Discuss the strange situation as a way of assessing types of attachment.
(16 marks)
Ainsworth devised a controlled observation called the Strange Situation to assess types of
attachment in 9–18 month old infants. The strange Situation involves placing a child and their
mother in a novel environment of mild stress, whereby they would be observed and videoed
through a one‐way mirror during a series of eight different situations. The purpose of the
Strange Situation is to measure four key behaviours, including: exploration behaviours – how
the child explores the environment and whether they use the mother as a safe base;
separation anxiety – how the child responds to/behaves when the mother leaves the room;
stranger anxiety – how the child responds in the presence of a stranger; and reunion
behaviours – how the child acts when reunited with their mother.
Depending on how the child responds in the Strange Situation would lead to one of three
attachment classifications: secure, insecure–avoidant and insecure–resistant. In her original
experiment, Ainsworth found the following distribution of attachment types: securely
attached – 66%, insecure– avoidant – 22%, and insecure–resistant – 12%.
A methodological weakness of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation is the type of observation she
used, which was an overt observation. The parents in Ainsworth’s study knew they were being
observed through the one‐way mirror and therefore may have displayed demand
characteristics. This meant that the mothers may have been overly affectionate towards their
children as they believed this is the behaviour that the scenario demanded of them. In turn,
this could have altered the children’s behaviour and therefore lowers the internal validity of
the experiment making the Strange Situation a less valid method of assessing attachment.
Furthermore, Ainsworth’s Strange Situation demonstrates a culture bias. Her theory and
methods were based on Western ideals in relation to infant behaviour, categorising a higher
proportion of children from other cultures as insecure– avoidant (e.g. Japan) or insecure–
resistant (e.g. Germany). Consequently, the Strange Situation may not be a valid method of
assessing attachment in other, non‐American, cultures. However, the Strange Situation
method of assessing attachment type is said to have high reliability.
The observations took place under strict and controlled methods (including video recording)
using predetermined behavioural categories. Since Ainsworth has several observers
watching and coding the same infant behaviours, agreement on attachment classifications
could be ensured. Ainsworth et al. (1978) found 94% agreement between observers and
when inter‐observer/inter‐rater reliability is assumed to a high degree the findings are
considered more meaningful.
Finally, there is the possibility that Ainsworth’s classification system of attachment types is
incomplete. Main & Solomon (1986) conducted subsequent research whereby they analysed
several hundred Strange Situation episodes via videotape and suggested that Ainsworth
overlooked a fourth type. It was noted that some infants showed inconsistent patterns of
behaviour which they termed Type D; insecure– disorganised. Further support for this claim
comes from a meta‐analysis of studies from the US conducted by van Ijzendoorn et al. (1999)
which found that 15% of infants were, in fact, classified as Type D, suggesting that
Ainsworth’s original assessment of attachment is unable to fully explain all of the different
types of attachments in children.
, Outline and evaluate the role of the father in the development of
attachment. (16 marks)
Traditionally, the role of the father in attachment would have been limited, as they would go
to work to provide resources for the family whilst the mothers took care of the children.
Although recently the role of the father has changed significantly. However, psychologists
disagree over the exact role of the father. Some researchers claim that men are simply not
equipped to form an attachment. Such psychologists point to biological evidence which
suggests that the hormone oestrogen underlies caring behaviour in women and the lack of
oestrogen in men is why they are unable to form a close attachment. Other researchers argue
that fathers do not take on a caregiver role and, in fact, provide a different role, as a playmate.
Finally, some researchers argue that fathers can demonstrate sensitive responsiveness and
react to the needs of their children and thus can form a strong emotional tie or bond.
There is research evidence that provides support for the role of the father as a ‘playmate’.
Research by Geiger (1996) found that fathers’ play interactions were more exciting in
comparison to mothers’. However, the mothers’ play interactions were more affectionate
and nurturing. This suggests that the role of the father is, in fact, as a playmate and not as a
sensitive parent who responds to the needs of their children. These results also confirm that
the mother takes on more of a nurturing role.
Furthermore, research evidence also suggests that fathers do not provide a sensitive and
nurturing attachment. Hrdy (1999) found that fathers were less able to detect low levels of
infant distress, in comparison to mothers. These results appear to support the biological
explanations highlighted above; the lack of oestrogen in men means that fathers are not
biologically equipped to form close attachments with their children. This suggests that the
role of the father is, to some extent, biologically determined and that a father’s role is
restricted because of their biological makeup. This provides further evidence that fathers are
not able to provide a sensitive and nurturing type of attachment, as they are unable to detect
stress in their children.
However, research suggests that fathers are able to form secure attachments with their
children if they are in an intimate or close marriage. Belsky et al. (2009) found that males who
reported higher levels of marital intimacy also displayed a secure father–infant attachment,
whereas males with lower levels of marital intimacy displayed insecure father–infant
attachments. This suggests that males can form secure attachments with their children;
however, the strength of the attachment depends on the father and mother relationship.
Therefore, while fathers may be biologically determined to form a different relationship with
their children, this relationship is mediated by their environment (the intimacy of their
marriage) suggesting that while a father’s role may be determined, it is only determined to an
extent and therefore a softer view of determinism is more appropriate.
(16 marks)
Ainsworth devised a controlled observation called the Strange Situation to assess types of
attachment in 9–18 month old infants. The strange Situation involves placing a child and their
mother in a novel environment of mild stress, whereby they would be observed and videoed
through a one‐way mirror during a series of eight different situations. The purpose of the
Strange Situation is to measure four key behaviours, including: exploration behaviours – how
the child explores the environment and whether they use the mother as a safe base;
separation anxiety – how the child responds to/behaves when the mother leaves the room;
stranger anxiety – how the child responds in the presence of a stranger; and reunion
behaviours – how the child acts when reunited with their mother.
Depending on how the child responds in the Strange Situation would lead to one of three
attachment classifications: secure, insecure–avoidant and insecure–resistant. In her original
experiment, Ainsworth found the following distribution of attachment types: securely
attached – 66%, insecure– avoidant – 22%, and insecure–resistant – 12%.
A methodological weakness of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation is the type of observation she
used, which was an overt observation. The parents in Ainsworth’s study knew they were being
observed through the one‐way mirror and therefore may have displayed demand
characteristics. This meant that the mothers may have been overly affectionate towards their
children as they believed this is the behaviour that the scenario demanded of them. In turn,
this could have altered the children’s behaviour and therefore lowers the internal validity of
the experiment making the Strange Situation a less valid method of assessing attachment.
Furthermore, Ainsworth’s Strange Situation demonstrates a culture bias. Her theory and
methods were based on Western ideals in relation to infant behaviour, categorising a higher
proportion of children from other cultures as insecure– avoidant (e.g. Japan) or insecure–
resistant (e.g. Germany). Consequently, the Strange Situation may not be a valid method of
assessing attachment in other, non‐American, cultures. However, the Strange Situation
method of assessing attachment type is said to have high reliability.
The observations took place under strict and controlled methods (including video recording)
using predetermined behavioural categories. Since Ainsworth has several observers
watching and coding the same infant behaviours, agreement on attachment classifications
could be ensured. Ainsworth et al. (1978) found 94% agreement between observers and
when inter‐observer/inter‐rater reliability is assumed to a high degree the findings are
considered more meaningful.
Finally, there is the possibility that Ainsworth’s classification system of attachment types is
incomplete. Main & Solomon (1986) conducted subsequent research whereby they analysed
several hundred Strange Situation episodes via videotape and suggested that Ainsworth
overlooked a fourth type. It was noted that some infants showed inconsistent patterns of
behaviour which they termed Type D; insecure– disorganised. Further support for this claim
comes from a meta‐analysis of studies from the US conducted by van Ijzendoorn et al. (1999)
which found that 15% of infants were, in fact, classified as Type D, suggesting that
Ainsworth’s original assessment of attachment is unable to fully explain all of the different
types of attachments in children.
, Outline and evaluate the role of the father in the development of
attachment. (16 marks)
Traditionally, the role of the father in attachment would have been limited, as they would go
to work to provide resources for the family whilst the mothers took care of the children.
Although recently the role of the father has changed significantly. However, psychologists
disagree over the exact role of the father. Some researchers claim that men are simply not
equipped to form an attachment. Such psychologists point to biological evidence which
suggests that the hormone oestrogen underlies caring behaviour in women and the lack of
oestrogen in men is why they are unable to form a close attachment. Other researchers argue
that fathers do not take on a caregiver role and, in fact, provide a different role, as a playmate.
Finally, some researchers argue that fathers can demonstrate sensitive responsiveness and
react to the needs of their children and thus can form a strong emotional tie or bond.
There is research evidence that provides support for the role of the father as a ‘playmate’.
Research by Geiger (1996) found that fathers’ play interactions were more exciting in
comparison to mothers’. However, the mothers’ play interactions were more affectionate
and nurturing. This suggests that the role of the father is, in fact, as a playmate and not as a
sensitive parent who responds to the needs of their children. These results also confirm that
the mother takes on more of a nurturing role.
Furthermore, research evidence also suggests that fathers do not provide a sensitive and
nurturing attachment. Hrdy (1999) found that fathers were less able to detect low levels of
infant distress, in comparison to mothers. These results appear to support the biological
explanations highlighted above; the lack of oestrogen in men means that fathers are not
biologically equipped to form close attachments with their children. This suggests that the
role of the father is, to some extent, biologically determined and that a father’s role is
restricted because of their biological makeup. This provides further evidence that fathers are
not able to provide a sensitive and nurturing type of attachment, as they are unable to detect
stress in their children.
However, research suggests that fathers are able to form secure attachments with their
children if they are in an intimate or close marriage. Belsky et al. (2009) found that males who
reported higher levels of marital intimacy also displayed a secure father–infant attachment,
whereas males with lower levels of marital intimacy displayed insecure father–infant
attachments. This suggests that males can form secure attachments with their children;
however, the strength of the attachment depends on the father and mother relationship.
Therefore, while fathers may be biologically determined to form a different relationship with
their children, this relationship is mediated by their environment (the intimacy of their
marriage) suggesting that while a father’s role may be determined, it is only determined to an
extent and therefore a softer view of determinism is more appropriate.
