In the Strange Situation, a Baby Who Demonstrates a Secure Attachment

March 09, 2022 Post a Comment

© 2008 – 2018 Gwen Dewar, all rights reserved

xReunion-Strange-Situation-Maria_Grazia_Montagnari-CCby2.jpg.pagespeed.ic.w-X4Nx5Ora.jpg

The Strange Situation process: The original exam of the babe-parent bond

Nosotros hear a lot about "secure attachment relationships." But what exactly do researchers hateful past this term? Psychologist Mary Ainsworth get-go devised the Foreign Situation procedure to assess the quality of an infant'southward attachment to his or her female parent.

This commodity

explains the procedure,
discusses how babies respond, and
reviews why some children are insecurely-attached.

It as well considers an important question: To what extent has research over-emphasized the office of the mother? Shouldn't we besides be talking nearly the role of fathers, grandparents, and other caregivers?

What is a secure attachment?

Co-ordinate to the theories of John Bowlby (1988), a kid is securely-attached if she is confident of her caregiver'due south back up. The zipper figure serves equally a "secure base" from which the child tin confidently explore the world.

Secure attachment is likewise associated with

keeping track of the caregiver during exploration,
approaching or touching the caregiver when anxious or distressed;
finding comfort in proximity and contact

And, in the long-term, kids with secure attachments seem to take opens in a new windowmany advantages – emotional, social, medical, and cognitive.

But how can you know if researchers would classify your ain baby as deeply attached? How do they actually mensurate attachment security?

The original method, developed past the influential psychologist Mary Ainsworth, is the laboratory procedure called the "Strange State of affairs" (Ainsworth et al 1978).

Typically, the Strange Situation tests how babies or young children respond to the temporary absence of their mothers.

Here'due south how it works.

The Strange Situation

To test a child'south "attachment style," researchers put the child and her mother (these studies almost always focus on the mother) alone in an experimental room.

The room has toys or other interesting things in information technology, and the mother lets the child explore the room on her own.

After the child has had time to explore, a stranger enters the room and talks with the female parent. And then the stranger shifts attention to the child. As the stranger approaches the child, the mother sneaks away.

Later several minutes, the female parent returns. She comforts her child and and then leaves again. The stranger leaves equally well.

A few minutes later, the stranger returns and interacts with the kid.

Finally, the mother returns and greets her child.

How children reply to the Strange State of affairs

As suggested by its name, the Strange Situation was designed to present children with an unusual, simply not overwhelmingly frightening, experience (Ainsworth et al 1978). When a child undergoes the Strange Situation, researchers are interested in two things:

one. How much the child explores the room on his own, and

2. How the child responds to the return of his mother

Typically, a child's response to the Strange State of affairs follows one of four patterns.

Securely-attached children:

Gratis exploration, and happiness upon the mother's render

The deeply-attached child explores the room freely when his female parent is nowadays. He may be distressed when his mother leaves, and he explores less when she is absent. But he is happy when she returns.

If he cries, he approaches his mother and holds her tightly. He is comforted by being held, and, once comforted, he is soon gear up to resume his independent exploration of the world. His mother is responsive to his needs. As a result, he knows he can depend on her when he is nether stress (Ainsworth et al 1978).

Avoidant-insecure children:

Little exploration, and fiddling emotional response to the mother

The avoidant-insecure child doesn't explore much, and she doesn't show much emotion when her mother leaves. She shows no preference for her mother over a complete stranger. When her mother returns, she tends to avert or ignore her (Ainsworth et al 1978).

Resistant-insecure (as well chosen "anxious" or "ambivalent") children:

Piddling exploration, great separation feet, and an clashing response to the mother upon her render

Like the avoidant child, the resistant-insecure child doesnt explore much on his own. Simply different the avoidant child, the resistant child is wary of strangers and is very distressed when his female parent leaves.

When the mother returns, the resistant child is ambivalent. Although he wants to re-establish close proximity to his female parent, he is besides resentful—even angry—at his mother for leaving him in the first identify. As a upshot, the resistant child may refuse his mother'due south attempts at contact (Ainsworth et al 1978).

Disorganized-insecure children:

Little exploration, and a confused response to the mother.

The disorganized child may showroom a mix of avoidant and resistant behaviors. But the main theme is 1 of confusion and feet (Main and Solomon 1986). Disorganized-insecure children are at adventure for a variety of behavioral and developmental problems

What causes secure attachments? What causes insecure attachments?

267xNxChilombiamo_P-Vietnam-mom-and-boy-baby.jpg.pagespeed.ic.NvCg0K1SXX.jpg

1. Parenting behavior and parenting manner

Although parenting alone doesn't determine your kid's zipper condition, it may play a very important role. How tin we be sure? It'due south tricky because most studies written report mere correlations, leaving us uncertain nearly causation.

For instance, secure attachments are associated with opens in a new windowsensitive, responsive parenting. Simply why?

Maybe infants develop secure attachments considering they've inherited certain genes from their parents — genes that give ascension both to the tendency to develop secure attachments, and to the tendency to be sensitive and responsive toward infants.

A compelling argument against this possibility comes from adoption studies. Like other babies, adoptive infants are more probable to develop secure attachments when their parents are sensitive and responsive (Verissimo and Salvaterra 2006).

And studies evidence that early intervention — didactics new parents how to increase their sensitivity — improves attachment security (Mountain et al 2017).

What else do we know well-nigh parenting and zipper?

Avoidantly-fastened children tend to accept parent(s) who are emotionally unavailable or rejecting.

In theory, children learn that their caregivers will non respond to their emotional needs. As a consequence, they gives upward on trying to bespeak their needs.

The avoidantly-attached child is relatively common in Western Europe (van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg 1988; see below). This prevalence of avoidant attachments may reflect traditional Western European child-rearing values, which de-emphasize physical contact and discourage parents from comforting children who cry (e.g., Suizzo 2002; Valentin 2005).

Compared with avoidantly-attached kids, anxious or resistant-insecure children may have parent(due south) who are more emotionally demonstrative, merely not tuned into their children's needs.

However—according to popular theory—these parents tend to be inconsistent, and they aren't particularly sensitive. They offer comfort, only in a manner that answers a child's needs. on their ain terms, rather than according to a child's needs.

Disorganized attachment is linked with caregiver behavior that (intentionally or unintentionally) frightens children.

Children who are abused or neglected are more than probable to suffer from disorganized zipper (Barnett et al 1999). Only babies don't take to be abused or neglected to develop disorganized zipper.

In some cases, parents themselves may exist broken-hearted or frightened, and transmit these emotions to their infants (Main and Hess 1990). And parents might only be insensitive to what babies detect agonizing–similar suddenly looming over a infant's confront (David and Lyons-Ruth 2007; Gedaly and Leerkes 2016).

If this sounds similar you, is at that place anything you lot can do about it? Research suggests you can. In studies where parents from at-risk families were coached on how to better read their children'south cues, kids were less likely to develop disorganized attachments (Wright et al 2017).

2. Infant temperament

Similar adults, infants differ in temperament, and these temperamental differences might play a office in the evolution of an babe's attachment relationships (Fuertes et al 2006; Seifer at al 1992).

For instance, when researchers tested oxytocin levels in xviii newborns, they found that babies with college oxytocin levels were more likely to solicit parental soothing and show greater involvement in social interaction (Clark et al 2013). Perhaps information technology's easier for such babies to learn that they have a secure base.

By the same token, infants who are "difficult," or more reactive to stressful situations, may require higher levels of parental responsiveness to develop secure attachments (van den Blast 1994).

3. Stress

In theory, stress could crusade insecure attachment by interfering with a child'southward ability to perceive and interpret his mother'south beliefs. Stress could also make it difficult for a child to select the well-nigh appropriate, healthy response to beingness separated from, and reunited with, his mother (Waters and Valenzuela 1999).

Environmental stressors—like poor nutrition—may therefore be responsible for high rates of insecure attachment among some populations (similar impoverished Chilean children, see beneath).

In addition, stress may interact with parenting and epigenetics — variations in the way our genes get expressed. In one study, children who experienced high levels of stress and low levels of maternal back up were more likely to develop anxious attachments — only only if they also had a highly methylated NR3C1 gene (Bosmans et al 2018).

4. Genetic differences

Studies take reported links between disorganized-insecure attachment and the variants of several genes, including the dopamine D4 receptor factor (east.g., Lakatos et al 2000).

The blueprint makes sense if these polymorphisms return the brain less sensitive to neurotransmitters that make friendly social interactions feel pleasurable. Affected babies would be less motivated to seek comfort from their caregivers, and therefore less likely to develop secure attachments.

But do the data tell us a clear story? Not yet. Some studies have failed to replicate fundamental findings (Roisman et al 2013). 1 possibility is that the furnishings of the cistron depend the presence or absence of sensitive maternal care, besides every bit other characteristics of the child (Wazana et al 2015).

5. Very long hours in not-parental kid care

Studies have consistently failed to find that time spent in daycare is linked with insecure attachment. Merely it'south possible that the gamble increases when children spend an unusually long time away from parents.

In a study of mother-infant attachment security, researchers found that babies were more than probable to testify bear witness of disorganized attachment if they spent more than than lx hours per calendar week in non-maternal care (Hazen et al 2015).

What about cultural differences?

International studies of the Strange Situation

In studies recognizing 3 attachment classifications (secure, avoidant-insecure, and resistant-insecure), virtually 21% of American infants take been classified as avoidant-insecure, 65% as secure, and xiv% as resistant-insecure.

The aforementioned distribution is found when researchers pool the results of studies conducted worldwide (van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg 1988).

Still, in that location are local variations.

A report conducted in Bielfeld, Germany has reported relatively loftier rates of avoidantly-attached infants (52%–Grossman et al 1981).

And research conducted elsewhere–in Indonesia, Nippon, and the kibbutzim of Israel—has reported relatively high rates of resistantly-attached infants (Zevalkink et al 1999; van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg 1988).

Studies recognizing a fourth classification–disorganized zipper–also vary past local population. The prevalence of disorganized zipper among middle class, white American children is about 12% (Primary and Solomon 1990). Among the children of American adolescent mothers, the rate is over 31% (Broussard 1995).

Disorganized attachment has besides been reported to be relatively common amongst the Dogon of Mali (~25%, True et al 2001), infants living on the outskirts of Cape Town, South Africa (~26%, Tomlinson et al 2005), children from low income families in Zambia (~29%, Mooya et al 2016), and undernourished children in Chile (Waters and Valenzuela 1999).

Why local populations differ

In some cases, these outcomes may reflect differences in the manner infants perceive the Foreign Situation, rather than existent differences in zipper.

For example, Israeli children raised in kibbutzim rarely meet strangers. As a issue, their high rates of resistant behavior during the Strange Situation test may take had more than to do with heightened fear than with the nature of their maternal bonds (Sagi et al 1991).

Similarly, the Japanese results were probably skewed past the facts that Japanese infants are virtually never separated from their mothers (Miyake et al 1995). Nor do Japanese people value independence and independent exploration to the aforementioned degree that Westerners do, with the outcome that otherwise deeply-attached babies may explore less (Rothbaum et al 2000).

But in other cases, results of the Strange State of affairs may reveal genuine cultural differences in the way that children accept attached to their mothers.

For example, researchers analyzing a variety of attachment studies concluded that High german and American infants perceived the Strange Situation in similar ways (Sagi et al 1991).

Then the relatively loftier incidence of avoidant-insecure attachments in Germany may reflect existent differences in the fashion that some Germans approach parenting.

Has attachment research placed too much accent on mothers? Some evolutionary considerations.

xbrothers-horseback.jpg.pagespeed.ic.Myr1D4GLpm.jpg

One criticism of the Foreign Situation procedure is that it has focused nigh exclusively on the mother-infant bond.

In part, this may reverberate a cultural bias. Many people who report attachment come from industrialized societies where mothers unremarkably bear most of the responsibility for childcare.

But in some families, fathers spend a peachy deal of fourth dimension with their children.

And in many parts of the world, grandmothers, aunts, uncles, and siblings brand substantial–fifty-fifty crucial–contributions to childcare.

In fact, among some modern-twenty-four hours foragers, like the Aka and Efe of primal Africa, infants spend the much of the day existence held past someone other than their mothers (Hewlett 1991; Konner 2005).

Such evidence has inspired evolutionary anthropologists to "rethink…assumptions about the exclusivity of the female parent-infant relationship" (Hrdy 2005).

For example, anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy has argued that non-maternal caregivers may have played an of import role in human being development (Hrdy 2005). When infants have multiple caregivers, their mothers comport less of the cost of child-rearing. Mothers tin can afford to have more children, and their children tin can afford to grow up more than slowly.

Interestingly, these life-history traits—higher fertility and an extended childhood—distinguish humans from our closest living relatives, the great apes (Smuts et al 1989). And ape mothers—unlike many human mothers—must raise their kids without helpers.

Then perhaps "allocare" (non-maternal childcare) gave our ancestors the edge—allowing us to reproduce at faster rates than our nonhuman cousins.

If so, it's foolish to presume that human babies are designed for exclusive attachments to a single, maternal caregiver.

While this point doesn't detract from the importance of Strange Situation studies, information technology reminds us that infants tin can bail with more than one person.

Research confirms that infants grade secure attachment relationships with both their mothers and their fathers (Boldt et al 2017). Studies prove that toddlers tin can form secure attachments to their daycare providers (Colonnesi et al 2017). School children can form secure attachments with their teachers (Verschueren 2015).

And when they do — when children expand their network of secure relationships — they are more probable to thrive.

References: The Strange Situation

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, Thou. C., Waters, E., & Wall, Southward. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Barnett D, Ganiban J, and Cicchetti D. 1999. Singular attachment in infancy and early on childhood among children at developmental gamble. V. Maltreatment, negative expressivity, and the evolution of type D attachments from 12 to 24 months of age. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 64(three):97-118.

Boldt LJ, Kochanska Yard, Jonas K. 2017. Infant Attachment Moderates Paths From Early on Negativity to Preadolescent Outcomes for Children and Parents. Child Dev. 88(2):584-596.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A Secure Base. New York: Basic Books.

Broussard ER. 1995. Infant attachment in a sample adolescent mothers.Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 25(4):211-9.

Clark CL, St John Due north, Pasca AM, Hyde SA, Hornbeak K, Abramova Chiliad, Feldman H, Parker KJ, Penn AA. 2013. Neonatal CSF oxytocin levels are associated with parent written report of infant soothability and sociability. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 38(seven):1208-12.

Colonnesi C, van Polanen Thousand, Tavecchio LWC, Fukkink RG. 2017. Mind-Mindedness of Male person and Female person Caregivers in Childcare and the Relation to Sensitivity and Attachment: An Exploratory Study. Babe Behav Dev. 48(Pt B):134-146.

David D and Lyons-Ruth M. 2007. Differential attachment responses of male and female infants to frightening maternal behavior: tend or befriend versus fight or flying? Infant Ment Health J. 2005; 21(1): i–18.

Fuertes 1000, Santos PL, Beeghly M, and Tronick E. 2006. More than than maternal sensitivity shapes zipper: baby coping and temperament. Ann North Y Acad Sci. 1094:292-6.

Gedaly LR, Leerkes EM. 2016. The part of sociodemographic risk and maternal behavior in the prediction of infant attachment disorganization. Attach Hum Dev. 18(6):554-569.

Grossman KE, Grossman K, Huber F and Wartner U. 1981. opens in a new windowGerman language children'southward behavior towards their mothers at 12 months and their fathers at 18 months in Ainsworth's Foreign State of affairs. International Periodical of Behavioral Development 4: 157-181.

Hazen NL, Allen SD, Christopher CH, Umemura T, Jacobvitz DB. 2015. Very all-encompassing nonmaternal care predicts mother-infant attachment disorganization: Convergent evidence from two samples. Dev Psychopathol. 27(iii):649-61.

Hewlett BS. 1991. Intimate fathers: The nature and context of Aka pygmy paternal care. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Hrdy SB. 2005. Comes the child before the human being: How cooperative breeding and prolonged postweaning dependence shaped human potential. In: Hunter-Gatherer childhoods: Evolutionary, Developmental and Cultural Perspectives. BS Hewlett and ME Lamb (eds). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Konner M. 2005. Hunter-gatherer infancy and childhood: The !Kung and others. In: Hunter-gatherer childhoods: Evolutionary, developmental and cultural perpectives. BS Hewlett and ME Lamb (eds). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Lakatos 1000, Toth I, Nemoda Z, Ney One thousand, Sasvari-Szekely M, and Gervai J. 2000. Dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene polymorphism is associated with attachment disorganization in infants. Molecular Psychiatry 5(6): 633-637.

Lyons-Ruth, Grand.; Jacobvitz, D. Zipper disorganization: unresolved loss, rational violence, and lapses in behavioral and attentional strategies. In: J. Cassidy and P. Shaver (eds), Handbook of attachment: theory, inquiry, and clinical implications. Guilford; New York: 1999. pp. 520–44.

Main M and Solomon J. 1986. Discovery of an insecure-disorganized/ disoriented attachment pattern: Procedures, findings and implications for the classification of behavior. In T. B. Brazelton & G. Yogman (eds), Melancholia Development in Infancy, 95-124. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Main Yard and Hesse East. 1990. Parents' unresolved traumatic experiences are related to infant disorganized zipper condition: Is frightened and/or frightening parental behavior the linking mechanism? In: K Greenberg, D Cicchetti, and EM Cummings (eds), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research and intervention. University of Chicago Press; Chicago, pp. 161–184.

Miyake K, Chen S-J, and Campos J. 1985. Baby temperament and female parent's mode of interaction and attachment in Japan; an interim report. In: I Bretherton and East Waters (eds), Growing points of attachment theory and enquiry. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, Serial No 209, 276-297.

Mooya H, Sichimba F, and Bakermans-Kranenburg G. 2016. Baby-mother and infant-sibling zipper in Zambia. Attach Hum Dev. 18(half dozen):618-635.

Mountain 1000, Cahill J, Thorpe H. 2017. Sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood: A systematic review and meta-assay. Infant Behav Dev. 46:14-32.

Roisman GI, Berth-Laforce C, Belsky J, Burt KB, Groh AM. 2013. Molecular-genetic correlates of infant attachment: a cautionary tale. Attach Hum Dev. 15(4):384-406.

Rothbaum F, Weisz J, Pott G, Miyake K, Morelli Chiliad. 2000. Attachment and culture. Security in the U.s.a. and Japan.Am Psychol. 55(10):1093-104.

Sagi A, Lamb ME, Lewkowicz KS, Shoham R, Dvir R, and Estes D. 1985. Security of babe-mother, father, metapelet attachments amongst kibbutz-reared Israeli children. Monogr Soc Res Kid Dev. 1985;50(1-2):257-75

Sagi A, Van IJendoorn, and Koren-Karie. 1991. Primary Appraisal of the Strange State of affairs: A cross-cultural analysis of preseparation episodes. Developmental Psychology 27(4): 587-596.

Seifer, R., Schiller, K., Sameroff, A. J., Resnick, Southward. & Riordan, K. 1996. Attachment, maternal sensitivity, and infant temperament during the outset yr of life. Develomental Psychology, 32, 12-25.

Smuts BB, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM, Wrangham RW, and Struhsaker TT. 1987. Primate Societies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Solomon J and George C. 1999 Attachment Disorganization. New York, NY: Guilford Press

Suizzo Chiliad-A. 2002. French parents' cultural models and child-rearing beliefs. International journal of behavioral development 26: 297-307.

Tomlinson M, Cooper P, Murray 50. 2005. The Female parent-Infant Human relationship and Infant Zipper in a Due south African Peri-Urban Settlement. Child Development 76 (5): 1044–1054.

True MM, Pisani L, and Oumar F. 2001.Infant-mother zipper among the Dogon of Mali. Child Development 72(5):1451-66.

van den Boom DC. 1994. The influence of temperament and mothering on attachment and exploration: an experimental manipulation of sensitive responsiveness among lower-class mothers with irritable infants. Child Dev. 65(5):1457-77.

Van Ijzendoorn MH and Kroonenberg PM 1988. Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: A meta-analysis of the strange situation. Child Development 59(i): 147-156.

Valentin S. 2005. Commentary: Sleep in German Infants—The "Cult" of Independence 115 (1): 269-271.

Verschueren K. 2015. Middle Childhood Teacher-Child Relationships: Insights From an Attachment Perspective and Remaining Challenges. New Dir Child Adolesc Dev. 2015(148):77-91.

Waters, East. 1995. The Attachment Q-Set. In East. Waters, B. East. Vaughn, M. Posada, and K. Kondo-Ikemura (eds), Caregiving, cultural, and cognitive perspectives on secure-base of operations behavior and working models. Monograph of the Guild for Research in Child Development, 60(two/3, serial No. 244, 247-254.

Waters Due east and Valenzuela K. 1999. Explaining disorganized zipper: Clues from research on mildly to moderately undernourished children in Republic of chile. In: J. Solomon and C. George (eds), Zipper disorganization. New York: Guildford Press.

Wazana A, Moss E, Jolicoeur-Martineau A, Graffi J, Tsabari G, Lecompte V, Pascuzzo K, Babineau V, Gordon-Light-green C, Mileva V, Atkinson Fifty, Minde K, Bouvette-Turcot AA, Sassi R, St-André M, Carrey North, Matthews S, Sokolowski 1000, Lydon J, Gaudreau H, Steiner One thousand, Kennedy JL, Fleming A, Levitan R, Meaney MJ. 2015. The interplay of nascency weight, dopamine receptor D4 factor (DRD4), and early maternal care in the prediction of disorganized attachment at 36 months of age. Dev Psychopathol. 27(4 Pt 1):1145-61.

Wright B, Hackney L, Hughes E, Barry M, Glaser D, Prior 5, Allgar 5, Marshall D, Barrow J, Kirby N, Garside K, Kaushal P, Perry A, McMillan D. 2017. Decreasing rates of disorganised zipper in infants and young children, who are at run a risk of developing, or who already have disorganised zipper. A systematic review and meta-analysis of early on parenting interventions. PLoS Ane. 12(seven):e0180858.

Zevalkink J, Riksen-Walraven JM, and Van Lieshout CFM. 1999. Zipper in the Indonesian Caregiving Context Social Development viii(ane): 21–forty.

Content concluding modified 1/2018

Paradigm credits for "The Foreign State of affairs":

Title image by opens in a new windowMaria Grazia Montagnari / flickr

Photo of mother and infant by Chilobiamo_P

avilessuan1984.blogspot.com

Source: https://parentingscience.com/strange-situation/#:~:text=Typically%2C%20a%20child's%20response%20to,follows%20one%20of%20four%20patterns.&text=The%20securely%2Dattached%20child%20explores,is%20happy%20when%20she%20returns.

Aviles Suan1984