60 to what % of babies fall into the secure attachment type?
75 %
20 to what % of babies fall into the insecure-avoidant attachment type?
25 %
What % of babies fall into the insecure-resistant attachment type?
3
SECURE ATTACHMENT (high/moderate/low)
PROXIMITY SEEKING - Moderate
EXPLORATION/SECURE BASE - Moderate/High
STRANGER ANXIETY - Moderate
SEPARATION ANXIETY - Moderate
REUNION RESPONSE - High
INSECURE-AVOIDANT ATTACHMENT
PROXIMITY SEEKING - Low
EXPLORATION/SECURE BASE - High/Low
STRANGER ANXIETY - Low
SEPARATION ANXIETY - Low
REUNION RESPONSE - Low
INSECURE-RESISTANT ATTACHMENT
PROXIMITY SEEKING - High
EXPLORATION/SECURE BASE - Low/High
STRANGER ANXIETY - High
SEPARATION ANXIETY - High
REUNION RESPONSE - Low ( resist comfort after seeking it)
STRENGTH 1 - Good inter-rater reliability
E - Observers agree on attachment type - controlled conditions + behaviour categories = easy to observe - Bick et al - 94 % of infants agreed on by researchers
L - Objective not subjective judgements
STRENGTH 2 - Good predictive validity
E - Type B ( secure ) babies involved in less bullying + better school achievement (Kokkinos 2007) - (Ward 2006) - better mental health
L - SS measures something real + meaningful in development
LIMITATION 1 - Some don't fit into the 3 OG attachment types
E - Main + Solomon (1986) - Type D ( disorganised ) - mix of avoidant + resistant behaviour -
L - Findings could be invalid as some children ignored by Ainsworth - reducing reliability
Did Ainsworth or Bowlby conduct the strange situation?
Ainsworth
LIMITATION 2 - SS not generalised to other cultures ( culture bias )
E - Takahashi (1990) - Not used in Japan - rare for separation of mother + child - Incorrectly diagnosed with insecure - resistant due to high levels of separation anxiety - REUINION - Child immediately picked up (cannot see reaction)
L - Hard to know what SS is measuring outside Europe + USA