Attachments Quiz N0. 4
Evaluation and Implications of the Strange Situation
1. In evaluating the validity of Strange Situation, what is a common criticism?
This lab procedure intended to measure the attachment types of children. Did it? A criticism is that it only measured the strength of
one particular relationship, and this wasn’t necessarily with the main carer.
2. Why do some say that the fact the child wasn’t with his main carer is not important?
Bowlby said the relationship with the main carer becomes internalised and is reflected in all other relationships-so if the child
appeared insecurely attached, even if the main carer wasn’t present during the Strange Situation, the attachment type given to the
child is a reflection of what is happening at home with the main carer.
3. What is the main ethical problem with the Strange Situation?
The intention of the Strange Situation was to cause mild distress. Is this acceptable? Ainsworth claimed that the whole procedure
was not intended to be any more disturbing than ordinary life experiences.
4. In reality, were infants distressed by the original Strange Situation experiment?
In episode 6 (The carer leaves the child alone) 20% of infants reportedly “cried desperately”.
5. Prior and Glaser, 2006, found that certain infant attachment types were linked with adult behaviour.
What link did was associated with:
a) Secure attachment (Type B)
Is associated with positive outcomes such as less emotional dependence and higher achievement and interpersonal harmony.
b) Avoidant attachment (Type A)
Is related to later aggressiveness, and generally negative emotional behaviours.
c) Resistant attachment (Type C)
Is associated with greater anxiety and withdrawn behaviour.
d) Disorganised attachment (Type D)
Is related to hostile and aggressive behaviour.
6. Why did Bowlby say that later relationships are likely to be a continuation of attachment styles?
Because the child creates an internal working model of relationships from the first one with its mother.
7. Who researched early experiences and the links to later love styles and what was it called?
Hazen and Shaver, 1987 – The Love Quiz.
8. Describe the procedure of this research study.
Hazen and Shaver devised a “Love Quiz” in a newspaper. The quiz asked questions about early experiences, (in order to classify
attachment types), current love experiences and also attitudes towards love. (Looking for links to the Internal Working Model).
9. What were their findings and what theory do these findings support?
The researchers found characteristic patterns of later romantic behaviour associated with each early attachment type. This supports
Bowlby’s theory of attachment
.
10. Give a criticism of this research.
We can’t be certain that early attachment experiences caused later attachment types.
11. What were the findings of the Love quiz with regard to Secure (Type B ) infants?
Their adult relationships were positive, they trusted others and believed in enduring love.
12. What were the findings of the Love quiz with regard to Insecure-Avoidant (Type A ) infants?
They were fearful of closeness, they felt love is not lasting nor necessary for happiness.
13. What were the findings of the Love quiz with regard to Insecure-Resistant (Type C) infants?
They were preoccupied by love, fell in love easily but had trouble finding true love.
14. Mary Ainsworth explored the links between maternal sensitivity and specific attachment types.
What is the name of the scale she developed and what does it measure?
Ainsworth developed the Maternal Sensitivity Scale to rate mothers’ behaviours.
15. What link did Ainsworth find between the behaviours of the following mothers and their infants:
Mothers of securely attached infants (Type B)
Were more sensitive, accepting, cooperative and accessible.
Mothers of insecure-avoidant infants (Type A)
Were more unresponsive to crying and less affectionate.
Mothers of insecure-resistant infants (Type C)
Tended to be occupied with routine activities when holding the infant.