strange situtation

• procedure of strange situation?

  • controlled observation
  • ss measures & assesses quality of attachment between infant & mother
  • involved series of 8 episodes where child is left alone & stranger comes in/out
• who developed the strange situation?

  mary ainsworth 1978
• aim of strange situation?

  • measure security of attachment child shows towards their caregiver
• method of strange situation?

  • used controlled observation
  • 100 american infants between 9-18 months
  • psychologists observed childs behaviour through 2 way mirror
• 3 patterns of attachment

  1. secure - 70%
  2. insecure avoidant - 15%
  3. insecure resistant - 15%
• conclusion of strange situation?

  • ainsworth suggested that attachment type was determined by primary caregivers behaviour
• ep 1 testing nothing?

  • researcher mum & baby are all present
  • researcher introduces them to environment & leaves
• ep 2 testing for willingness to explore?

  • mum & baby present
  • mum sits while baby explores
• ep 3 testing for stranger anxiety?

  • stanger mum & baby present
  • stranger enters & talks to mum then approaches baby
• ep 4 testing for separation anxiety?

  • stranger & baby present
  • mum leaves & stranger comforts baby if needed
• ep 5 testing for reunion behaviour?

  • mum & baby present
  • stranger leaves
  • mum returns & comforts baby if needed
• ep 6 testing for separation anxiety?

  • only baby present
  • mum leaves room
• ep 7 testing for stranger anxiety?

  • stranger & baby present
  • stranger enters room & offers comfort
• ep 8 testing for reunion behaviour?

  • mum & baby present
  • mum enters & comforts baby
  • stranger leaves
• secure attachment?

  • children feel confident that attachment figure will be available to meet thier needs
  • use figure as safe base to explore but go to them when in distress
  • infants develop this when caregiver is sensitive to their signals & reponds to their needs
  • type b
• insecure avoidant?

  • children do not go to figure while exploring
  • very independent of figure both physically & emotionally
  • do not seek contact with figure when distressed
  • figure may withdraw from helping during difficult tasks & often unavailable during types of emotional distress
  • type a
• insecure resistant?

  • children have an indecisive behavioural style towards figure
  • child will show clingy & dependent behaviour but will reject them when they try interact with them
  • child fails to develop any feelings of security from figure
  • show difficulty moving away from figure to explore unusual surroundings
  • when distressed are difficult to soothe & not comforted by interaction with figure
  • causes caregiver to give inconsistent responses to their needs
  • type c
• caregiver sensitivity hypothesis?

  • ainsworth argued that childs att type is dependent on behaviour their mothers show towards them
  • sensitive mothers who respond to childs needs/moods/feelings correctly more likely to have securely attached child
  • less sensitive mothers respond to childs needs incorrectly may be impatient so more likely to have insecurely attached child
• 3 X of strange situation?

  1. ethical guidelines broken
  2. culturally biased from takashi 1990
  3. lacks ecological validity
• 2 * of strange situation?

  1. high reliability shown by main,kaplan & cassidy 1985
  2. strongly predictive of later development
• * high reliability?

  • due to controlled environment & standardised procedure means that s.s can be easily replicated
  • main & kaplan & cassidy 1985 tested babies at 18 months
  • retested at 6 years old
  • found that 100% of secure babies were still classfied as this
  • 75% of avoidant still under same classification
  • reliable
  • highly similar replicated findings demonstrate consistency of s.s technique as a tool for measuring att types
• X ethical guidelines broken?

  • while mothers gave consent to take part infants cannot
  • s.s may be stressful for infants as being taken away from their cg to measure att behaviour
  • breaks guideline of protection from psychological harm
  • ? credible
  • some infants may find procedure intensely distressing
  • is unacceptable research practice
  • suggests more ethical methods should be devloped to measure att behaviour
• X culturally biased?

  • s.s does not have same meaning outside of western europe & usa
  • cultural differences in childhood experiences more likely to mean that kids respond differently to s.s
  • e.g israeli kids live in kibbutz rarely encounter stranger so in s.s stranger anxiety is different experience then for americans
  • cgs from diff cultures behave differently in s.s
  • takhashi 1990 noted test does not work in japan
  • japanese mothers rarely separate from babies so very high levels of separation anxiety shown
  • ? population
  • cannot be generalised as tool for measuring att in all cultures
• X lacks ecological validity?

  • ainsworth conducted observation in controlled environment
  • children may have acted differently to how they would act in more familiar environment
  • so dont know if behaviours displayed would be same as when in familiar setting
  • ? ecological
  • is difficult to generalise findings to real life att
• * strongly predictive of later development?

  • found that babies assessed as secure typically go on to have better outcomes in many areas
  • ranges from success at school/romantic relationships/friendships in adulthood
  • internal
  • shows its an accurate measure of att behaviour
  • can predict outcome of future relationships