby" at a time when the over-riding message was "don't pick up your baby because you'll spoil it".
• She saw the main caregiver as having a DUAL FUNCTION:  haven of safety AND a secure base.  This is the basic premise of attachment.
• She strongly believed that sensitive mothering was key to producing securely attached child.

• There are some who argue that there are genetic pre-dispositions to particular attachments developing.
• Particularly interesting piece of research found that the 3 different attachment type classifications are marked by different ways of mothers responding to their babies emotional signals.  The securely attached child gives off positive emotional signals and the mother responds to those positively.  If the give of negative emotional signals, the mother also responds to those positively.  But for insecure-resistant infants it seems to be the case that
• ...mothers are responding only to their negative emotional signals, so the infant seems to be learning that behaving negatively gets the response, where as for avoidant infants the mothers seem to be responding only to the positive emotional responses, so the infant learns that to show negative emotions isn't OK in a relationship.
• Another study showed that mums who show "mind-mindedness" by responding to what they believe their babies to be thinking, achieve secure attachments.
• Ideal seems to be not to smother your baby but to respond to all it's moods, whether good or bad.
• Latest research into attachment is now looking to attachment in adolesence - good predictor of their attachments with friends with secure attachment in teens marked by autonomy.  Parents flaws may be viewed, they explore from a safe base but now with different views.

• Important to note that the ** is not used to condem parents and label children but to ientify problems early on so that parents might find ways of relating to their child.
• Attachments are not set in stone by the end of the first year, in fact they can shift and there is an adult attachment type known as "earned-secure" which means they were insecure as a child but have moved to a secure classification as an adult.
• Critics have argued that Ainsworth's work was anti-feminist because the suggestion is that the baby has always got to be with it's mother but this is not the case since one of the notions that's so central to attachment theory is that of caregiver not the notion of mother.
• Ainsworth's research was carred out in 1960's middle America and so she conducted research with the population she had to hand and that was releveant which was white, middle class, American mothers.
• The central concept is security and the creation of security does not require 100% time together, in fact it might benefit from separations.
• The ** has changed the lives of millions of children and the course of parenting.

• We do not know how many of the children were used to being placed in an artifical situation such as this was.  If a child knew only it's home environment, it may be responding as much to the location as to the separation.  
• Lacks ecological validity - the caregiver and stranger are working to a script.
• Is the study measuring attachment or personality?
• We are imposing an ethnocentric perspective on all cultures - the set up is very Western, so there may be cultural differences depending on the child-rearing practices of different cultures e.g. Japanese children are very rarely left alone and would be very likely to become very distressed OR Australian Aboriginal infants.  
• The study only measured the attachment in relation to the main caregiver.
• Places child under stress, althought arguably under no more stress than they could expect in daily life.
• Critics might argue that it condems parents and labels children BUT used to identify problems early on so that parents might find ways of relating to their child.
• Critics have argued that Ainsworth's work was anti-feminist because the suggestion is that the baby has always got to be with it's mother but this is not the case since one of the notions that's so central to attachment theory is that of caregiver not the notion of mother.

• Biased sample - white, middle class America BUT that was the population to hand.
• Since Ainsworth carried out her research in the 1970's, British society has changed significantly; more children spend more time from a very young age with another care-giver as the government encourages people to go out to work or parents need to go to work for financial reasons.  This changing culture means we might see a gradual shift in attachment patterns, so we must keep an open and questioning mind when assessing theories and research.
• It's argued that the ** as a measurement tool is very reliable, producing similar results all over the world.  This may be true, but given variable findings from studies such as Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg, we cannot be sure that the results are valid.

• The ** is now the paradigm for assessing the quality of attachments between infants and caregivers.
• Strong reliability - repeatedly tested and same types of results are obtained - as shown in Van Izjendoorn et al (1988) meta-analysis.  They considered results of 2000 infant-parent dyads over 32 studies and found very similar results, including cross cultural studies.
• Main et al. (1985) studied 6-year-old children who had been involved with ** at 1 year old.  The security of attachment was r=0.76, p=<0.001.  An astounding result since "r" value shows a VERY STRONG positive correlation in the levels of attachment at 1 and 6 years whilst they "p" value showed that the liklihood of these results occurring by chance is 0.001%, or in other words, there is a 99.9% liklihood that this is a true correlation.  Might conclude from this that early attachments are a predictor of later attachments.
• The concepts of the attachment type categories are borne out by other research.  The idea is that attachment types drive other types of behaviour and provide an IWM, so the model predicts how the child will behave and helps it understand its world e.g. a securely attached child will be very likely to be helpful and co-operative.
• Lewis et al. (2000) used self-report measure and found a strong correlation between adult attachment and child attachment types.