You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Not all attachments are the same. Some infants show healthy, confident attachment behaviour while others appear anxious, avoidant, or disorganised. Understanding the different types of attachment and how they are measured is essential for AQA A-Level Psychology. The most influential method for classifying attachment types is Ainsworth's Strange Situation, and research into cultural variations has raised important questions about the universality of attachment.
Key Definition: The Strange Situation is a controlled observational procedure designed by Mary Ainsworth to assess the quality of attachment between an infant (typically 9–18 months) and a caregiver. It takes place in a novel environment and involves a series of separations and reunions.
This lesson covers two linked strands of the AQA 7182 Paper 1 Attachment topic. The first is Ainsworth's Strange Situation: types of attachment — secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant — and the procedure and behavioural categories used to classify them. The second is cultural variations in attachment, principally the van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) meta-analysis, including the concepts of within- and between-culture variation and the methodological problem of an imposed etic. You must be able to describe the procedure and the three types accurately (AO1) and evaluate the measure for reliability, validity, ethics and cultural bias (AO3). The Strange Situation also operationalises the secure-base and stranger/separation-anxiety ideas introduced earlier and provides the attachment classifications that Bowlby's continuity hypothesis later builds on.
Ainsworth and Bell (1970), with the procedure refined in Ainsworth et al. (1978), developed the Strange Situation as a method to observe and classify attachment behaviour in infants.
| Episode | Description | Behaviour highlighted |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Parent and infant enter the room. | (Settling in) |
| 2 | Parent sits while the infant explores. | Exploration & secure base |
| 3 | A stranger enters, talks to the parent, then approaches the infant. | Stranger anxiety |
| 4 | Parent leaves; the stranger remains with the infant (first separation). | Separation anxiety; stranger anxiety |
| 5 | Parent returns and the stranger leaves (first reunion). | Reunion behaviour |
| 6 | Parent leaves the infant alone (second separation). | Separation anxiety |
| 7 | The stranger returns and tries to comfort the infant. | Stranger anxiety |
| 8 | Parent returns and the stranger leaves (second reunion). | Reunion behaviour |
Ainsworth and her colleagues judged attachment type from five key behaviours:
Key Definition: Secure-base behaviour refers to the infant's use of the attachment figure as a point of safety from which to explore. The infant ventures out to explore and returns to the caregiver when anxious or uncertain.
The diagram below shows how the assessed behaviours feed into the three classic Ainsworth types.
graph TD
SS[Strange Situation behaviours observed] --> PS[Proximity-seeking]
SS --> EX[Exploration / secure base]
SS --> SA[Stranger anxiety]
SS --> SEP[Separation anxiety]
SS --> RE[Reunion behaviour]
PS --> B[Type B: Secure ~66%]
EX --> B
SA --> B
SEP --> B
RE --> B
PS --> A[Type A: Insecure-Avoidant ~22%]
EX --> A
SA --> A
SEP --> A
RE --> A
PS --> C[Type C: Insecure-Resistant ~12%]
EX --> C
SA --> C
SEP --> C
RE --> C
B --- Bd[High exploration using caregiver as base; moderate separation & stranger anxiety; easily comforted on reunion]
A --- Ad[High exploration but NOT using caregiver as base; little separation or stranger anxiety; avoids/ignores caregiver on reunion]
C --- Cd[Low exploration; intense separation & stranger anxiety; seeks AND resists comfort on reunion - ambivalent]
Based on observations of around 100 middle-class American infants, Ainsworth identified three main types of attachment.
| Behaviour | Description |
|---|---|
| Proximity-seeking & secure base | Stays reasonably close and uses the caregiver as a secure base for exploration |
| Exploration | Explores confidently and freely when the caregiver is present |
| Separation anxiety | Shows moderate distress when the caregiver leaves |
| Stranger anxiety | Shows some wariness of the stranger, especially when the caregiver is absent |
| Reunion behaviour | Greets the caregiver positively on return; seeks comfort and is quickly soothed |
Secure attachment is associated with a caregiver who is sensitive and responsive to the infant's needs and signals — the caregiver-sensitivity hypothesis.
| Behaviour | Description |
|---|---|
| Proximity-seeking & secure base | Does not seek proximity; does not use the caregiver as a secure base |
| Exploration | Explores freely but independently of the caregiver |
| Separation anxiety | Shows little or no distress when the caregiver leaves |
| Stranger anxiety | Shows little stranger anxiety; may be as content with the stranger as with the caregiver |
| Reunion behaviour | Avoids or ignores the caregiver on return; shows little interest in being comforted |
Insecure-avoidant attachment is associated with a caregiver who is rejecting or consistently unresponsive. The infant has learned that bids for comfort are not met and so minimises them.
| Behaviour | Description |
|---|---|
| Proximity-seeking & secure base | Stays very close, reluctant to leave the caregiver; poor use of secure base |
| Exploration | Explores less than secure or avoidant infants |
| Separation anxiety | Shows intense distress when the caregiver leaves |
| Stranger anxiety | Shows strong stranger anxiety; not easily comforted by the stranger |
| Reunion behaviour | Seeks comfort but simultaneously resists it (reaches to be picked up, then pushes away); ambivalent and hard to settle |
Insecure-resistant attachment is associated with a caregiver who is inconsistently responsive — sometimes attentive, sometimes neglectful — so the infant cannot predict whether bids for comfort will be met, and therefore both demands and resists contact.
Ainsworth's central explanatory claim — the caregiver-sensitivity hypothesis — is that attachment type is determined chiefly by the caregiver's sensitivity to the infant's signals. From her earlier naturalistic observations of mothers and infants in Uganda and Baltimore, Ainsworth concluded that mothers of secure infants were more sensitive, accepting, cooperative and emotionally accessible, whereas mothers of insecure infants tended to be less responsive, more rejecting (associated with avoidance) or inconsistent (associated with resistance). This explains why the three patterns arise: the infant constructs an expectation of how reliably comfort is available and adjusts its behaviour accordingly — confidently using a base it trusts (secure), suppressing bids it expects to be rebuffed (avoidant), or anxiously over-monitoring a caregiver whose responses are unpredictable (resistant). This idea ties the Strange Situation directly back to reciprocity, synchrony and sensitive responsiveness from the first lesson, and it is the engine behind the predictive validity discussed below.
It is also worth understanding why the procedure is structured as it is. The eight episodes deliberately escalate mild stress — first the unfamiliar room, then a stranger, then separation, then being left entirely alone — because attachment behaviour is most clearly displayed when the attachment system is activated. A contented, unstressed infant may explore happily whatever its attachment type; it is when the infant is anxious that the differences in how it uses (or fails to use) the caregiver become visible. This is why reunion behaviour, when the stressed infant must "decide" how to respond to the returning caregiver, is the most informative category of all.
Main and Solomon (1986) later identified a fourth attachment type — Type D: disorganised attachment — from cases that did not fit Ainsworth's three categories. These infants lack a consistent strategy for dealing with separation and reunion. Their behaviour may include approaching the caregiver while looking away, freezing or dazed expressions, contradictory behaviours (clinging while leaning away), and signs of fear of the caregiver. Disorganised attachment is most often associated with caregivers who are frightening or frightened themselves (for example because of abuse or unresolved trauma), creating a paradox in which the caregiver is simultaneously the source of comfort and the source of fear. Note that Types A, B and C are the three the specification names as Ainsworth's; Type D is an important later addition.
Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) conducted a meta-analysis to investigate whether the distribution of attachment types is universal or varies across cultures.
| Culture | Secure (B) | Insecure-Avoidant (A) | Insecure-Resistant (C) | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Great Britain | Highest secure | Moderate | Low | Close to the "norm" |
| West Germany | High insecure-avoidant | Notably high | Low | Cultural value on early independence/self-reliance |
| Japan | High insecure-resistant | Very low | Notably high | Infants rarely separated from mother; separation unusually distressing |
| Israel (kibbutz) | — | Low | High | Limited exposure to strangers; stranger episodes especially stressful |
(The exact percentages varied across studies; the directions of difference above are the secure conclusions to learn.)
A frequently cited individual study that illustrates the cultural point is Takahashi (1990), who ran the Strange Situation with Japanese infants and found that many became so distressed during the "infant alone" episode that the procedure had to be stopped. Because Japanese infants in this sample were almost never separated from their mothers in daily life, the separation episodes were far more stressful for them than the procedure assumes — so high "resistant" classifications may say more about the unfamiliarity of separation than about an insecure bond. This is a concrete demonstration of why the Strange Situation may lack validity when exported, and it is a useful named example to support the imposed-etic argument in the evaluation below.
Key Definition: An imposed etic occurs when researchers apply a measurement tool or concept developed in one culture to another culture, assuming it is valid there without checking whether it is meaningful in that cultural context.
The Strange Situation has high inter-rater reliability, which strengthens confidence in the classifications. Because the behavioural categories (proximity-seeking, secure-base use, separation and stranger anxiety, reunion behaviour) are clearly operationalised and the procedure is filmed, independent observers can score the same infant and reach very high agreement, with reported inter-rater reliability above 0.9. This matters because a measure that different observers apply consistently is one whose results are unlikely to be the product of any single rater's subjective judgement. The implication is that, whatever doubts exist about what the procedure measures, it measures it consistently — a genuine methodological strength.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.