Ainsworth was particularly interested in individual differences between mother – child pairs regarding the quality of their attachment relationships.
Individual differences among babies were assessed by classifying them into three groups: securely attached, insecurely attached and the not-yet attached. These infant classifications were significantly correlated with ratings of the mother’s sensitivity, based purely on interview data; and the amount of holding by the mother, based on observation.
Ainsworth & bell replicated this study in the USA. Similarly, interviews and naturalistic observation were used. 26 mother – infant pairs were visited at home every three to four weeks, lasting 3 -4 hours, for a year. In order to make sense of the enormous amount of data collected for each pair, there needed to be an external criterion measure, some standard against which to compare the observations – the SS.
The SS had been devised earlier by Ainsworth & Wittig (1969). They wanted to study how the baby’s tendencies towards attachment and exploration interact under conditions of low and high stress. They believed that a balance between these two systems could be observed more easily in an unfamiliar environment. The SS was modified to enable infant and maternal behaviour patterns to be classified.
Group data confirmed that babies explored the play room and toys more vigorously in the mothers’ presence then after the stranger entered, while the mothers were absent. However, Ainsworth was particularly fascinated by the unexpected variety of infants’ reunion behaviours.
The crucial feature determining the quality of attachment is the mother’s sensitivity. The sensitive mother sees things from her baby’s perspective, correctly interprets its signals, responds to it needs, and is accepting, co – operative and accessible. By contrast, the insensitive mother interacts almost exclusively in terms of her own wishes, moods and activities. According to Ainsworth & Bell, sensitive mothers tend to have babies that were securely attached and insensitive mothers tend to have babies which are insecurely –attached.
Although both these studies provided support for the idea that parental sensitivity is the key factor in attachment development, both used rather small samples; however there were promising explorations into the roots of early differences in attachment. During the past 20 years, several studies with much larger studies have been tested and supported.
To evaluate, Vaughn et al, (1980) showed that attachment type may change depending on variations in the family’s circumstances. Children of single parents living in poverty were studied at 12 and 18 months. Significantly, 38 % were classified differently on the two occasions, reflecting changes in the families’ circumstance, particularly changes in accommodation and the mothers’ degree of stress. This suggests that attachment types are not necessarily permanent characteristics.
Patterns of attachment to mothers and fathers are independent, so that the same child might be securely attached to the mother, but insecurely attached to the father (Main & Weston, 1981). This shows that attachment patterns derived from the SS reflect qualities of distinct relationships, rather than characteristics of the child. If temperament, for example, were the main cause of attachment classification, the same child should develop the same kind of attachment pattern to both parents – (Van Ijzendoorn & De Wolff, 1997).
According to Main & Solomon (1986), they queried the number of attachment types. They found evidence that suggested there was a fourth type of attachment. This was named Disorganised/ disorientated attachment. It put evidence forward to claim that there were no set patterns of behaviour at separation or reunion.
SS was conducted in the USA; this means that the results may have been culturally biased; i.e. only applying to the US culture.
SS is artificial because it is a made up situation; mothers may have been behaving differently because they knew they were being observed, therefore behaving differently at home. It is also important to acknowledge that the environment that the study was conducted in was strange to the child and the caregiver, hence the possibility of the result of different behaviour.
It can be difficult to decide which attachment type an infant is, as behaviour does not always fall neatly into a particular category.
Evidence suggests that the SS is both reliable and valid. Main et al (1985) used the SS on infants and tested them at 18 months and 6 years old. All securely attached children were the same at age 6; 75% of avoidant children were the same at age 6. However, anomalies could have appeared due to change in environment or situation.
The validity of the SS, shows the assessment of how securely attached an infant is. However, it is possible that the SS is actually assessing the relationship between the infant and the caregiver, rather than the attachment type. Yet Main & Weston (1981) found evidence to support that children behave differently when tested with a different caregiver or person. Therefore proposing SS has low validity.
Further, the study allegedly causes infants distress. The question of whether this is ethical is thus raised. Yet, babies experience this, when their mother goes out of a room at home; therefore it would be impossible for a mother to meet all the baby’s demands and needs.
Conversely, SS is a Standardised Procedure, which means that the study can easily be replicated.
In Western Culture, secure attachment is considered desirable, yet in other cultures independence is considered more so. Thus suggesting that the results are culture bound – limited to a particular culture, Western.
If attachment behaviour is innate, attachment behaviour should be similar in different cultures, SS has been used to test and access cross – cultural variation.
Cross – cultural studies have revealed important differences, both within and between cultures. Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988) carried out a major review of 32 world wide studies involving eight countries and over 2000 infants, and reached three main conclusions:
- There are marked differences within cultures in the distribution of types A, B and C. For example, in one of two Japanese studies, there was a complete absence of type A but a high proportion of type C, whilst the other study was much more consistent with Ainsworth et al.’s findings.
- The overall worldwide pattern, and that for the USA, was similar to the Ainsworth et al. ‘standard’ pattern. However, within the USA there was considerable variation between samples.
- There seems to be a pattern of cross – cultural differences, such that whilst type B is the most common, type A is relatively more common in Western European countries and type C is relatively more common in Israel and Japan.
As far as point 3 is concerned, Japanese children are rarely separated from their mothers, so that departure of the mother is the most upsetting episode in the SS. For children raised on Israeli Kibbutzim, the entrance of a stranger was the main source of distress.
Whilst the SS is the most widely used method for assessing infant attachment to a caregiver, Melhuish, 1993, Lamb et al, 1985 have criticised it for, being highly artificial; being extremely limited in terms of the amount of information that is actually gathered; and failing to take account of the mother’s behaviour.
On the contrary, it was significant in its findings as it proved variation within cultures; and that within cultures; variation was 1.5 times greater than cross – cultural variation.
To evaluate, although there were 2000 participants involved in the study, the sample size in some countries was small. For example, only 36 children were used in the Chinese study; which is not a large enough sample to generalise across the whole of the Chinese population. Further the study does not explain why there is variation within cultures; it demonstrates that it is incorrect to assume that behaviour is the same within a culture. For example, many cultures have subcultures i.e. travellers, communes, different religions. Further, it oversimplifies the view that the UK and USA are one single culture. Thus findings are representative of culture, they assume to represent and generalise the subcultures that were sampled.
The SS was tested in the USA, culturally biased – ethnocentric. Those who use SS assume behaviour has the same meaning in all cultures; in fact social constructions of behaviour differ greatly. The SS lacks external validity, which means feelings and insights may be less meaningful.
The study tests infant attachment that has been used in several different countries; findings could be used to understand some of the main sub – cultural differences found within any country.
To conclude, the overall consistency in attachment types means that there maybe universal characteristics that underpin infant and caregiver interaction. However significant variations show greater variations in attachments among different groups in society, than has previously been assumed.
