• Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’. Types of attachment: secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant. Cultural variations in attachment, including van Ijzendoorn.

What was Ainsworth's 'Strange Situation'

● AIM:

+ To investigate the different attachment style of young children with their primary caregiver

● PROCEDURE:

+ Involved 8 stages where the behaviour of babies was monitored / observed 

+ Each stage / episode lasted 3 minutes

+ Infants aged 9-18 months were observed through a video camera in a lab playroom (controlled environment)

+ Behaviour recorded using behavioural categories

● KEY BEHAVIOUR MEASURED:

1) Proximity seeking

2) Stranger anxiety 

3) Separation anxiety 

4) Exploration & secure-base behaviour

5) Response to reunion 

● ATTACHMENT TYPES:

+ Secure (Type B) 

+ Insecure-avoidant (Type A)

+ Insecure-resistant (Type C) 

66% were securely attached

22% insecure avoidant

12% insecure resistant

Conclusion

□ The majority of infants form secure attachments with their caregivers, but about a third do not.

□ Whether a secure attachment is formed seems to depend on the sensitivity of the caregiver. 

Outline the Episodes of Ainsworth's 'Strange situation'

 EPISODE 1:

+ People present = mother, infant & observer

+ Observer introduces mother & baby to experimental room, then leaves

● EPISODE 2:

+ People present = mother & infant

+ Mother is nonparticipant while baby explores. If necessary, play is stimulated after 2 minutes 

● EPISODE 3:

+ People present = stranger, mother & infant

+ Stranger enters:

1) Minute 1 stranger silent

2) Minute 2 stranger talks with mother

3) Minute 3 stranger approaches baby 

4) After 3 min mother leaves

● EPISODE 4:

+ People present = stranger & infant

+ First separation episode 

+ Stranger's behaviour is geared to that of baby 

● EPISODE 5:

+ People present = Mother & Infant

+ First reunion episode

+ Mother greets & comforts baby, then tries to settle baby into play

+ Mother then leaves, waves byebye uk

● EPISODE 6:

+ People present = Infant

+ Second separation

● EPISODE 7:

+ People present = Stranger & Infant

+ Continuation of second separation

+ Stranger enters & gears behaviour to that of baby 

● EPISODE 8:

+ People present = Mother & Infant 

+ Second reunion episode 

+ Mother enters, greets baby. Stranger leaves 

Outline the Key behaviours measured

1) PROXIMITY SEEKING;

+ How close they stay to their caregiver

2) STRANGER ANXIETY:

+ How the child responds in the presence of a stranger 

3) SEPARATION ANXIETY:

+ How the child responds to / behaves when the mother leaves the room 

4) EXPLORATION & SECURE-BASE BEHAVIOUR:

+ How the child explores the environment 

+ Whether they use the mother as a safe base 

5) RESPONSE TO REUNION:

+ How the child acts when reunited with their mother

SECURE ATTACHMENT (TYPE B):

+ Explore happily but regularly go back to caregiver (proximity-seeking & secure-base behaviour)

+ Moderate separation distress & moderate stranger anxiety

+ Require & accept comfort from caregiver on reunion

+ About 65-70% of British babies

INSECURE-AVOIDANT ATTACHMENT (TYPE A):

+ Explore freely but don't seek proximity or show secure-base behaviour 

+ Show little or no reaction when caregiver leaves & show little stranger anxiety 

+ Make little effort to make contact when caregiver returns & may even avoid such contact

+ About 20-25% of British babies

● INSECURE-RESISTANT ATTACHMENT (TYPE C):

+ Seek proximity than others & so explore less 

+ High levels of stranger anxiety & separation distress 

+ Resist comfort when reunited with their caregiver 

+ About 3% of British babies

a01

The Strange Situation, developed by Ainsworth et al., is a controlled laboratory observation used to assess the quality of attachment between an infant and their caregiver. The infants aged 9 to 18 months were  observed through a two-way mirror or cameras. Their Behaviour was recorded by using behavioural categories. The sample consisted of 100 middle-class American infants and their mothers.

The procedure involves a standardised sequence of 8 episodes, each lasting approximately 3 minutes, in which the infant experiences separations and reunions with the caregiver, as well as the presence of a stranger. It begins with the caregiver and infant entering an unfamiliar playroom, where the infant is encouraged to explore, allowing assessment of exploration and secure base behaviour. Separation anxiety is measured when the caregiver leaves, stranger anxiety when a stranger enters, and reunion behaviour when the caregiver returns.

Three main attachment types were identified. Secure attachment (Type B, 60–75%) is characterised by infants who explore confidently using the caregiver as a secure base, show moderate separation and stranger anxiety, and are easily comforted on reunion. Insecure-avoidant attachment (Type A, 10–25%) is shown by infants who explore freely but do not seek proximity, display little separation or stranger anxiety, and avoid contact on reunion. Insecure-resistant attachment (Type C, around 3%) is characterised by infants who seek high proximity, explore less, show intense separation and stranger anxiety, and resist comfort on reunion.

The findings suggest that the majority of infants form secure attachments, although about a third did  not. The type of attachment formed appears to depend on the sensitivity of the caregiver.

strength- predictive validity + culture bias

• HIGH PREDICTIVE VALIDITY

P: One strength of the Strange Situation is that it has high predictive validity because attachment types can predict later life outcomes.

E: For example, securely attached infants tend to have better academic performance and healthier adult relationships, whereas insecure-resistant infants are more likely to experience bullying and mental health difficulties.

E: This suggests that early attachment style is a meaningful indicator of later social and emotional development, increasing the validity and practical usefulness of the Strange Situation. It can also help identify children who may be at risk and allow for early intervention.

L: Therefore, the Strange Situation is considered a useful and valid measure of attachment because it can successfully predict later developmental outcomes.

---

• CULTURAL BIAS

P: One limitation of the Strange Situation is that it may be culturally biased.

E: The Strange Situation was developed using Western norms of attachment, but research shows that infants in non-Western cultures, such as Japan, may display higher separation anxiety and different reunion behaviours due to practices such as co-sleeping and closer caregiver bonds.

E: This suggests that behaviours classified as “insecure” in Western cultures may actually be normal in other cultural contexts. As a result, the Strange Situation may be an imposed etic because it applies Western assumptions about attachment to all cultures.

L: Therefore, the Strange Situation may lack cultural validity and may not accurately assess or predict attachment behaviours across different societies.

incomplete there is type D

A further limitation is that Ainsworth’s classification system may be incomplete. The Main and Solomon study identified a fourth attachment type, Type D (insecure-disorganised), which is characterised by inconsistent and confused behaviours, often linked to experiences such as neglect or abuse. They found that around 15% of infants in the US showed this type of attachment, suggesting that the original three-category system (Types A, B and C) does not fully capture all attachment behaviours. This reduces the validity of the Strange Situation, limited so usefulness of theory 

HIGHLY CONTROLLED HOEWVWER HIGHKY ARTIFICAL PLUS OBERSVER BIAS

• HIGHLY CONTROLLED PROCEDURE

P: One strength of the Strange Situation is that it was conducted under highly controlled laboratory conditions.

E: For example, all infants experienced the same standardised procedure involving separation, stranger anxiety and reunion episodes, with attachment behaviours measured using predetermined behavioural categories.

E: This is a strength because attachment behaviour was measured systematically and consistently, allowing the procedure to be replicated and comparisons to be made across different groups of infants. This increases reliability because the findings are likely to be consistent across studies.

L: Therefore, the Strange Situation is considered a reliable method for assessing attachment types.

---

• LOW ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY

P: One limitation of the Strange Situation is that it may lack ecological validity because it was conducted in an artificial laboratory setting.

E: For example, infants were observed in an unfamiliar environment rather than in their normal home setting, meaning their behaviour may not reflect natural attachment behaviour.

E: In addition, mothers knew they were being observed and may have shown more sensitive responsiveness than usual due to demand characteristics. This could act as a confounding variable because the infant’s behaviour may have been influenced by altered caregiver behaviour rather than their genuine attachment type, reducing internal validity.

L: Therefore, the Strange Situation may not accurately measure real-life attachment behaviour, limiting the validity of the findings.

In a nursery setting, three children exhibit distinctly different behaviours when their parents come to collect them:

• Child A runs to greet their parent with a big smile, quickly returns to finish a drawing, then 

shows the drawing to their parent. 

• Child B barely acknowledges their parent's arrival, continuing to play with blocks. 

• Child C becomes very upset when their parent arrives, clinging to them insistently but then 

pushing them away when picked up.

Based on the behaviours described in the scenario, identify the type of attachment style each child is likely exhibiting according to Ainsworth's classifications in the ‘Strange Situation’. Provide a brief explanation for each child's attachment style. (4)

Child A is likely to have a secure (Type B) attachment. This is because they happily greet their parent, showing positive reunion behaviour, but also return to play, which suggests they use their caregiver as a secure base.

---

Child B is likely to have an insecure-avoidant (Type A) attachment. This is because they barely acknowledge their parent’s arrival and continue playing, showing low or no reunion behaviour and emotional detachment.

---

Child C is likely to have an insecure-resistant (Type C) attachment. This is because they become very upset when the parent arrives and cling to them, showing high separation anxiety, but then also push them away, showing ambivalent reunion behaviour.

Cultural variations in attachment- METHOD

32 studies across 8 countries used the Strange Situation, collecting data

from 1,990 children, and meta-analyzed to examine proportions of

attachment styles across and within various cultures.

Cultural variations in attachment- RESULT

Secure attachment most common type in all countries, but varied from

75% in Britain to 50% in China.

Insecure resistant was least common 3% in Britain to 30% in Japan.

Insecure avoidant most common in Germany and rare in Japan and Israel

Cultural variation within countries: Differences within cultures were 1.5

times greater than differences between cultures

A01-

Van ljzendoorn and Kroonenberg conducted a meta-analysis to look at the proportions of

attachment types across a range of countries to assess cultural variation. They also looked

at the differences within the same countries to get an idea of variations within a culture.

Culture is the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an

institution, organization or group. The researchers located 32 studies of attachment in 8

countries (15 in the USA), where the Strange Situation had been used. It included 1990

babies and their primary attachment figures. The results of the studies were combined and

analysed together, weighting each study for its sample size. In all countries, secure

attachment was the most common, varying from 75% in Britain to 50% in China. In

individualistic cultures, importance is placed on the individual and being able to achieve

your own personal goals. In collectivist cultures, importance is placed on the group as a

whole. They aspire to be dependent on each other. In individualist cultures, rates of

insecure-resistant attachment were similar to Ainsworth's original sample (all under 14%)

but the collectivist samples from China, Japan and Israel had rates above 25%. Variations

between results of studies within the same country were actually 150% greater than those

between countries. In the USA, for example, one study found only 46% securely attached

compared to one sample as high as 90%.

OTHER STUDIES REVELEVAT TO CV

Jin studied 97 Korean infants, with secure

attachment most common and high insecure

resistant levels, similar to Japan due to shared child

rearing practices that emphasise closer mother

infant proximity.

Why is Ainsworth's strange situation research an example of imposed etic?

 

Ainsworth's study can be criticised for imposed etic due to the fact that methodology she uses is based on US views & standard, therefore the judgement of attachment types when using this methodology reflects US practices in child rearing 

strength- large sample size still culture bias

• LARGE CROSS-CULTURAL SAMPLE

P: One strength of Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s research is that it used a large cross-cultural sample.

E: For example, the meta-analysis involved around 2,000 participants from a range of different countries.

E: This reduces the impact of anomalies and individual outliers, making the findings more representative of general patterns of attachment across cultures rather than reflecting unusual results from small samples.

L: Therefore, the large sample size increases the reliability and validity of the conclusions about cultural variations in attachment.

---

• CULTURAL SAMPLE BIAS

P: One limitation of Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s research is that the sample was culturally biased.

E: For example, 18 of the studies included in the meta-analysis were conducted in the USA, whereas only one study came from China.

E: This means Western individualistic cultures were overrepresented, which may have skewed the findings towards Western attachment patterns and limited representation of collectivist cultures.

L: Therefore, the conclusions may lack cultural validity because they may not accurately represent attachment behaviours across all cultures.

oversimplified culture differences

P: One limitation of Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s research is that it may oversimplify cultural differences in attachment.

E: For example, the study grouped entire countries together despite there being major differences in child-rearing practices between social classes and regions within the same country.

E: Low-income families may experience greater stress, financial instability and reduced access to resources, which can influence caregiving behaviour and attachment types differently from wealthier families. This means the findings may not accurately reflect all attachment experiences within a culture.

L: Therefore, the research may reach inaccurate conclusions about cultural attachment patterns, reducing the validity of the findings.

publication bias

P: One limitation of Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis is that it may suffer from publication bias.

E: Meta-analyses often rely mainly on published studies, which are more likely to report significant or positive findings than studies with non-significant results.

E: This means studies showing little or no cultural variation in attachment may have been underrepresented, potentially exaggerating the differences between cultures found in the meta-analysis.

L: Therefore, publication bias may reduce the validity of the conclusions about cultural variations in attachment.

Comparing

AO1 comparison

Both the learning theory and the monotropic theory explain how infants form attachments to caregivers. However, the learning theory states that attachment is learned through conditioning and the association of the caregiver with food, whereas John Bowlby’s monotropic theory argues that attachment is innate and biologically programmed for survival.

Similarity (AO3)

One similarity between the theories is that both recognise the importance of the caregiver in the development of attachment. Both theories suggest that infants become attached to caregivers who respond to their needs, meaning each theory explains why close emotional bonds form early in life.

Difference (AO3)

One difference is that the monotropic theory is supported by evidence from animal studies such as Lorenz’s goslings and Harlow’s monkeys, which showed attachment can form without food. In contrast, the learning theory has been criticised because research suggests food is not the main factor in attachment formation, reducing the validity of the explanation.