- Critically consider the use of the strange situation technique as a method for studying young children’s attachments.
Scaffer and Emerson conducted a study of the development of attachments in order to investigate the way in which infant’s behaviours change over time. Ainsworth and Bell devised a method called the strange situation technique (SST) in which 100 middle-class American infants and their mothers took part. A method of controlled observation was developed as follows: Mother and child introduced to a room (in which child can investigate toys); Stranger enters room; Mother leaves room; Mother returns; Mother and stranger leave child alone; Stranger returns; Mother returns and stranger leaves.
Ainsworth and Bell especially monitored separation anxiety, infant’s willingness to explore, stranger anxiety and reunion behaviour. The study was originally done in the USA and found that 66 per cent of infants were securely attached to their mother, and 30 per cent were insecurely attached. Ainsworth classified the insecurely attached infants into two types; Avoidant and Resistant. Avoidant-insecure contained 22 per cent of the infants and resistant, 12 per cent.
Bowlby suggested that there was such a thing as the ‘internal working model’; blue print for future relationship’s. The SST indicates child’s ability to form future relationships, seemingly accessing the internal working model. Scroufe found that securely attached children were rated more popular by their peers and that self-confidence, self-esteem and social competence were higher. The SST therefore has given very valuable insight into the effect that attachment has on future relationships. Ijzendoorn found a strong correlation between child’s attachment type and the Primary care giver’s (PCG) with their own PCG. This conclusion has led to some parents being trained in how to form a secure relationship’s with their own children, thus stopping history repeating itself. The strange situation therefore has a practical application. i.e. treating the cause before the effects. The SST has been criticised by people raising ethical issues of potential damage to participants, however it can be argued that the practical applications far outweigh the distress caused by a 15 minute experiment.
The SST has been criticised for being unable to identify cause and effect of attachment type and for putting too much enthesis on Mother’s sensitivity as the cause for attachment type while ignoring other factors. Kegan and Belsky suggested and showed that there were innate differences in responsiveness in new born children in which mother’s sensitivity could have played no part.
The SST does not take into account that infants maybe attached to different people in different ways. Lamb suggests that the child may well be more securely attached to their father than to their mother. The SST is unable to dis-prove Lamb’s suggestion as only accesses the relationship between mother and child. The SST may be criticised for placing too much on its findings, suggesting that a child if either securely or insecurely attached when infact Lamb shows that a child can have more than one type of attachment type. The SST only considers monotrophy and even then the mother is not always the closest attachment to the child.
The SST has been criticised for assuming that attachment types remain the same for the duration of the infants life. It does not take into account changes in family (such as parent divorce or death of one parent etc) which may change the attachment type as Melhuish suggests. However, Wartner’s further research found that 78 per cent (a large majority) of children’s attachment types will remain the same.
The SST has been praised for being reliable. Smith and Noble tested the SST in a realistic environment and their results replicated those found in the lab showing ecological vadility. Ijzendoorn did 32 SST studies throughout the world and the results were similar thoughout - 70 per cent secure and 30 per cent insecure. The SST has been repeated many times with similar results suggesting the results are reliable.
Perhaps the biggest critism of the SST is the lack of consideration toward cross-cultural and cross-class differences. Takahashi’s study (taken in Japan) suggests that a higher proportion of insecurely attached infants are resistance rather than avoidant. However, the results found in Japan can be seen to be influenced by the difference in child rearing practises in the Japanese culture. Japanese children became overly distressed when left by their mother. Japanese mothers rarely leave their children so the situation was too strange for the infant, hence the distress show. Similarly, Grosseman, brought the SST to Germany and found as oppose to Japanese infants, there were more avoidant attatchments in German children. Again, this can be explained by the different child-rearing culture, German children are far more used to being left alone and therefore will show less anxiety where as the SST would say this lack of anxiety was due to an insecure attachment.
The SST has not only been criticised for not taking into account major influences such as culture and class but also for ignoring past experiences children will have had with care givers, for example children who had experienced regular day-care are likely to react differently to those who had not.
SIOBHAN SMITH. MR. GRAHAM
