Ainsworth strange situation

• Ainsworth developed the strange situation as a controlled observation designed to measure the security of attachment (key attachment behaviours) that a child displays towards a caregiver. It takes place in an unfamiliar room with quite controlled conditions (laboratory) (two-way mirror through which psychologists can observe the infant's behaviour) and 100 middle-class American infants and their mother took part in it. It consisted of a series of structured situations in a specific order. It started with a child and caregiver entering the playroom.
• The caregiver takes the infant into the laboratory room and the child is left to explore which tests (exploration and secure base behaviour) whereby good attachment enables a child to feel confident to explore, using the caregiver as a secure base - a point of contact that makes them feel safe), the stranger enters and interacts with the infant (which tests stranger anxiety - a sign of being attached where the child shows distress when a unfamiliar person approaches).
• The caregiver leaves and the stranger interacts with the infant (which tests stranger and separation anxiety - which is another sign of being attached to protest at the parting from a caregiver), then the caregiver returns and the stranger leaves (which tests exploration/secure base and reunion behaviour which is where the response of the child to the caregivers return after temporary separation is measured).
• The caregiver leaves the infant alone (separation anxiety), then a stranger returns and approaches the infant (stranger anxiety) and lastly the caregiver returns and is reunited with the infant (reunion behaviour).
• Ainsworth found three distinct patterns in the way infants behaved, which she called attachment types. The attachment Types are called:

  • insecure avoidant attachment
  • secure attachment
  • insecure resistant attachment
• Type A - (Insecure avoidant attachment - IAA), these children tend to avoid social interaction and intimacy with others. They explore freely but do not seek proximity/ show secure base behaviour. They show little/ no reaction when their caregiver leaves and they do not require comfort at reunion stage. They show little stranger anxiety and 15% of the infants had this attachment type. In the study 15% had this type in comparison to 20-25% in the UK. 
• Type B- secure attachment, these children have harmonious interactions with the caregiver. They explore happily but are proximity seeking and show secure base behaviour so independent. They usually show moderate separate distress and stranger anxiety and require and accept comfort at the reunion stage with the caregiver and are easily soothed. In the study 70% had this type, whilst 60-75% are classified as secure in the UK. 
• Type C-Insecure resistant attachment - IRA), these children seek and resist intimacy and social interaction. They seek greater proximity than other and so explore less. They show huge stranger and separation anxiety but resist comfort when reunited with the CG as they may act angrily when picked up or try and maintain distance. In the study 15% had this attachment type, whilst in the UK 3% of infants are classified like so.
• strength: real-world applications. E.g. in situations where disordered patterns of attachment develop between the infant and the caregiver, intervention strategies can be developed, i.e., the circle of security project (Cooper eg al) teaches caregivers to better understand their infants' signals of distress and to increase their understanding of what it feels like to feel anxious. It has been found CG classified as disordered (60%-15%) and increased infants classed as securely attached (32-40%).
• continue strength: real world application This supports the attachment types because its suggests that such research is externally valid as it can be used to improve child's lives.
• weakness: may not have the same meaning in other cultures - it may be a culture-bound test. This is because cultural differences in childhood experiences are likely to mean that children respond differently to the Strange Situation. Additionally, caregivers from different cultures behave differently in the Strange Situation. Takahashi (1990) noted that the test does not really work in Japan, because Japanese mothers are so rarely separated from their babies that there are extremely elevated levels of separation anxiety.
• continuing weakness: not have the same meaning with cultures But Grossman and Grossman (1991) found avoidant could actually be normal within German culture. This suggests that the Strange Situation test may lack external validity and so if used in other cultures, we cannot easily compare attachment types. Infants may be inappropriately classified as insecurely attached on the basis of cultural differences in childrearing rather than because they are genuinely insecurely attached.
• weakness: attachment types are too simplistic. E.g., Main and Soloman analysed over 200 strange situation videotapes and proposed the fourth attachment type called insecure-disorganised (type D). Disorganised children display an odd mixture of resistant and avoidant behaviours. They show extraordinarily strong attachment behaviour which is suddenly followed by avoidance or looking fearful towards their CG.
• Continuing weakness: attachment types are too simplistic Van IJzendoorn et al (1999) further supported this with a meta-analysis of nearly 80 studies in the US, they found 62% secure, 15% insecure-avoidant, 9% insecure-resistant and 15% insecure-disorganised. This clearly is a weakness of the strange situation as this challenges Ainsworth's idea of attachment types as she did not predict or find evidence of this fourth attachment type and did not predict an overlap between types of attachment.
• There is support for the strange situations to explain attachment types, as it is strongly predictive of later development. Babies assessed as secure typically go onto have better outcomes in many areas, (success at school to romantic relationships as adults). IRA is associated with the worst outcomes, including bullying in later childhood and adult mental health problems. This clearly support the validity of the attachment types as described by Ainsworth because it can explain subsequent outcomes.