Individual Differences in Attachment
This activity will help you to:
 Understand and recall ways in which attachments differ based on the work of Ainsworth
and Bell
 Understand and recall the research on which this knowledge is based
 Develop evaluation skills
Individual Differences in Attachment
When you read psychological theories it would seem that everyone is the same. However, if you
look around, it’s fairly obvious that everyone is very different. In the context of research for
example, Schaffer and Emerson found that some babies like cuddling whereas others avoid
physical contact. Also, in the same study, they found that after 18months, some infants (13%)
only attached to one person, whereas others (31%) had made multiple attachments to 5 or more
people. These are INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES.
All normal children form an attachment to a caregiver (even those which have been abused
or neglected demonstrate attachment behaviour), however, the main individual differences lie in
the degree to which a child is attached.
Mary Ainsworth devised an assessment technique called the Strange Situation
Classification in order to investigate how attachments may vary between children.
What you need to do…
Working individually or in pairs, use your textbook or any other sources of information available
fill in the APFCE of Ainsworth and Bell’s (1970) Strange Situation Study:
Aims
Procedures
To investigate individual variation in infant attachments, and in particular differences between
secure and insecure attachments. Hoped the strange situation test would be a valid and reliable
measure of attachments.
The process was tested on infants aged 12-18 months in America. Lasts for just over 20 mins in a
laboratory, using controlled observation. Consists of eight episodes/stages:
STAGE
PEOPLE PRESENT
PROCEDURE
1 (30 sec)
Mother, infant, researcher
Researcher introduces mother
and infant to room and leaves
2 (3 mins)
Mother, infant
Mother passive while baby
explores
3 (3 mins)
Mother, infant, stranger
Stranger enters and after a
while talks to mother and then
infant. Mother leaves
4 (3 mins)
Stranger, infant
Stranger talks and plays with
infant
5 (3 mins)
Mother, infant
Stranger leaves, mother
returns to comfort infant and
then leaves
6 (3 mins)
Infant
Infant is alone in the room
7 (3 mins)
Stranger, infant
Stranger returns and tries to
interact with infant
8 (3 mins)
Mother, infant
Mother returns and interacts
with infant, and stranger leaves
Findings
Infants explored the room more enthusiastically when mother present than when stranger was
present.
Considerable individual differences in reunion behaviour:
15% - anxious-avoidant – Ignored mother, showing indifference. Few signs of stress when mother
left room. Responded to stranger in similar way as to mother.
70% - securely attached – Played happily when mother was present. Became upset when mother
left, and play was seriously disrupted. Wanted immediate comfort when mother returned.
Treated mother and stranger very differently.
15% - anxious-resistant – Fussy and wary even when mother present. Became distressed when
mother left, and wanted immediate comfort when she returned. However, they also showed anger
towards mother and resisted contact.
Conclusions
The strange situation regarded as a good measure of individual differences in attachment. Secure
attachment is the preferred and most popular attachment type. Study showed how sensitivity of
mother to infant played a part in type of attachment the infant displayed. Mothers who displayed
sensitivity towards their infant were most likely to have a securely attached infant; and mothers
who displayed insensitivity towards their infant were most likely to experience an insecure
attachment with their infant.
Criticisms







The strange situation procedure has been widely used in attachment research with infants,
and has been adapted for studies of children and even adults
Validity concerns the extent to which something is true. What does the Strange situation
actually measure? Is it something about the infant (child is a secure or insecure type) or is it
one particular r’ship? It has been found by Main & Weston (1981) that children behaved
differently depending on which parent they were tested with, which indicates that it is the
r’ship that determines the response to the S.S rather than attachment being due to the
infant’s temperament. = classification of an attachment type may not be valid as what is
being measured is 1 r’ship rather than something within the individual
If you agree with idea of monotropy, the 1 r’ship the infant has with it’s primary caregiver is
all that matters for emotional dev’t. The fact that an infant responds differently with
someone other than the primary caregiver tells us something about that r’ship, but the
attachment type is related to the 1 special r’ship
Validity of classification - questioned by Main and Solomon (1986) who put forward the
fourth type of disorganised attachment. This is where no consistent behaviour was shown by
the infant.
Could be seen as ethnocentric – culturally biased – because it was carried out in America.
Assumes that norms/values/behaviour is the same across all cultures.
Lack of external validity – artificial situation (in a lab) which may distort behaviour.
Ethical considerations – Is this method of deliberately exposing children to stress unethical?
Does the end justify the means?
Questions
1) What are the strengths of using the experimental approach used by Ainsworth and Bell?
Controlled, lacks bias, replicable
2) What factors determine infant’s attachment style
Attachments
Secure (70%) Type B
Children given a
positive working model
Carer who is emotionally
available, sensitive and
supportive
Avoidant (20%) Type A
Resistant (10%) Type C
Children have a working
model of themselves as
unacceptable and unworthy
Children have a negative
welf-image and exaggerate
their emotional responses to
gain attention
Carer who is rejecting
Carer who is inconsistent