# data[].attributes.body
http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/05/infants-imitate-others-when-only-weeks.php

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One of the most basic forms of social behaviour is copying another person. Although imitation is something we adults take for granted, it's actually a pretty demanding process for a young infant.

At the heart of imitation is understanding the difference between yourself and others - something that famous Swiss child psychologist Jean Piaget thought didn't emerge immediately in infants. Consequently he argued that infants could not imitate others until they were 8 to 12 months of age.

Stick your tongue out

In 1977, though, Andrew Meltzoff from Oxford University and M. Keith Moore from the University of Washington published a study that questioned Piaget's theory and was destined to become a classic in child psychology (Meltzoff & Moore, 1977).

Their study was straightforward enough. An experimenter sat in front of tiny infants who were between 12 and 21-days-old. There he stuck his tongue out, opened his mouth, pursed his lips and moved his fingers, then watched, with a blank face, for the infants' reactions.

Sure enough the infants seemed to copy him.

The key to their study, though, was in showing that the infants were really imitating the experimenter rather than just sticking their tongues out or opening their mouths for some other reason. In other words: was this true imitation or something much more basic that couldn't be considered social interaction?

Imitation or something simpler?

Meltzoff and Moore tested all sorts of alternative explanations:

Were the infants simply getting excited by the experimenter? Probably not: when the experimenter opened his mouth, the infants responded with the same gesture, not by sticking their tongue out. And when the experimenter stuck his tongue out, infants stuck theirs out.

Was the imitation just a reflex of some kind? Probably not: when infants had a pacifier in their mouths while the experimenter stuck their tongue out, they still imitated him after it was taken out a short time later.

Had parents been training their children beforehand? No, parents were not told about the purpose of the experiment until afterwards.

Was the experimenter accidentally signalling the infants after the initial tongue protrusion or mouth purse through further small facial movements? No, the experimenter's face was videotaped and rated independently as blank in the 'infant response periods'.

Born with social skills

This study is a major piece of ammunition for those who argue that infants are born into the world partly pre-programmed for social interactions. It has now been replicated many times and suggests infants don't have to learn to navigate the social world completely from scratch; from a very early age they have some grasp of their bodies and can copy other people.

" This is part of a series on 10 crucial child psychology studies. Read more on the emergence of infant memory, self-concept, learning, attachment, theory of mind, object permanence, language, play and knowledge.

[Image credit: xtopalopaquetl]

Meltzoff, A., & Moore, M. (1977). Imitation of Facial and Manual Gestures by Human Neonates. Science, 198(4312), 75-78.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Infants Imitate Others When Only Weeks Old - PsyBlog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of the most basic forms of social behaviour is copying another person. Although imitation is something we adults take for granted, it's actually a pretty demanding process for a young infant. At the heart of imitation is understanding the difference between yourself and others - something that famous Swiss child psychologist Jean Piaget thought didn't emerge immediately in infants.

# data[].attributes.body
Read the original journal article for Meltzoff and Moore. You will be able to gain more information about the experiment.
http://ilabs.washington.edu/meltzoff/pdf/83Meltzoff_Moore_ChildDev.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRQiCcH351E

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Babies Form Attachments | Four Stages | Schaffer & Emerson

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IysBMqaSAC8
Remember you need to complete the appropriate section in your booklet.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON7Qj0Btxj0&list=PLk6Ij-EQpal1nxVsthYgMt0uDF3GjRhZL&index=5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Uploaded by Flipping Psychology AQA on 2017-02-21.

# data[].attributes.headline
Original Journal Article (Raffle ticket rewards!)

# data[].attributes.subject
Original Journal Article (Raffle ticket rewards!)

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessinger/c_c/rsrcs/rdgs/attach/ainsworth.1979.amer_psych.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.simplypsychology.org/mary-ainsworth.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The strange situation is a standardized procedure devised by Mary Ainsworth in the 1970s to observe attachment security in children within the context of caregiver relationships. It applies to infants between the age of nine and 18 months.

The procedure involves a series of eight episodes lasting approximately 3 minutes each, whereby a mother, child, and stranger are introduced, separated, and reunited.

Background

John Bowlby (1969) believed that attachment was an all-or-nothing process. However, research has shown that there are individual differences in attachment quality. Indeed, one of the primary paradigms in attachment theory is the security of an individual's attachment (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970).

Much research in psychology has focused on how forms of attachment differ among infants. For example, Schaffer and Emerson (1964) discovered what appeared to be innate differences in sociability in babies; some babies preferred cuddling more than others, from very early on, before much interaction had occurred to cause such differences.

It's easy to know when you are attached to someone because you know how you feel when you are apart from that person, and, being an adult, you can put your feelings into words and describe how it feels.

However, most attachment research involves infants and young children, so psychologists have to devise subtle ways of researching attachment styles, usually involving the observational method.

Psychologist Mary Ainsworth devised an assessment technique called the Strange Situation Classification (SSC) to investigate how attachments might vary between children.

The Strange Situation was devised by Ainsworth and Wittig (1969) and was based on Ainsworth's previous Uganda (1967) and later Baltimore studies (Ainsworth et al., 1971, 1978).

Mary Ainsworth's (1971, 1978) observational study of individual differences in attachment is described below.

Strange Situation Procedure

The security of attachment in one- to two-year-olds was investigated using the strange situation paradigm in order to determine the nature of attachment behaviors and styles of attachment.

Ainsworth and Bell (1971) conducted a controlled observation recording the reactions of a child and mother (caregiver), who were introduced to a strange room with toys. About 100 middle-class American infants and their mothers participated in the strange situation.

The strange situation procedure was designed to be novel enough to elicit exploratory behavior and yet not so strange that it would evoke fear and heighten attachment behavior at the outset.

The room was set up with a clear 9 x 9-foot floor space divided into 16 squares for recording location and movement. One end housed a chair laden with toys, while the other had chairs for the mother and a stranger. The baby was placed centrally, free to move around. The mother and stranger were pre-instructed on their roles.

The child is observed playing for 20 minutes while caregivers and strangers enter and leave the room, recreating the flow of the familiar and unfamiliar presence in most children's lives.

Ainsworth & Bell observed from the other side of a one-way mirror, so the children did not know they were being observed.

The infant's behavior was observed during eight pre-determined 'episodes' of approximately 3 minutes each.

1. Mother, baby, and experimenter: The mother, accompanied by an observer, carried the baby into the room, and then the observer left. This episode lasts less than one minute.

2. Mother and baby alone: The mother places the baby in a designated area, then sits quietly, only interacting if the baby initiates. This episode lasts for three minutes.

3. A stranger joins the mother and infant: A stranger enters the room, sitting silently for a minute, then conversing with the mother for another minute before gradually approaching the baby with a toy. After the third minute, the mother discreetly exits the room.

4. Mother leaves baby and stranger alone: If the baby was contentedly playing, the stranger didn't intervene. If the baby was inactive, the stranger attempted to engage him with the toys.
If the baby was upset, the stranger sought to distract or soothe him. If comfort couldn't be provided, the episode was cut short; otherwise, it continued for three minutes.

5. Mother returns, and the stranger leaves: The mother enters and momentarily pauses at the doorway, allowing the baby to react to her presence spontaneously. The stranger discreetly exited.
The subsequent actions of the mother were not pre-determined, except for instructions that once the baby resumed playing with toys, she would leave again, pausing to say "bye-bye." The duration of this episode wasn't fixed.

6. Mother leaves; infant left completely alone: The baby was left by themself for three minutes unless their distress level necessitated shortening this time frame.

7. Stranger returns: The stranger returned, acting as in the fourth episode for three minutes unless the baby's distress led to a premature ending. Ainsworth & Wittig had originally designed a different approach for the seventh episode, which was tested on the initial 14 participants (infants) but resembled the more straightforward method reported here and used for the remaining participants.

8. Mother returns, and the stranger leaves: The mother comes back, the stranger exits, and once the mother-child reunion is noted, the scenario is concluded.

Scoring

Observers noted the child's willingness to explore, separation anxiety, stranger anxiety, and reunion behavior.

Two observers narrated continuous accounts into a two-channel tape recorder that also captured a timer's click every 15 seconds.

This is the standard procedure now, although, for the initial 14 participants, only one observer narrated as the other took notes due to the lack of a two-channel recorder.

For the latter 33 participants, Bell was the sole observer. The observations were later transcribed, consolidated, and coded.

These four classes of behavior were scored for interaction with the mother in episodes 2, 3, 5, and 8, and for interaction with the stranger in episodes 3, 4, and 7.

1. Proximity and contact seeking: Behaviors involve active efforts such as purposeful approaching, climbing, gesturing (like reaching or leaning), partial approaches, and directed cries.
The criteria include the child's initiative, persistence, and effectiveness in gaining (or regaining) contact or proximity. The score reflects the intensity and nature of the child's efforts across different episodes.

2. Contact maintaining: Behaviors relevant after the baby has made physical contact, either self-initiated or otherwise.
They encompass clinging, embracing, resisting release through intensified clinging or turning back and reaching if contact is lost, and vocal protestations.

3. Avoidance of proximity and contact: Interaction-avoiding behaviors apply in situations that typically incite approach or interaction, such as an adult entering or trying to attract the baby's attention.
The behaviors indicative of avoidance include increasing distance, turning away, averting gaze, hiding the face, or ignoring the person, especially when the person is attempting to engage the child's attention.

Unlike the resistance variable, which is often associated with anger, avoidance may have a neutral tone or reflect apprehension.

It may be seen as a defensive behavior that conceals feelings, possibly including resentment. The coding for this variable distinguishes between the child's interactions with the mother and a stranger.

4. Resistance to contact and comfort: Assesses the child's resistant behavior towards someone who attempts to interact or come into proximity.
Contact- and interaction-resisting behaviors include angry, conflicting attempts to repel the adult, wriggling to get down if picked up, or rejecting toys used by the adult to interact.

Other indications could be angry screams, thrashing about, pouting, irritable fussing, or showing petulance.

These resistant behaviors may alternate with efforts to maintain contact with the person being rejected.

5. Search behavior: During episodes 4, 6, and 7, search behaviors were recorded. These included following the mother to the door, attempting to open it, banging on it, keeping the focus on the door or glancing towards it, approaching the mother's empty chair, or observing it.
These behaviors indicated the infant's active search or orientation towards the last seen location of the absent mother (usually the door) or a place associated with her in the unfamiliar setting (her chair).

Strange Situation classifications (i.e., attachment styles) are based primarily on four interaction behaviors directed toward the mother in the two reunion episodes (Ep. 5 & Ep. 8).

The observers noted the behavior displayed during 15-second intervals and scored the behavior for intensity on a scale of 1 to 7.

In scoring these five behavior classes, the score was influenced by the following features: the strength of the behavior, its frequency, duration, latency, and the type of behavior itself - with active behavior being considered stronger than signaling.

Behavioral categories allow the researcher to focus on the behaviors to observe clearly. For example, smiling, crying, or the baby moving towards or away from the mother.

This allows the observers to tally observations into pre-arranged groupings. It also makes the observations replicable, so the results have greater reliability.

Other behaviors observed included:

Exploratory behaviors
e.g., moving around the room, playing with toys, looking around the room.

Search behaviors
e.g., following mother to the door, banging on the door, orienting to the door, looking at the door, going to mother's empty chair, looking at mother's empty chair.

Affect Displays negative
e.g., crying, smiling.

Observation reliability was assessed by independent codings of the narrated reports by the two authors in four dual-observed cases. Correlation coefficients of 0.99 for each locomotor, manipulatory, and visual exploration, and 0.98 for crying, were achieved.

Results [Attachment Styles]

Ainsworth (1970) identified three main attachment styles, secure (type B), insecure avoidant (type A), and insecure ambivalent/resistant (type C). She concluded that these attachment styles resulted from early interactions with the mother.

A fourth attachment style, known as disorganized, was later identified (Main, & Solomon, 1990).

Secure

Resistant

Avoidant

B: Secure Attachment

Securely attached children comprised most of the sample in Ainsworth's (1971, 1978) studies.

Infants with this type of attachment explore their environment (explorative behavior) and are moderately distressed when their mother leaves the room ( separation anxiety).

They also show moderate stranger anxiety and some distress when they are approached by a stranger. They seek contact with their mother when she returns.

Such children feel confident that the attachment figure will be available to meet their needs. They use the attachment figure as a safe base to explore the environment and seek the attachment figure in times of distress (Main, & Cassidy, 1988).

Securely attached infants are easily soothed by the attachment figure when upset. Infants develop a secure attachment when the caregiver is sensitive to their signals, and responds appropriately to their needs.

According to Bowlby (1980), an individual who has experienced a secure attachment "is likely to possess a representational model of attachment figures(s) as being available, responsive, and helpful" (Bowlby, 1980, p. 242).

In the context of the Strange Situation, a child displaying secure attachment exhibits the following behaviors:

1. Desire for Proximity and Contact: The baby actively seeks proximity and contact with the mother, especially during reunion episodes. This desire reflects a strong emotional connection and trust in the mother as a source of comfort and safety.

2. Maintenance of Contact: Once in contact with the mother, the baby seeks to maintain it. If the mother attempts to put the baby down, the child may resist or protest, indicating a preference to stay close.

3. Positive Response to Reunion: The baby's response to the mother's return is more than casual. It may include a smile, cry, or tendency to approach, signaling happiness or relief at the mother's presence.

4. Lack of Resistance or Avoidance: The baby shows little or no tendency to resist or avoid contact or interaction with the mother during reunion episodes. This lack of avoidance or resistance is indicative of a secure and comfortable relationship.

5. Preference for Mother Over Stranger: While the baby may or may not be friendly with a stranger, there is a clear preference for interaction and/or contact with the mother. This preference underscores the special bond between the child and the mother.

6. Distress Related to Mother's Absence: If the baby is distressed during separation episodes, it is clearly related to the mother's absence rather than merely being alone. The baby may find some comfort in the stranger, but it is evident that the mother is the preferred source of comfort.

7. No Avoidance of Mother: The baby shows little or no tendency to avoid the mother in the reunion episodes, reflecting a lack of apprehension or fear in the relationship.

A: Insecure Avoidant

Infants with an insecure-avoidant attachment are unconcerned by their mother's absence when she leaves the room (no separation anxiety).

They show little interest when reunited with the mother (i.e., she returns to the room). Infants are strongly avoidant of the mother and stranger, showing no motivation to interact with either adult. They do not seek contact with the attachment figure when distressed. The stranger is treated similarly to the mother (does not seek contact).

They are very independent of the attachment figure, both physically and emotionally (Behrens, Hesse, & Main, 2007). Insecure avoidant children do not orientate to their attachment figure while investigating the environment.

Such children will likely have insensitive caregivers who ignore their emotional needs (Ainsworth, 1979).

The attachment figure may withdraw from helping during difficult tasks (Stevenson-Hinde, & Verschueren, 2002) and is often unavailable during emotional distress.

In the context of the Strange Situation, a child displaying avoidant attachment exhibits the following behaviors:

1. Avoidance of Proximity and Interaction: In the reunion episodes, the baby conspicuously avoids proximity to or interaction with the mother. This avoidance may manifest as ignoring the mother upon her return, greeting her casually, or mingling a welcome with avoidance responses such as turning away, moving past, or averting the gaze.

2. Lack of Desire for Proximity or Contact: The baby shows little or no tendency to seek proximity, interaction, or contact with the mother, even during reunion episodes. This lack of desire reflects an emotional distance and a lack of reliance on the mother for comfort or security.

3. No Clinging or Resistance to Release: If the baby is picked up, there is little or no tendency to cling or resist being released. This behavior further emphasizes the lack of attachment or need for closeness with the mother.

4. Minimal Active Resistance to Contact: There is little or no tendency toward active resistance to contact or interaction with the mother. If the baby is picked up, there may be squirming to get down, but not a strong rejection or anger.

5. Similar Treatment of Stranger: The baby treats the stranger much like the mother, although perhaps with less avoidance. This lack of differentiation between the mother and a stranger indicates a lack of special attachment or preference for the mother.

6. Lack of Distress During Separation: The baby is not distressed during separation, or the distress seems to be due to being left alone rather than the mother's absence. This lack of distress related to the mother's absence further highlights the lack of attachment or reliance on the mother for emotional support.

7. Possible Indifference to Being Alone: The text cuts off, but it seems to imply that distress does not occur when left alone for most babies with avoidant attachment. This indifference to being alone or with the mother reflects a lack of emotional connection or dependence on the mother.

C: Insecure Ambivalent / Resistant

The third attachment style Ainsworth (1970) identified was insecure ambivalent (also called insecure resistant).

Children with this type of attachment are clingy to their mother in a new situation and unwilling to explore. They are extremely distressed when left alone by their mother (separation anxiety), and are scared of the stranger.

When the mother returns, they are pleased to see her and go to her for comfort, but then they cannot be comforted and may show signs of anger towards her.

Here children adopt an ambivalent behavioral style towards the attachment figure. The child commonly exhibits clingy and dependent behavior but rejects the attachment figure when interacting.

The child fails to develop any feelings of security from the attachment figure. Accordingly, they exhibit difficulty moving away from the attachment figure to explore novel surroundings.

When distressed, they are difficult to soothe and are not comforted by interaction with the attachment figure. This behavior results from an inconsistent response to their emotional needs from the primary caregiver.

In the context of the Strange Situation, a child displaying anxious resistant attachment exhibits the following behaviors:

1. Conspicuous Contact- and Interaction-Resisting Behavior: The baby displays noticeable resistance to contact and interaction, especially in specific episodes like Episode 8.

This resistance may manifest as pushing away, squirming, or showing anger when approached or picked up by the mother.

2. Ambivalence Towards the Mother: Despite the resistance, the baby also shows moderate-to-strong seeking of proximity and contact and strives to maintain contact once gained.

This combination of seeking closeness and resisting contact gives the impression of being ambivalent toward the mother, reflecting mixed feelings and confusion.

3. No Avoidance of the Mother: Unlike avoidant attachment, the baby with resistant attachment shows little or no tendency to ignore the mother in the reunion episodes or to turn or move away from her or avert his gaze. This lack of avoidance indicates a desire for connection, even if it is conflicted.

4. Possibly More Angry or Passive: The baby may display generally "maladaptive" behavior in the strange situation. This could manifest as a tendency to be more angry than infants in other groups, reflecting frustration or confusion.

Alternatively, the baby may be conspicuously passive, possibly reflecting a lack of confidence or uncertainty in how to respond.

5. Complex Relationship with the Caregiver: The combination of seeking proximity and resisting contact reflects a complex and often stressful relationship with the caregiver. The baby may want closeness but also feel frustration or anger, leading to a pattern of behavior that is both seeking and rejecting.

Conclusion

Ainsworth (1978) suggested the 'caregiver sensitivity hypothesis' to explain different attachment types.

Ainsworth's maternal sensitivity hypothesis argues that a child's attachment style depends on their mother's behavior towards them.

'Sensitive' mothers are responsive to the child's needs and respond to their moods and feelings correctly. Sensitive mothers are more likely to have securely attached children.

In contrast, mothers who are less sensitive towards their child, for example, those who respond to the child's needs incorrectly or who are impatient or ignore the child, are likely to have insecurely attached children.

For example, securely attached infants are associated with sensitive and responsive primary care.

Insecure ambivalent attachment is associated with inconsistent primary care. Sometimes the child's needs and met, and sometimes they are ignored by the caregiver.

Insecure-avoidant attachment is associated with unresponsive primary care. The child comes to believe that communication of needs has no influence on the mother/father.

Ainsworth's (1971, 1978) findings provided the first empirical evidence for Bowlby's (1969) theory of internal working models of attachment relationships.

For example, securely attached children develop a positive working model of themselves and have mental representations of others as being helpful while viewing themselves as worthy of respect (Jacobsen, & Hoffman, 1997).

Avoidant children think themselves unworthy and unacceptable, caused by a rejecting primary caregiver (Larose, & Bernier, 2001). Ambivalent children have a negative self-image and exaggerate their emotional responses as a way to gain attention (Kobak et al., 1993).

Accordingly, insecure attachment styles are associated with an increased risk of social and emotional behavioral problems via the internal working model.

Theoretical Evaluation

This caregiver sensitivity theory is supported by research from Wolff and Van Ijzendoorn (1997), who conducted a Meta-analysis (a review) of research into attachment types.

They found that there is a relatively weak correlation of 0.24 between parental sensitivity and attachment type - generally more sensitive parents had securely attached children.

However, in evaluation, critics of this theory argue that the correlation between parental sensitivity and the child's attachment type is only weak. This suggests that there are other reasons which may better explain why children develop different attachment types and that the maternal sensitivity theory places too much emphasis on the mother.

Focusing just on maternal sensitivity when explaining why children have different attachment types is, therefore, a reductionist approach.

An alternative theory proposed by Kagan (1984) suggests that the temperament of the child is actually what leads to the different attachment types. Children with different innate (inborn) temperaments will have different attachment types.

This theory is supported by research from Fox (1989), who found that babies with an 'Easy' temperament (those who eat and sleep regularly and accept new experiences) are likely to develop secure attachments.

Babies with a 'slow to warm up' temperament (those who took a while to get used to new experiences) are likely to have insecure-avoidant attachments. Babies with a 'Difficult' temperament (those who eat and sleep irregularly and who reject new experiences) are likely to have insecure-ambivalent attachments.

In conclusion, the most complete explanation of why children develop different attachment types would be an interactionist theory. This would argue that a child's attachment type is a result of a combination of factors - both the child's innate temperament and their parent's sensitivity towards their needs.

Belsky and Rovine (1987) propose an interesting interactionist theory to explain the different attachment types. They argue that the child's attachment type is a result of both the child's innate temperament and also how the parent responds to them (i.e., the parents' sensitivity level).

Additionally, the child's innate temperament may, in fact, influence the way their parent responds to them (i.e, the infants' temperament influences the parental sensitivity shown to them). To develop a secure attachment, a 'difficult' child would need a caregiver who is sensitive and patient for a secure attachment to develop.

Methodological Evaluation

The strange situation classification has been found to have good reliability. This means that it achieves consistent results. For example, a study conducted in Germany found 78% of the children were classified in the same way at ages 1 and 6 years (Wartner et al., 1994).

Although, as Melhuish (1993) suggests, the Strange Situation is the most widely used method for assessing infant attachment to a caregiver, Lamb et al. (1985) have criticized it for being highly artificial and lacking ecological validity.

The child is placed in a strange and artificial environment, and the procedure of the mother and stranger entering and leaving the room follows a predetermined script of eight stages (e.g., mum and stranger entering and leaving the room at set times) that would be unlikely to happen in real life.

Mary Ainsworth concluded that the strange situation could be used to identify the child's type of attachment but has been criticized because it identifies only the type of attachment to the mother.

The child may have a different type of attachment to the father or grandmother, for example (Lamb, 1977). This means that it lacks validity, as it does not measure a general attachment style, but instead an attachment style specific to the mother.

In addition, some research has shown that the same child may show different attachment behaviors on different occasions. Children's attachments may change, perhaps because of changes in the child's circumstances, so a securely attached child may appear insecurely attached if the mother becomes ill or the family circumstances change.

The strange situation has also been criticized on ethical grounds. Because the child is put under stress (separation and stranger anxiety), the study has broken the ethical guideline protection of participants.

However, in its defense, the separation episodes were curtailed prematurely if the child became too stressed.

Also, according to Marrone (1998), although the Strange Situation has been criticized for being stressful, it simulates everyday experiences, as mothers do leave their babies for brief periods in different settings and often with unfamiliar people such as babysitters.

A problem of the study is that it lacks population validity. The original study used American infants from middle-class families. The study tells us about how this particular group behaves and cannot be generalized to the broader population and other cultures, which might behave differently towards their children and have different expectations.

For example, in Germany, parents encourage independence in their children, so they are less likely to show enthusiastic reunion behavior than children from other cultures.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are Mary Ainsworth's contributions to psychology

Mary Ainsworth significantly contributed to psychology by developing the 'Strange Situation' procedure to observe attachment relationships between a caregiver and child. Her work shaped our understanding of attachment styles: secure, avoidant, and ambivalent, greatly influencing developmental and child psychology.

How is the Strange Situation important?

The Strange Situation experiment is important because it was a breakthrough in identifying different attachment styles in infants.

Ainsworth's research showed that how caregivers respond to a child's needs can have a lasting impact on their emotional development. The experiment provided a reliable way to measure attachment styles, which has helped researchers and clinicians better understand how attachment influences a person's relationships throughout their life.

Ainsworth's work has also influenced how parents and caregivers understand the importance of emotional responsiveness and sensitive care in promoting secure attachment and healthy child development.

Can a child's attachment style change over time?

Yes, a child's attachment style can change over time. While attachment styles tend to be stable, experiences with caregivers and changes in the child's environment can lead to shifts in attachment style.

For example, a child with an insecure attachment style may become more secure with consistent and responsive caregiving. Conversely, a child with a secure attachment style may develop an insecure attachment style due to neglect, abuse, or other adverse experiences.

Is Ainsworth research ethnocentric?

Ethnocentrism is when someone thinks their own cultural or ethnic group is the most important, and they judge other cultures or ethnic groups based on their own standards and values. They may see other groups as inferior or less important.

Some researchers argue that Mary Ainsworth's Strange Situation experiment is ethnocentric because it was originally conducted on a relatively small sample of middle-class American families.

Critics argue that the experiment may not represent attachment patterns in other cultures and may not account for cultural differences in child-rearing practices.

What is the difference between secure and insecure attachment?

Secure and insecure attachments are broad classifications that describe how we think, feel, and behave in relationships.

Secure attachment in adults is characterized by trust, stability, and a balance between intimacy and independence. Insecure attachment (anxious, avoidant, or disorganized) can involve fear of abandonment, emotional distance, or inconsistent reactions to intimacy and conflict.

PRINT

SAVE ARTICLE

PINTEREST

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

Saul Mcleod, PhD
Educator, Researcher

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, Ph.D., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years experience of working in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mary Ainsworth Strange Situation Experiment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The strange situation is a standardized procedure devised by Mary Ainsworth in the 1970s to observe attachment security in children within the context of caregiver relationships. It applies to infants between the age of nine and 18 months. The procedure involves a series of eight episodes lasting approximately 3 minutes each, whereby a mother, child, and stranger are introduced, separated, and reunited.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In Bowlby's The Origins Of Attachment lecture he alluded to this:
"During the nineteen-thirties and forties a number of clinicians on both sides of the Atlantic, mostly working independently of each other, were making observations of the ill effects on Consequences of maternal deprivation include: personality development of prolonged institutional care and/or frequent changes of mother-figure during the early years of life." Bowlby (1944) 44 Juvenile Thieves Study
Bowlby's (1953) Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis proposed that a "warm, intimate & continuous relationship with a mother (figure)" is necessary for healthy psychological/ emotional development. "Mother-love in infancy/ childhood is as important for mental health as are vitamins & proteins for physical health."

An inability to form attachments in the future (see the Internal Working Model)

Affectionless psychopathy (inability to feel remorse)

Delinquency (behavioural problems in adolescence)

Problems with Cognitive Development

44 Thieves were compared with 44 Non-thieves from a delinquency centre. Bowlby collected data via interviews and questionnaires from the 88 juveniles and found that 17/ 44 thieves had experienced early prolonged separation from their mothers before 5 years.

Evaluation Strengths:
15/17 of these thieves were classed as affectionless psychopaths (no guilt/ remorse), while only 2/44 non-thieves had experienced such separation. Therefore these findings support the MDH, as there appears to be a link between disruption to attachments in the first 5 years and later maladjustment.

Bowlby's subsequent research reported that 60 children who had spent time apart from their mothers due to tuberculosis prior to the age of 4, demonstrated lower achievement in school.

Bowlby's findings indicate that experiencing disrupted attachments early in life is linked to crime, emotional maladjustment and lower academic achievement, lending strong support for the MDH.
Weaknesses:
Practical applications - the MDH and accompanying research has significant real world applications, as they highlight the importance of positive attachment experiences and maintaining a mono tropic bond in the first five years, which have been instrumental in the developments of good childcare practices. Greater stability in childcare practice has been developed through daycare centres assigning caregivers to children and hospital visiting hours have been reviewed so that children can maintain contact with their parents.

Some national governments offer more financial support for young families in terms of maternity and paternity leave. For instance, Sweden offers 480 days parental leave, clearly highlighting its commitment to support children's early attachment experiences.

Bowlby summarised some of the key applications that stemmed from the research in the 1950's, pointing to implications for those "working in child psychiatry and psychology and in social work, and some also of those in paediatrics and sick children's nursing," (Bowlby 1988).

Retrospective recall might be inaccurate - As Bowlby was asking the adolescent participants to recall separations that they had experienced years earlier, their responses would have been subject to inaccuracies/ distortions.

Investigator effects - Bowlby designed and conducted the self-reports himself and as a result, his presence and interpretation might have influenced the outcome of the research. Bowlby's diagnosis of affectionless psychopathy might have been distorted by researcher confirmation bias.

Conclusions are correlational - Bowlby found a relationship between early separation and delinquency/ affectionless psychopathy but we cannot definitively conclude that the separation was the cause. There may have been a third unidentified variable that accounted for the delinquency/ affectionless psychopathy. For example, the immediate cause of the separation (such as neglect or abuse) might have been the direct cause of problems experienced at adolescence rather than the separation itself.

Oversimplified concept - Michael Rutter's (72) Maternal Deprivation Re-assessed critiqued Bowlby's concept of the Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis. Rutter argues that Bowlby failed to distinguish between separation from an attachment figure, loss of an attachment figure and a complete lack of attachment (privation). Rutter argues that the three circumstances have different long-term effects on which Bowlby overlooked.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bowlby's Theory of Maternal Deprivation | tutor2u Psychology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Bowlby's The Origins Of Attachment lecture he alluded to this: "During the nineteen-thirties and forties a number of clinicians on both sides of the Atlantic, mostly working independently of each other, were making observations of the ill effects on Consequences of maternal deprivation include: personality development of prolonged institutional care and/or frequent changes of mother-figure during the early years of life."

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.tutor2u.net/psychology/blog/adopted-romanian-orphans-still-suffering-in-adulthood

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We've just flicked the switch on moving all our digital resources to instant digital download - via our new subject stores.

For every subject you can now access each digital resource as soon as it is ordered. This will always be the latest edition of each resource too (and we'll update you automatically if there is an upgraded version to use).

Simply add the required resources to your cart, checkout using the usual options and your resources will be available to access immediately via your mytutor2u account.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Adopted Romanian Orphans 'Still Suffering in Adulthood' | tutor2u Psychology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We've just flicked the switch on moving all our digital resources to instant digital download - via our new subject stores. For every subject you can now access each digital resource as soon as it is ordered. This will always be the latest edition of each resource too (and we'll update you automatically if there is an upgraded version to use).

# data[].attributes.headline
Simply Psychology Hodges and Tizard Notes

# data[].attributes.subject
Simply Psychology Hodges and Tizard Notes

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.simplypsychology.org/hodges-tizard.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hodges and Tizard 1989 | Simply Psychology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hodges and Tizard found that the adopted children still had good attachments which compared favorably with the control children. Fewer restored children were reported as having good attachments but the children who had been brought up in institutional care had experienced most instability and showed some difficulties in their later attachments.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.verywell.com/how-do-you-behave-in-romantic-relationships-2796098

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How Do You Behave in Romantic Relationships?

You got: Secure Attachment

Ezra Bailey/Taxi/Getty Images

People with secure attachments tend to feel comfortable with themselves and their relationships. Securely attached individuals tend to have happier, long-lasting relationships. You feel comfortable sharing your feelings with your partner and are able to turn to your partner for support. Securely attached adults tend to have high self-esteem, believe in lasting love and have more positive feelings about their romantic relationships.

THIS TOOL DOES NOT PROVIDE MEDICAL ADVICE. It is intended for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional medical consultation, diagnosis or treatment.

How Do You Behave in Romantic Relationships?

You got: Anxious Attachment

Simon Potter/Cultura/Getty Images

People with anxious attachments tend to worry more about romantic relationships. You may fear that your partner does not feel the same way about you as you do about him or her, or you might be concerned that your partner will leave you. You might even want to become very close to your partner, but worry that this will scare the other person off. All of this anxiety can take a serious toll on your self-esteem and self-concept.

THIS TOOL DOES NOT PROVIDE MEDICAL ADVICE. It is intended for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional medical consultation, diagnosis or treatment.

How Do You Behave in Romantic Relationships?

You got: Avoidant Attachment

redheadpictures / Cultura Exclusive / Getty Images

People with avoidant attachments tend to have difficulty with love and forming close, intimate relationships. You may feel uncomfortable sharing your thoughts, feelings and ideas with your romantic partner. In some cases, you might even come up with excuses to avoid intimacy.

THIS TOOL DOES NOT PROVIDE MEDICAL ADVICE. It is intended for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional medical consultation, diagnosis or treatment.

How Do You Behave in Romantic Relationships?

You got: Fearful Attachment

Tetra Images/Getty Images

People with fearful attachments tend to crave emotional intimacy yet fear being hurt. They yearn for love, yet also fear it. This style of attachment tends to be rare and may mean that you have overcome trauma during early childhood and adolescence. While you have a strong desire to love and be loved, you find it difficult to trust your partner's intentions.

THIS TOOL DOES NOT PROVIDE MEDICAL ADVICE. It is intended for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional medical consultation, diagnosis or treatment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Do You Behave in Romantic Relationships?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How Do You Behave in Romantic Relationships? People with secure attachments tend to feel comfortable with themselves and their relationships. Securely attached individuals tend to have happier, long-lasting relationships. You feel comfortable sharing your feelings with your partner and are able to turn to your partner for support.