The Strange Situation: Is your child securely attached?

© 2008 – 2022 Gwen Dewar, all rights reserved

The Strange Situation procedure: The original test of the baby-parent bond

We hear a lot about "secure attachment relationships." Merely what exactly practise researchers mean past this term? Psychologist Mary Ainsworth first devised the Strange Situation procedure to assess the quality of an infant's zipper to his or her mother.

This article

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

Information technology too considers an important question: To what extent has research over-emphasized the function of the mother? Shouldn't we also be talking virtually the role of fathers, grandparents, and other caregivers?

What is a secure zipper?

According to the theories of John Bowlby (1988), a child is securely-attached if she is confident of her caregiver's back up. The attachment figure serves as a "secure base" from which the child can confidently explore the earth.

Secure attachment is also associated with

• keeping runway of the caregiver during exploration,
• approaching or touching the caregiver when anxious or distressed;
• finding condolement in proximity and contact

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

But how can you know if researchers would classify your ain baby equally securely attached? How practice they actually measure attachment security?

The original method, developed by the influential psychologist Mary Ainsworth, is the laboratory process 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's how it works.

The Strange Situation

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

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

Afterward the child has had time to explore, a stranger enters the room and talks with the mother. And so the stranger shifts attending to the child. Equally the stranger approaches the child, the mother sneaks abroad.

After several minutes, the mother returns. She comforts her child and then leaves once more. The stranger leaves every bit well.

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

Finally, the mother returns and greets her child.

How children respond to the Foreign Situation

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

1. How much the kid explores the room on his own, and

two. How the child responds to the return of his female parent

Typically, a child's response to the Strange Situation follows 1 of four patterns.

Securely-attached children:

Free exploration, and happiness upon the mother's return

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

If he cries, he approaches his female parent and holds her tightly. He is comforted by being held, and, in one case comforted, he is presently gear up to resume his independent exploration of the world. His mother is responsive to his needs. As a effect, he knows he tin can depend on her when he is under stress (Ainsworth et al 1978).

Avoidant-insecure children:

Piddling exploration, and little emotional response to the mother

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

Resistant-insecure (as well called "broken-hearted" or "ambivalent") children:

Little exploration, great separation anxiety, and an ambivalent response to the mother upon her return

Like the avoidant kid, the resistant-insecure child doesnt explore much on his own. But unlike the avoidant child, the resistant child is wary of strangers and is very distressed when his mother leaves.

When the mother returns, the resistant kid is clashing. Although he wants to re-establish shut proximity to his mother, he is also resentful—even angry—at his mother for leaving him in the first place. As a event, the resistant child may turn down his mother'due south attempts at contact (Ainsworth et al 1978).

Disorganized-insecure children:

Picayune exploration, and a confused response to the mother.

The disorganized child may exhibit a mix of avoidant and resistant behaviors. Just the master theme is one of confusion and anxiety (Main and Solomon 1986). Disorganized-insecure children are at risk for a diverseness of behavioral and developmental issues

What causes secure attachments? What causes insecure attachments?

ane. Parenting behavior and parenting manner

Although parenting lone doesn't determine your child's zipper condition, it may play a very important role. How tin can we be sure? It'due south tricky because nearly studies study mere correlations, leaving united states uncertain virtually causation.

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

Maybe infants develop secure attachments because they've inherited certain genes from their parents — genes that requite 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 than likely to develop secure attachments when their parents are sensitive and responsive (Verissimo and Salvaterra 2006).

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

What else do we know nigh parenting and zipper?

Avoidantly-attached children tend to take parent(due south) who are emotionally unavailable or rejecting.

In theory, children learn that their caregivers will not reply to their emotional needs. As a issue, they gives up on trying to signal their needs.

The avoidantly-attached kid is relatively common in Western Europe (van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg 1988; come across 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, broken-hearted or resistant-insecure children may take parent(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 condolement, but in a way that answers a child'south needs.  on their own terms, rather than according to a child'south needs.

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

Children who are abused or neglected are more probable to suffer from disorganized attachment (Barnett et al 1999). Just babies don't have to be abused or neglected to develop disorganized attachment.

In some cases, parents themselves may be anxious or frightened, and transmit these emotions to their infants (Principal and Hess 1990). And parents might simply be insensitive to what babies find disturbing–like all of a sudden looming over a baby's face (David and Lyons-Ruth 2007; Gedaly and Leerkes 2016).

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

2. Infant temperament

Similar adults, infants differ in temperament, and these temperamental differences might play a role in the development 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 constitute that babies with higher oxytocin levels were more than likely to solicit parental soothing and evidence greater interest in social interaction (Clark et al 2013). Possibly it'south easier for such babies to learn that they have a secure base.

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

iii. Stress

In theory, stress could cause insecure attachment by interfering with a child'southward power to perceive and interpret his mother's beliefs. Stress could also brand information technology difficult for a child to select the virtually appropriate, good for you response to beingness separated from, and reunited with, his mother (Waters and Valenzuela 1999).

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

In improver, 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 support were more likely to develop anxious attachments — but only if they also had a highly methylated NR3C1 gene (Bosmans et al 2018).

4. Genetic differences

Studies have reported links between disorganized-insecure attachment and the variants of several genes, including the dopamine D4 receptor cistron (e.1000., Lakatos et al 2000).

The pattern makes sense if these polymorphisms render the brain less sensitive to neurotransmitters that brand friendly social interactions feel pleasurable. Afflicted babies would be less motivated to seek comfort from their caregivers, and therefore less probable to develop secure attachments.

But do the data tell us a articulate story? Not even so. Some studies have failed to replicate key findings (Roisman et al 2013). I possibility is that the furnishings of the gene depend the presence or absence of sensitive maternal care, every bit well equally other characteristics of the child (Wazana et al 2015).

5. Very long hours in non-parental child intendance

Studies have consistently failed to find that time spent in daycare is linked with insecure attachment. But information technology'south possible that the risk increases when children spend an unusually long time abroad from parents.

In a study of mother-baby zipper security, researchers found that babies were more likely to show show of disorganized attachment if they spent more than sixty hours per week in non-maternal care (Hazen et al 2015).

What nigh cultural differences?

International studies of the Strange Situation

In studies recognizing 3 attachment classifications (secure, avoidant-insecure, and resistant-insecure), about 21% of American infants take been classified every bit avoidant-insecure, 65% as secure, and 14% as resistant-insecure.

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

However, there are local variations.

A written 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, Japan, and the kibbutzim of Israel—has reported relatively high rates of resistantly-fastened infants (Zevalkink et al 1999; van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg 1988).

Studies recognizing a fourth classification–disorganized zipper–as well vary by local population. The prevalence of disorganized attachment amidst eye class, white American children is about 12% (Main and Solomon 1990). Amid the children of American adolescent mothers, the rate is over 31% (Broussard 1995).

Disorganized zipper has also been reported to be relatively mutual 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 mode infants perceive the Strange State of affairs, rather than existent differences in attachment.

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

Similarly, the Japanese results were probably skewed by 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 same degree that Westerners practise, with the result that otherwise deeply-attached babies may explore less (Rothbaum et al 2000).

Merely in other cases, results of the Strange Situation may reveal genuine cultural differences in the way that children have attached to their mothers.

For instance, researchers analyzing a diversity of attachment studies ended that German and American infants perceived the Strange Situation in similar ways (Sagi et al 1991).

So the relatively loftier incidence of avoidant-insecure attachments in Germany may reflect existent differences in the way that some Germans arroyo parenting.

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

I criticism of the Strange Situation procedure is that it has focused about exclusively on the mother-infant bond.

In part, this may reflect a cultural bias. Many people who study zipper come from industrialized societies where mothers usually bear most of the responsibility for childcare.

But in some families, fathers spend a great deal of time with their children.

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

In fact, amid some modern-day foragers, similar the Aka and Efe of fundamental Africa, infants spend the much of the day being held past someone other than their mothers (Hewlett 1991; Konner 2005).

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

For case, anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy has argued that non-maternal caregivers may have played an important role in human evolution (Hrdy 2005). When infants have multiple caregivers, their mothers bear less of the toll of kid-rearing. Mothers can afford to have more children, and their children can afford to grow upward more than slowly.

Interestingly, these life-history traits—college 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.

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

If so, it'due south foolish to assume 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 the states that infants can bond with more one person.

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

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

More reading

For more readings most the importance of secure, personal relationships, see these articles

• opens in a new windowThe wellness benefits of sensitive, responsive parenting
• opens in a new windowThe science of attachment parenting
• opens in a new windowHeed-minded parenting
• opens in a new windowStress in babies: An evidence-based guide to keeping babies calm, happy, and emotionally healthy
• opens in a new windowPreschool stress: What causes information technology, and how we can assist kids?
• opens in a new windowStudent-teacher relationships: The disregarded ingredient for success

---

References: The Foreign Situation

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

Barnett D, Ganiban J, and Cicchetti D. 1999. Atypical attachment in infancy and early childhood among children at developmental hazard. 5. Maltreatment, negative expressivity, and the development of blazon D attachments from 12 to 24 months of age. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 64(3):97-118.

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

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

Broussard ER. 1995. Babe zipper in a sample adolescent mothers.Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 25(four):211-9.

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

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

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

Fuertes Thou, Santos PL, Beeghly M, and Tronick East. 2006. More than maternal sensitivity shapes zipper: infant coping and temperament. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1094:292-half dozen.

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

Grossman KE, Grossman K, Huber F and Wartner U. 1981. opens in a new windowGerman children'due south beliefs towards their mothers at 12 months and their fathers at eighteen months in Ainsworth's Foreign Situation. International Journal of Behavioral Development 4: 157-181.

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

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

Hrdy SB. 2005. Comes the child before the homo: How cooperative breeding and prolonged postweaning dependence shaped human being 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 babyhood: The !Kung and others. In: Hunter-gatherer childhoods: Evolutionary, developmental and cultural perpectives. BS Hewlett and ME Lamb (eds). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Lakatos K, Toth I, Nemoda Z, Ney K, Sasvari-Szekely Thou, and Gervai J. 2000. Dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene polymorphism is associated with zipper disorganization in infants. Molecular Psychiatry five(6): 633-637.

Lyons-Ruth, K.; 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.

Primary 1000 and Solomon J. 1986. Discovery of an insecure-disorganized/ disoriented zipper blueprint: Procedures, findings and implications for the classification of beliefs. In T. B. Brazelton & M. Yogman (eds), Affective Evolution in Infancy, 95-124. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Main Thousand and Hesse E. 1990. Parents' unresolved traumatic experiences are related to baby disorganized zipper status: Is frightened and/or frightening parental behavior the linking machinery? In: M Greenberg, D Cicchetti, and EM Cummings (eds), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research and intervention. University of Chicago Printing; Chicago, pp. 161–184.

Miyake K, Chen S-J, and Campos J. 1985. Baby temperament and mother's manner of interaction and attachment in Japan; an interim report. In: I Bretherton and E Waters (eds), Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Gild for Enquiry in Child Evolution, fifty, Serial No 209, 276-297.

Mooya H, Sichimba F, and Bakermans-Kranenburg K. 2016. Infant-mother and infant-sibling zipper in Zambia. Attach Hum Dev. 18(six):618-635.

Mountain Thou, Cahill J, Thorpe H. 2017. Sensitivity and attachment interventions in early on childhood: A systematic review and meta-analysis. 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. xv(4):384-406.

Rothbaum F, Weisz J, Pott 1000, Miyake Grand, Morelli G. 2000. Zipper and civilization. Security in the United States and Japan.Am Psychol. 55(10):1093-104.

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

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

Seifer, R., Schiller, M., Sameroff, A. J., Resnick, Southward. & Riordan, K. 1996. Zipper, maternal sensitivity, and infant temperament during the outset year 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 Yard-A. 2002. French parents' cultural models and child-rearing beliefs. International periodical of behavioral evolution 26: 297-307.

Tomlinson Thousand, Cooper P, Murray L. 2005. The Mother-Infant Relationship and Babe Attachment in a South African Peri-Urban Settlement. Kid Development 76 (5): 1044–1054.

True MM, Pisani 50, and Oumar F. 2001.Babe-mother attachment among the Dogon of Republic of mali. Child Development 72(v):1451-66.

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

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

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

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

Waters, E. 1995. The Attachment Q-Gear up. In Due east. Waters, B. E. Vaughn, Thou. Posada, and K. Kondo-Ikemura (eds), Caregiving, cultural, and cognitive perspectives on secure-base behavior and working models. Monograph of the Gild for Research in Kid Development, 60(ii/iii, serial No. 244, 247-254.

Waters Eastward and Valenzuela G. 1999. Explaining disorganized attachment: Clues from research on mildly to moderately undernourished children in Chile. In: J. Solomon and C. George (eds), Attachment disorganization. New York: Guildford Press.

Wazana A, Moss East, Jolicoeur-Martineau A, Graffi J, Tsabari Thou, Lecompte 5, Pascuzzo One thousand, Babineau V, Gordon-Green C, Mileva V, Atkinson L, Minde K, Bouvette-Turcot AA, Sassi R, St-André Thou, Carrey N, Matthews S, Sokolowski K, Lydon J, Gaudreau H, Steiner Thou, Kennedy JL, Fleming A, Levitan R, Meaney MJ. 2015. The interplay of birth weight, dopamine receptor D4 cistron (DRD4), and early maternal care in the prediction of disorganized zipper at 36 months of age. Dev Psychopathol. 27(four Pt 1):1145-61.

Wright B, Hackney L, Hughes E, Barry Thousand, Glaser D, Prior V, Allgar 5, Marshall D, Barrow J, Kirby North, Garside K, Kaushal P, Perry A, McMillan D. 2017. Decreasing rates of disorganised attachment in infants and young children, who are at take a chance of developing, or who already have disorganised zipper. A systematic review and meta-analysis of early parenting interventions. PLoS One. 12(vii):e0180858.

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

Content last modified 1/2018

Epitome credits for "The Strange State of affairs":

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

Photo of mother and baby past Chilobiamo_P

pumphreydribithave.blogspot.com

Source: https://parentingscience.com/strange-situation/

Share this post