Mary Ainsworth & Sylvia Bell 1970
AIMS: Following a period of working with John Bowlby in the UK and being much influenced
by Bowlby researcher John Robertson’s meticulous attention to detail in recording
naturalistic observations, in 1954 Mary Ainsworth went to Uganda - as a result of
her husband getting a research position there. She studied mother-child relationships
in 6 villages of the Ganda people in Kampala, visiting 26 mothers and their infants,
every 2 weeks for 2 hours per visit over a period of up to 9 months. Visits (with
an interpreter) took place in the family living room, where Ganda women generally
entertain in the afternoon. Ainsworth was particularly interested in determining
the onset of proximity-promoting signals and behaviours, noting carefully when these
signals and behaviours became preferentially directed toward the mother. From this
she identified 3 types of relationships:-
- ‘Securely attached’ - children were generally contented and pacified by the presence
of their mother, using her as a safe base to explore
- ‘Insecurely attached’ - children were less inclined to explore and cried frequently,
even when with the mother
- ‘Not yet attached’ - children were indifferent to the presence of the mother
These categories were a further development of a classification system Bowlby, Ainsworth
et al (1956) had used with long-stay children in a TB sanitorium. Ainsworth also
found that securely attached children had mothers who enjoyed breastfeeding and were
responsive to their children’s needs (caregiver sensitivity).
Back in the United States several years later, Ainsworth conducted a similar study
of 26 families in Baltimore. She regularly visited the mothers and their children
for upto 4 hours at a time, interviewing them and making detailed notes from her
observations.
From these 2 projects Ainsworth concluded that there are two distinctive features
of attachment, both of which have adaptive value. Firstly, infants seek to be close
to the mother - proximity - especially when they feel threatened by something. Secondly,
a secure attachment enables the infant to explore - essential for cognitive development
- using the mother/attachment figure as a secure base to explore and return to.
With Sylvia Bell, Ainsworth wanted to study formally the reactions of young children
to brief separations from their mother to determine the nature of attachment behaviours.
In particular they were interested in differences between secure and insecure attachments.
They hoped that the Strange Situation would prove a reliable an valid measure of
attachments.
PROCEDURE (METHOD): The researchers used Strange Situation controlled observation
procedure, devised by Ainsworth & Barbara Wittig (1969) for the Baltimore studies.
This was used on approximately 100 middle-class infants aged between 12 and 18 months.
Each episode was 3 minutes:-
- The parent and their infant are introduced to the experimental room, containing toys
in some parts of it - a novel environment, 9 x 9-foot square marked off into 16 squares
to facilitate the hidden observer in recording the infant’s movements.
- The parent and the infant are alone. The parent, sitting quietly in a chair, does
not participate while the infant explores.
- The stranger enters, converses with the parent and then gradually approaches infant
with a toy. The parent leaves inconspicuously.
- First separation episode: the stranger's behaviour is geared to that of infant -
leaving the child playing with the toys unless they are inactive, in which case the
stranger tries to interest the infant in the toys.
- First reunion episode: the parent returns and waits for the infant to respond. The
stranger leaves inconspicuously as parent comforts infant. Once the infant is settled,
the parent then leaves again
- Second separation episode: the infant is alone
- Continuation of second separation episode: the stranger enters and gears behaviour
to that of the infant
- Second reunion episode: the parent enters, waits for the infant to respond and then
picks up the child; the stranger leaves inconspicuously.
If the child becomes very distressed, the mother returns earlier than planned. The
procedure is then repeated with a further ‘stranger’ episode.
The child’s behaviours are recorded every 15 seconds throughout the sequence of events
and are also rated for intensity on a scale of 1-7.
(Over the years both Ainsworth and others introduced minor variations into the procedure.
It has also been used with children up to the age of 6.)
RESULTS (FINDINGS): Using a combination of behavioural measures - mainly search behaviours,
proximity seeking, maintenance of proximity, stranger anxiety and reaction to reunion
- Ainsworth classified infants into 3 types:-
- Secure - the infant is distressed by the mother/caregiver’s absence but rapidly returns
to a state of contentment after her return. The infant is wary of the stranger, especially
when the mother/caregiver is absent. The mother/caregiver shows sensitivity to the
child and the child shows a willingness to explore.
- Anxious resistant - the infant is insecure n the presence of the mother/caregiver,
showing little inclination to explore, and becomes very distressed when she leaves.
The infant resists contact when the mother/caregiver returns and may express anger/resentment
- shouting/screaming and even hitting. The infant is highly wary of the stranger.
- Avoidant attachment - the infant does not seek contact with the mother/caregiver,
shows little distress when separated and avoids contact with the mother/caregiver
upon her return. The infant treats the stranger in a similar way to the mother/caregiver,
often avoiding them. The mother/caregiver may ignore the infant. The infant usually
shows a good willingness to explore.
The types and percentages are summarised in the graphic below....
Generally speaking, they found that the infants explored the room most enthusiastically
when just the mother was present than either when the stranger entered or when the
mother was absent.
CONCLUSIONS: There are different types of attachment which are differentiated in
observed attachment behaviours. Additionally the type of attachment between a mother/caregiver
and child seems related to the mother/caregiver’s sensitivity and responsiveness
to the child. The Strange Situation is a reliable procedure for measuring differences
in attachment.
EVALUATION (CRITICISMS):
- Research by Mary Main & Judith Solomon (1990) led to the identification of a fourth
type of attachment which they called Type D - ‘Disorganised’. This type is characteristic
of ‘high-risk’ families where children have perhaps been abused or neglected. A child
showing disorganised attachment will appear confrontational and/or confused and apprehensive,
with no consistent response to the events of the Strange Situation - eg: approaching
the mother on her return and avoiding her. Such children also tend to freeze or show
stereotyped behaviours such as rocking. Main, Nancy Kaplan & Jude Cassidy (1985)
found about 13% of infants they studied were disorganised.
- Ainsworth’s procedure has been replicated many times to determine whether:-
- The classification shows good reliability over time with the same mother-child pairs
- The category percentages are similar across cultures
Although her own study (1973) failed to show good test/re-test reliability, Toni
Antonucci & Mary Levitt (1984) - and other studies - found strong consistency between
classifications at 7 and 13 months. Main, Kaplan & Cassidy (1985) assessed infants
in the Strange Situation before 18 months and with both mothers and fathers and then
retested them at the age of 6. They found that 100% of the secure infants were still
secure and 75% of the anxious-avoidant were still anxious-avoidant. Ainsworth, Mary
Blehar, Everett Waters & Sally Wall (1978) summarised the findings of 106 Strange
Situation studies on middle-class children, almost totally supporting the 1970 one.
Waters (1978) reported that, in one study, only 2 out of 50 infants, changed their
attachment type between 12 and 18 months. A study in southern Germany by Ulrike
Wartner, Karin Grossman, Elisabeth Fremmer-Bombik & Gerhard Suess (1994) found 78%
of the children were classified in the same way at the ages of 1 and 6. Edward Melhuish
(1993) has suggested that where variations occur, these are often associated with
changes in the form of care - eg: parents separating.
Some cross-cultural studies
have shown significant variations from the category percentages found by Ainsworth.
Klaus Grossman, Karin Grossman, F Huber & Wartner (1981) found that the majority
of German infants demonstrated anxious-avoidant attachments - 49% anxious-avoidant,
33% secure and 18% anxious-resistant. On the other hand Keiko Takahashi (1990) found
a higher than average percentage of anxious-resistant types in Japan. She suggested
this might be attributed to the excessive stress Japanese infants might experience
during the Strange Situation separation, as infant-mother separation is not the norm
in the Japanese culture. However, as Mary Ellen Durrett, Midori Otaki & Phyllis Richards
(1984) had pointed out earlier, in modern Japanese families mothers do go out to
work and leave their children; and attachment types in such families tended to follow
the Ainsworth pattern.
close relationships with their mothers, they tended not to be anxious-avoidant. They
rarely encountered complete strangers which might help explain the high numbers of
anxious-resistant. Another reason put forward was that mothers were often absent;
while the caregivers rotated shifts and could not always give prompt attention to
individual children. (These findings very much replicated Nathan Fox’s 1977 study
into infant attachments on kibbutzim.) Sagi, IJzendoorn & Koren-Karie compared kibbutz
children who experienced family sleeping arrangements with those who experienced
communal sleeping arrangements and found that the children who slept with their family
showed the more ‘normal’ attachment patterns.
The Japanese - from Kazuo Miyake, S
J Chen & J J Campos (1985) - showed 68% secure and 32% anxious-resistant, in accordance
with Takahashi’s findings. (Miyake et al found no anxious-avoidant at all in their
samples.)
Sagi, IJzendoorn & Koren-Karie found that only 40% of German infants were
securely attached, 49% were anxious-avoidant and 11% anxious-resistant. This supported
Grossman, Grossman, Huber & Wartner’s earlier findings and suggests that German culture
requires some distance between parents and children - “the ideal is an independent,
non-clinging infant who does not make demands on the parents but rather unquestioningly
obeys their commands.”
A more recent study by Mary McMahan True, Lelia Pisani & Fadimata
Oumar (2001) of the Dogon in West Africa found a complete absence of anxious-avoidant.
This was atrributed to the community’s infant care practices which involve responsiveness,
constant closeness to mothers and immediate nursing in response to signs of stress.
In 2005 Jin Mi Kyoung compared 87 Korean families with 113 American families, using
the Strange Situation. Although there were some notable differences - eg: Korean
infants stayed less close to their mothers and explored and, when the mothers returned,
they were more likely to get down on the floor and play with their infants - there
were a similar proportion of securely-attached children in both cultures.
following
on from the important earlier meta-analysis by IJzendoorn & Pieter Kroonenberg -
- It could also be argued, from an American point of view, that there was a cultural
bias in Ainsworth & Bell’s study as they only looked at middle-class children.
- J E Bates, C A Maslin & K A Frankel (1985) cast doubt on the validity of the Strange
Situation studies when they found that attachment style at 12 months did not predict
the presence of behaviour problems at 3 years of age - it being expected that securely-attached
infants would be better adjusted socially and emotionally at later ages than insecurely-attached
children. However, Alan Sroufe (1983) reported that infants rated as secure in their
second year have been found later to be more popular, having more initiative, higher
self-esteem, less aggression and demonstrating social leadership. L Bretherton (1985)
suggested that insecurely attached children are more likely to be hostile and socially
inadequate.
Another validity question relates to the fact that the Strange Situation
does not take into account the the child’s temperament and the effect that might
have on the attachment - see Caregiver Sensitivity Hypothesis vs Temperament Hypothesis.
It has even been suggested that the procedure might be measuring temperament rather
than attachment.
There is also the question as to whether the Strange Situation is
testing the relationship between the caregiver and the infant rather than the resultant
attachment type. Main & Donna Weston (1981) found that children behaved differently
in the Strange Situation according to whether they were with mother or father. This
supported the earlier work of Michael Lamb (1977) who gave the instance of a secure
attachment to the mother and an avoidant relationship with the father. However, most
children tested through the Strange Situation with more than one attachment figure
do appear to behave consistently. Van IJzendoorn, Sagi & Miryam Lambermon (1992)
took the view that the best way of predicting later development was to effectively
average the child’s multiple attachments (mother, father and, perhaps, childminder,
for example). This suggests the Strange Situation is a valid procedure but that attachment
type must be derived from more than one attachment relationship.
There is also the
question as to whether the Strange Situation measures attachment...or the response
to the Strange Situation! Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979) found that attachment appeared
much stronger when the Strange Situation procedure was carried out at the family
home. Clearly this raises issues of ecological validity. Earlier Harriet Rheingold
& Carol Eckerman (1973) had reported that, in natural settings where a child could
approach a stranger in their own time, the child often smiled at the stranger and
sometimes moved towards them. - Gavin Bremner (1994) has questioned the validity of the measures used in the Strange
Situation. Earlier Cassidy (1986) postulated that secure infants will not feel the
need to maintain continual proximity.
- It has been pointed out that some mothers/caregivers most likely behaved differently
towards their child than they would have done at home, as they knew they were being
observed. Equally infants who showed great separation protest in the Strange Situation
might have been less distressed by separation at home where they were in familiar
surroundings.
However, Mary Ainsworth, Sylvia Bell & Donelda Stayton’s (1974) own
analyses of home data found infants who had been resistant toward or avoidant of
the mother on reunion in the Strange Situation had a less harmonious relationship
with her at home than those (a majority) who sought proximity, interaction or contact
on reunion.
- Lamb, Ross Thompson, William Gardner & Eric Charnov (1985) criticised Ainsworth for
developing the criteria for her three attachment types from an initial study of just
26 American babies. They argued classification was developed too quickly from an
inadequate sample. They also criticised the procedure for failing to take into account
the mother’s behaviour. However, they still acknowledged the Strange Situation to
be “...the most powerful and useful procedure ever available for the study of socioemotional
development in infancy.”
- The notion that early attachment type influences later relationships - John Bowlby’s
internal working model - received support from Cindy Hazan & Phil Shaver’s ‘Love
Quiz’ studies (1987 and 1992) which were based on Ainsworth’s three attachment types.
- Clearly there are ethical issues with the Strange Situation as infants are caused
anxiety - sometimes severe anxiety! However, many researchers argue that the distress
has only short-term effects which are far outweighed by the benefits of the research.
Abraham Sagi, Marinus Van IJzendoorn & N Koren-Karie (1991) reported on Strange
Situation findings from studies in the United States, Israel and Japan. The American
results were similar to Ainsworth’s: 71% showing secure attachment, 12% anxious-resistant
and 17% anxious-avoidant.
The Israeli findings - from Sagi, Van Ijzendoorn, Ora Aviezer, Frank Donnell & Ofra
Mayseless (1985) - were rather different: 62% secure, 33% anxious-resistant and only
5% anxious-avoidant. The Israeli sample, though, was taken from a kibbutz (communal
farm) where the infants were looked after much of the time by adults who were not
part of their family (‘metapelets’). As the children still
