Mary Ainsworth Strange Situation Experiment Attachment Theory

A Comprehensive Guide for Students and Education Professionals

Mary Ainsworth’s work on attachment theory has profoundly shaped our understanding of child development and early relationships. Her Strange Situation experiment, which systematically observed infant-caregiver interactions, provided empirical support for attachment theory and revealed distinct patterns of attachment behaviour.

Why is this significant? Ainsworth’s research has far-reaching implications for early childhood education, parenting practices, and child welfare policies. For educators, understanding attachment theory can inform classroom practices that support children’s emotional security and exploration. For students of child development, Ainsworth’s work offers a foundational framework for understanding early social-emotional growth.

Key concepts include:

• The Strange Situation procedure
• Secure, anxious-ambivalent, and avoidant attachment type
• The importance of caregiver sensitivity

Ainsworth’s ideas have practical applications in various settings. In Early Years classrooms, educators can use attachment principles to create emotionally supportive environments. Social workers can apply attachment theory in assessing and supporting vulnerable families. Understanding these concepts can lead to more effective interventions and better outcomes for children.

This article provides a comprehensive exploration of Ainsworth’s work, covering:

1. Her background and influences
2. Detailed explanation of the Strange Situation experiment
3. Description of attachment styles
4. Critiques and limitations of her work
5. Impact on education and child welfare practices
6. Comparison with other theorists
7. Contemporary research and developments

Whether you’re an Early Years professional, a student of child development, or simply interested in understanding the foundations of human relationships, this article offers valuable insights into Ainsworth’s enduring legacy.

Download this Article as a PDF

Download this article as a PDF so you can revisit it whenever you want. We’ll email you a download link.

You’ll also get notification of our FREE Early Years TV videos each week and our exclusive special offers.

Get your PDF Download and FREE Early Years TV Updates

Mary Ainsworth Introduction and Background

Mary Ainsworth’s pioneering work in attachment theory fundamentally altered our understanding of child development. Born in Glendale, Ohio, in 1913, Ainsworth’s research on infant-caregiver relationships continues to shape Early Years education and psychology today.

Early Life and Education

Mary Dinsmore Ainsworth was born into a family that valued education highly. She completed her undergraduate studies at the University of Toronto in 1935, earning her BA in psychology. Ainsworth continued her academic pursuits at the same institution, obtaining her master’s degree in 1936 and her PhD in developmental psychology in 1939 (Bretherton, 1992).

Professional Experiences and Achievements

Ainsworth’s career was marked by significant contributions to developmental psychology. During World War II, she served in the Canadian Women’s Army Corps, rising to the rank of major. After the war, she returned to academia, teaching at the University of Toronto before moving to London to work at the Tavistock Clinic with John Bowlby, a collaboration that would profoundly influence her future work (Bretherton, 2003).

In 1954, Ainsworth moved to Uganda, where she conducted observational studies of mother-infant interactions. This research laid the groundwork for her later work on attachment patterns. Upon returning to North America, she held positions at Johns Hopkins University and later at the University of Virginia, where she remained until her retirement in 1984 (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991).

Ainsworth’s contributions were widely recognised. She received the Gold Medal for Life Achievement in the Science of Psychology from the American Psychological Foundation in 1998, among other honours (American Psychological Association, n.d.).

Historical Context and Influences

Ainsworth developed her ideas during a period of significant change in psychological thinking. The mid-20th century saw a shift from behaviorism towards more cognitive and developmental approaches. Freudian psychoanalytic theory was also influential, particularly in understanding early childhood experiences (Bretherton, 1992).

John Bowlby’s work on attachment theory was a crucial influence on Ainsworth. Bowlby proposed that infants have an innate need to seek proximity to a caregiver for survival, an idea that resonated with Ainsworth’s observations. Her work in Uganda, where she observed mothers and infants in their natural environment, further shaped her thinking about attachment behaviours (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991).

Mary Ainsworth’s Key Concepts and Theories

Ainsworth is best known for her refinement of attachment theory and the development of the Strange Situation procedure. This experimental method, designed to assess attachment patterns in infants, involved observing a child’s reactions to a series of separations and reunions with their caregiver in an unfamiliar environment (Ainsworth et al., 1978).

Through the Strange Situation, Ainsworth identified three main attachment styles:

1. Secure attachment
2. Anxious-ambivalent attachment
3. Avoidant attachment

A fourth style, disorganised attachment, was later added by Main and Solomon (1986).

These attachment styles provided a framework for understanding how early caregiver-child relationships influence later social and emotional development. Ainsworth’s work demonstrated that sensitive and responsive caregiving promotes secure attachment, which in turn supports healthy development (Ainsworth et al., 1978).

Ainsworth’s research has had a lasting impact on Early Years education and child psychology. Her emphasis on the importance of sensitive caregiving has influenced parenting practices and early childhood education programmes. Moreover, her methodological innovations, particularly the use of naturalistic observation, have shaped developmental research practices.

Attachment Theory: The Foundation

John Bowlby’s Attachment Theory

Attachment theory, as proposed by John Bowlby, represents a significant shift in our understanding of child development and human relationships. Bowlby posited that infants have an innate need to form close emotional bonds with their primary caregivers, typically their mothers, as a survival mechanism (Bowlby, 1969/1982).

Key aspects of Bowlby’s theory include:

The Concept of Attachment Behaviour

Bowlby observed that infants exhibit specific behaviours aimed at maintaining proximity to their caregivers. These behaviours, such as crying, smiling, and following, serve to keep the caregiver close, thereby ensuring the infant’s protection and survival.

Internal Working Models

Bowlby proposed that through repeated interactions with caregivers, children develop mental representations or ‘internal working models’ of themselves and others. These models shape their expectations and behaviours in future relationships (Bowlby, 1973).

Stages of Attachment

Bowlby outlined four stages of attachment development:

1. Pre-attachment phase (birth to 6 weeks)
2. Attachment-in-making phase (6 weeks to 6-8 months)
3. Clear-cut attachment phase (6-8 months to 18 months-2 years)
4. Goal-corrected partnership (18 months-2 years onwards)

These stages describe the gradual development of the infant-caregiver bond over time (Bowlby, 1969/1982).

Ainsworth’s Contributions and Expansions

Mary Ainsworth’s work significantly expanded and refined Bowlby’s attachment theory, providing empirical support and introducing new concepts that deepened our understanding of attachment relationships.

The Strange Situation Procedure

Ainsworth’s most notable contribution was the development of the Strange Situation procedure, a standardised laboratory method for assessing attachment patterns in infants (Ainsworth et al., 1978). This procedure allowed for the systematic observation of infant responses to separation and reunion with their caregivers, leading to the identification of distinct attachment styles.

Attachment Types or Styles

Through the Strange Situation, Ainsworth initially identified three main attachment type:

1. Secure attachment
2. Anxious-ambivalent attachment
3. Avoidant attachment

A fourth type, disorganised attachment, was later added by Main and Solomon (1986).

Maternal Sensitivity

Ainsworth emphasised the importance of maternal sensitivity in the development of secure attachment. She defined maternal sensitivity as the mother’s ability to perceive and accurately interpret her infant’s signals and respond promptly and appropriately (Ainsworth et al., 1978).

Cross-Cultural Studies

Ainsworth’s research in Uganda provided valuable cross-cultural insights into attachment relationships. Her observations of Ugandan infants and mothers supported the universality of attachment while highlighting cultural variations in its expression (Ainsworth, 1967).

Secure Base Concept

Ainsworth introduced the concept of the ‘secure base’, describing how a securely attached infant uses the caregiver as a base from which to explore the environment, returning for comfort when stressed (Ainsworth, 1967). This concept has been particularly influential in understanding the balance between attachment and exploration in child development.

Continuity of Attachment

Ainsworth’s longitudinal studies provided evidence for the continuity of attachment patterns over time, suggesting that early attachment experiences can have lasting effects on social and emotional development (Ainsworth et al., 1978).

Ainsworth’s work not only provided empirical support for Bowlby’s theories but also expanded the scope of attachment theory. Her emphasis on the quality of caregiver-infant interactions and her methodological innovations have had a lasting impact on developmental psychology and Early Years education.

The Strange Situation Experiment

The Strange Situation procedure, developed by Mary Ainsworth and her colleagues, is a structured laboratory method designed to assess attachment patterns in infants. This innovative experiment has become a cornerstone in attachment research, providing valuable insights into early social and emotional development.

Experiment Design

The Strange Situation procedure was meticulously designed to activate the infant’s attachment system through a series of separations and reunions with their caregiver, typically the mother. The experiment takes place in an unfamiliar environment—a laboratory playroom—and involves the introduction of a stranger, adding an element of novelty and potential stress (Ainsworth et al., 1978).

Key design elements include:

• A controlled environment to ensure consistency across participants
• Timed episodes to standardise the procedure
• The presence of age-appropriate toys to encourage exploration
• A one-way mirror for unobtrusive observation

The experiment’s design allows researchers to observe how infants balance their needs for comfort and exploration under varying levels of stress, providing a window into their attachment relationships.

Step-by-Step Procedure

The Strange Situation procedure consists of eight episodes, each lasting approximately three minutes. These episodes are carefully sequenced to gradually increase the level of stress experienced by the infant:

1. Parent and infant are introduced to the experimental room.
2. Parent and infant are alone. The parent does not participate while the infant explores.
3. A stranger enters, talks to the parent, then approaches the infant. The parent leaves inconspicuously.
4. First separation episode: The stranger’s behaviour is geared towards that of the infant.
5. First reunion episode: Parent greets and comforts the infant, then leaves again.
6. Second separation episode: The infant is alone.
7. Continuation of second separation: Stranger enters and gears behaviour to that of the infant.
8. Second reunion episode: Parent enters, greets the infant, and picks up the child; the stranger leaves inconspicuously.

Throughout these episodes, researchers carefully observe and record the infant’s behaviours, paying particular attention to their reactions during separations and reunions with the caregiver (Ainsworth et al., 1978).

Scoring Procedure

The scoring process for the Strange Situation experiment is a meticulous endeavour designed to capture the nuances of infant behaviour. Ainsworth and her colleagues developed a comprehensive system to quantify and interpret the observed behaviours, ensuring a standardised approach to assessment across different infants and situations.

Observation and Recording

During the experiment, trained observers carefully note the infant’s behaviours throughout each episode. Initially, for the first 14 participants, one observer narrated while another took notes due to equipment limitations. However, the standard procedure evolved to utilise two observers simultaneously narrating into a two-channel tape recorder, with a timer clicking every 15 seconds to mark intervals (Ainsworth et al., 1978).

This dual-observer approach enhances the reliability of the observations. The narrations are later transcribed, consolidated, and coded, providing a detailed record of the infant’s actions and reactions throughout the experiment.

Behavioural Categories

The scoring system focuses on five main classes of behaviour:

1. Proximity and contact seeking
2. Contact maintaining
3. Avoidance of proximity and contact
4. Resistance to contact and comfort
5. Search behaviour

Each of these categories is assessed for interaction with both the mother and the stranger across relevant episodes. For instance, proximity and contact seeking behaviours might include active efforts like approaching, climbing, gesturing, or directed cries. The scoring takes into account the initiative, persistence, and effectiveness of the infant’s efforts to gain or regain contact or proximity.

Scoring Scale and Criteria

Observers rate the intensity of behaviours on a scale of 1 to 7 for each 15-second interval. The scoring considers several factors:

• Strength of the behaviour
• Frequency
• Duration
• Latency (how quickly the behaviour occurs)
• Type of behaviour (active behaviours are considered stronger than signalling)

This multi-faceted approach allows for a nuanced understanding of the infant’s attachment behaviours. For example, contact maintaining behaviours might include clinging, embracing, or resisting release, with higher scores indicating more intense or persistent efforts to maintain contact.

Additional Observations

While the five main behavioural categories form the core of the scoring system, observers also note other significant behaviours:

• Exploratory behaviours (e.g., moving around the room, playing with toys)
• Affect displays (e.g., crying, smiling)

These additional observations provide context and depth to the overall assessment of the infant’s attachment style.

Reliability and Validity

To ensure the reliability of the scoring, Ainsworth and her team conducted independent codings of the narrated reports. They achieved high correlation coefficients (0.99 for locomotor, manipulatory, and visual exploration, and 0.98 for crying), demonstrating strong inter-rater reliability (Ainsworth et al., 1978).

The use of clear behavioural categories and a standardised scoring system contributes to the replicability of the Strange Situation procedure. This methodological rigour has been crucial in establishing the Strange Situation as a valid and reliable measure of infant attachment.

It’s important to note that while the scoring system provides a structured approach to assessing attachment, the interpretation of these scores requires expertise and consideration of the broader context of the infant’s behaviour and relationships. The Strange Situation scoring system has been instrumental in advancing our understanding of early attachment relationships and continues to be a valuable tool in developmental research and clinical practice.

Results: Observed Behaviours and Their Significance

The Strange Situation procedure allows researchers to observe a range of behaviours that provide insights into the infant’s attachment relationship. Key behaviours of interest include:

• Exploration: How freely does the infant explore the room and play with toys when the parent is present?
• Separation anxiety: How does the infant react when the parent leaves the room?
• Stranger anxiety: How does the infant respond to the presence of the stranger?
• Reunion behaviour: How does the infant greet and interact with the parent upon their return?

The significance of these behaviours lies in their ability to reveal the infant’s internal working models of attachment. For example:

• Secure attachment: These infants typically explore freely in the parent’s presence, show distress when separated, and greet the parent warmly upon reunion. They use the parent as a secure base from which to explore.
• Anxious-ambivalent attachment: These infants often show limited exploration and extreme distress upon separation. During reunion, they may seek contact but also resist it, displaying anger or ambivalence towards the parent.
• Avoidant attachment: These infants may show little distress upon separation and might avoid or ignore the parent during reunion. They often continue to focus on toys or the environment rather than seeking comfort.
• Disorganised attachment: Added later by Main and Solomon (1986), these infants display contradictory or disoriented behaviours, such as freezing or approaching the parent with their head averted.

The patterns of behaviour observed in the Strange Situation are thought to reflect the history of the infant-caregiver relationship. Sensitive and responsive caregiving is associated with secure attachment, while inconsistent or rejecting caregiving is linked to insecure attachment patterns (Ainsworth et al., 1978).

It’s important to note that while the Strange Situation procedure has been widely influential, it is not without limitations. Cultural variations in attachment behaviours and the artificial nature of the laboratory setting are factors to consider when interpreting results (van IJzendoorn & Kroonenberg, 1988).

Results: Attachment Styles Identified

Through her groundbreaking Strange Situation experiments, Mary Ainsworth identified distinct patterns of infant behaviour that reflected different attachment relationships. These patterns, or attachment styles, have become fundamental to our understanding of early social-emotional development and continue to influence research and practice in child psychology and Early Years education.

Secure Attachment

Secure attachment is characterised by a balance between the infant’s exploration and comfort-seeking behaviours. In the Strange Situation, securely attached infants typically display the following behaviours:

• Use the caregiver as a secure base for exploration
• Show some distress when separated from the caregiver
• Seek proximity and comfort upon reunion
• Are easily comforted by the caregiver

Ainsworth found that approximately 60-70% of infants in her studies exhibited secure attachment (Ainsworth et al., 1978). These infants tend to have caregivers who are consistently responsive and sensitive to their needs.

The long-term implications of secure attachment are significant. Children with secure attachments often develop better social skills, emotional regulation, and self-esteem. They’re more likely to form positive relationships later in life and show resilience in the face of stress (Sroufe, 2005).

Anxious-Ambivalent Attachment

Anxious-ambivalent attachment, also known as resistant attachment, is characterised by inconsistent behaviour towards the caregiver. In the Strange Situation, these infants typically:

• Show limited exploration, even when the caregiver is present
• Become extremely distressed upon separation
• Seek contact upon reunion but resist comfort
• Display anger or ambivalence towards the caregiver

Ainsworth observed this pattern in about 10-15% of infants in her studies (Ainsworth et al., 1978). These infants often have caregivers who are inconsistent in their responsiveness, sometimes attentive and sometimes neglectful.

Children with anxious-ambivalent attachments may struggle with emotional regulation and have difficulty trusting others. They might become overly dependent in relationships or display heightened anxiety about abandonment (Main, 2000).

Avoidant Attachment

Avoidant attachment is characterised by minimal displays of attachment behaviour. In the Strange Situation, avoidant infants typically:

• Show little emotion when the caregiver leaves or returns
• Continue to focus on the environment rather than the caregiver
• Actively avoid or ignore the caregiver upon reunion

This pattern was observed in about 20-25% of infants in Ainsworth’s studies (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Avoidant attachment is often associated with caregivers who are consistently unresponsive or rejecting of the infant’s needs for comfort and closeness.

Children with avoidant attachments may grow up to have difficulty forming close relationships. They might struggle with emotional intimacy and tend to be overly self-reliant (Main, 2000).

Disorganised Attachment

The disorganised attachment style was not part of Ainsworth’s original classification but was later added by Mary Main and Judith Solomon (1986). This pattern is characterised by contradictory, disoriented, or fearful behaviour towards the caregiver. In the Strange Situation, these infants might:

• Display a mixture of avoidant and resistant behaviours
• Show fear or confusion towards the caregiver
• Exhibit stereotypical behaviours like freezing or rocking

Main and Solomon found this pattern in about 15-20% of infants in low-risk samples, with higher rates in high-risk populations (Main & Solomon, 1990). Disorganised attachment is often associated with caregivers who are frightening to the infant or who are themselves frightened, perhaps due to unresolved trauma or loss.

Children with disorganised attachments are at higher risk for later psychopathology and may struggle with emotional regulation and social relationships (Lyons-Ruth & Jacobvitz, 2008).

It’s crucial to understand that these attachment styles are not fixed personality traits but reflect the infant’s learned strategies for managing their attachment needs in the context of their specific caregiving relationship. While early attachment patterns can have long-lasting effects, they can also change with new relationship experiences or therapeutic interventions.

Moreover, attachment styles exist on a continuum rather than as discrete categories. Many infants show a mix of behaviours that don’t fit neatly into one category. This complexity underscores the importance of considering the full range of an infant’s behaviours and the broader context of their relationships when assessing attachment.

Evaluation: Criticisms, Limitations, and Support of the Strange Situation Experiment

While the Strange Situation procedure has been immensely influential in attachment research, it has also faced various criticisms and limitations. These critiques have led to ongoing debates and refinements in attachment theory and methodology.

Cultural Considerations

One of the most significant criticisms of the Strange Situation procedure relates to its cultural validity. The original studies were conducted primarily with middle-class American families, raising questions about the applicability of the findings to other cultural contexts.

Different cultures have varying norms and expectations regarding child-rearing practices, independence, and emotional expression. These cultural differences can significantly impact how children behave in the Strange Situation and how their behaviours are interpreted. For example:

In some cultures, children are rarely separated from their primary caregivers in early childhood. For these children, the separations in the Strange Situation might be particularly stressful, potentially leading to behaviours that could be misinterpreted as insecure attachment.

Conversely, in cultures where children are encouraged to be more independent from an early age, behaviours that might be interpreted as ‘avoidant’ in a Western context could actually be culturally appropriate expressions of self-reliance.

Cross-cultural studies have indeed found variations in the distribution of attachment styles across different cultures. For instance, a meta-analysis by van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) found that while the three main attachment patterns (secure, anxious-ambivalent, and avoidant) were present in all cultures studied, their relative frequencies varied. German infants, for example, were more likely to be classified as avoidant compared to infants in other countries.

These findings highlight the need for caution in applying attachment classifications derived from the Strange Situation across diverse cultural contexts. They also underscore the importance of considering cultural norms and values when interpreting children’s behaviours in attachment assessments.

Methodological Critiques

Several methodological concerns have been raised about the Strange Situation procedure:

1. Artificial setting: The Strange Situation takes place in a laboratory environment, which is inherently artificial. Critics argue that this setting may not accurately reflect children’s attachment behaviours in their natural environments. The unfamiliar surroundings and the presence of observers might influence both the child’s and the caregiver’s behaviours in ways that don’t represent their typical interactions.
2. Limited age range: The Strange Situation was designed for infants between 12 and 18 months of age. This narrow focus limits our understanding of attachment patterns in older children and adults. While modified versions have been developed for older age groups, the validity of these adaptations is still debated.
3. Single point of assessment: The Strange Situation provides a snapshot of the child’s behaviour at a single point in time. This approach may not capture the dynamic nature of attachment relationships or account for temporary factors that might influence the child’s behaviour on the day of assessment.
4. Overemphasis on maternal attachment: The original Strange Situation studies focused primarily on mother-infant relationships. This focus has been criticised for potentially overlooking the importance of attachments to fathers, siblings, or other caregivers.
5. Categorical classification: While Ainsworth’s original system allowed for some flexibility, attachment styles are often treated as distinct categories. Some researchers argue that attachment should be viewed more as a continuum, with children showing varying degrees of security rather than fitting neatly into discrete categories.
6. Reliability concerns: The coding of behaviours in the Strange Situation requires extensive training and can be subject to observer bias. While inter-rater reliability is typically high in well-conducted studies, there is always potential for subjectivity in the interpretation of children’s behaviours.

Despite these criticisms, it’s important to note that the Strange Situation procedure has demonstrated remarkable robustness and predictive validity across numerous studies. For instance, meta-analyses have shown that Strange Situation classifications in infancy are associated with later social and emotional outcomes in childhood and adolescence (Groh et al., 2014).

Moreover, many of these limitations have been acknowledged by attachment researchers, leading to refinements in methodology and theory. For example, researchers have developed more culturally sensitive measures of attachment, explored attachment in diverse family structures, and investigated attachment across the lifespan.

In considering these criticisms, we gain a more nuanced understanding of the strengths and limitations of the Strange Situation procedure. This critical perspective allows us to appreciate the valuable insights provided by Ainsworth’s work while also recognising the complexity of attachment relationships and the need for ongoing research and refinement in our assessment methods.

Impact on Early Childhood Education

The findings from the Strange Situation procedure and attachment theory more broadly have had a profound influence on Early Childhood Education (ECE). These insights have reshaped our understanding of child development and informed educational practices in numerous ways.

Informing Educational Practices

The Strange Situation findings have highlighted the crucial role of secure attachments in children’s social, emotional, and cognitive development. This knowledge has led to significant changes in ECE practices:

1. Emphasis on Responsive Caregiving: Educators now recognise the importance of being consistently responsive to children’s needs. This approach mirrors the sensitive caregiving associated with secure attachment. For instance, teachers are encouraged to promptly and appropriately respond to children’s emotional cues, providing comfort when needed and supporting exploration when the child is ready.
2. Importance of Continuity of Care: Many Early Years settings now strive to provide continuity in caregiving relationships. This might involve assigning primary caregivers to specific children or ensuring that children stay with the same teacher for extended periods. This practice is based on the understanding that secure attachments require time and consistency to develop.
3. Supporting Transitions: The Strange Situation highlighted how separation and reunion experiences impact children. As a result, ECE settings now pay careful attention to transition times, such as drop-offs and pick-ups. Educators might use strategies like gradual introductions to new environments or create predictable routines to help children feel secure during these potentially stressful times.
4. Encouraging Exploration: Secure attachment provides a ‘secure base’ from which children can explore their environment. Early Years settings now focus on creating environments that encourage exploration while ensuring children feel safe. This might involve arranging classrooms to allow clear sightlines to the teacher or providing cosy spaces where children can retreat when feeling overwhelmed.
5. Emotional Literacy: Understanding different attachment styles has led to an increased focus on helping children recognise and manage their emotions. Teachers might use strategies like emotion coaching or implement curriculum elements focused on social-emotional learning.
6. Parent Partnership: Recognising the primacy of the parent-child attachment relationship, many ECE settings now place greater emphasis on working in partnership with parents. This might involve regular communication about the child’s experiences, involving parents in classroom activities, or providing parenting support programmes.

Attachment-Based Interventions in Early Years Settings

Several interventions based on attachment theory have been developed and implemented in Early Years settings. Here are a few examples:

1. Circle of Security: This intervention, developed by Cooper, Hoffman, Marvin, and Powell (2000), aims to help caregivers understand and respond to children’s attachment needs. It has been adapted for use in Early Years settings, helping educators recognise and respond to children’s attachment behaviours. Research has shown that this approach can improve children’s attachment security and reduce behaviour problems (Hoffman et al., 2006).
2. Emotion Coaching: Based on the work of John Gottman, emotion coaching helps adults guide children through their emotional experiences. This approach, which aligns with attachment theory’s emphasis on sensitive responsiveness, has been widely adopted in Early Years settings. Studies have found that emotion coaching can improve children’s emotional regulation and social skills (Havighurst et al., 2013).
3. Key Person Approach: Many UK Early Years settings have adopted the ‘key person’ approach, where each child is assigned a specific educator who takes primary responsibility for their care and education. This approach, which draws on attachment theory, aims to provide children with a secure base in the Early Years setting. Research suggests that this approach can support children’s emotional well-being and learning (Elfer et al., 2012).
4. Attachment Aware Schools: This framework, developed by researchers at Bath Spa University, applies attachment theory principles to school settings. It involves training staff to understand attachment theory and implement attachment-informed practices. Early evaluations have shown promising results in terms of improved behaviour and academic outcomes (Rose et al., 2019).
5. Video Interaction Guidance (VIG): This intervention uses video feedback to help educators reflect on and improve their interactions with children. While not exclusively based on attachment theory, VIG often incorporates attachment principles. Studies have found that VIG can enhance educator sensitivity and improve children’s social-emotional development (Kennedy et al., 2011).

These interventions demonstrate how the insights gained from the Strange Situation and attachment theory have been translated into practical strategies for supporting children’s development in Early Years settings. However, it’s important to note that while these approaches show promise, ongoing research is needed to fully understand their long-term impacts and to refine their implementation in diverse educational contexts.

The influence of attachment theory on Early Childhood Education underscores the enduring relevance of Ainsworth’s work. By emphasising the importance of secure, responsive relationships, the Strange Situation findings continue to shape how we approach the care and education of young children, contributing to practices that support their social, emotional, and cognitive development.

Influence on Professional Practice

The insights gained from Ainsworth’s Strange Situation procedure and attachment theory have profoundly influenced professional practice across various fields, particularly in child psychology, therapy, social work, and child welfare. Let’s explore how these ideas have been applied in these areas.

Application in Child Psychology and Therapy

Attachment theory has become a cornerstone in child psychology and therapy, shaping how professionals understand and treat a wide range of childhood issues. Here’s how it’s been applied:

1. Assessment Tools: The Strange Situation procedure itself is sometimes used as an assessment tool in clinical settings. However, its influence extends beyond direct application. For instance, the Child Attachment Interview (CAI), developed by Target et al. (2003), is designed for older children and draws heavily on attachment theory principles. These tools help psychologists gain insights into a child’s attachment patterns and relational experiences.
2. Play Therapy: Attachment theory has influenced play therapy approaches. For example, Theraplay, developed by Jernberg and Booth (1999), is an attachment-based play therapy that aims to enhance the parent-child relationship. It uses structured play activities to recreate positive early attachment experiences.
3. Parent-Child Psychotherapy: Attachment-based interventions often focus on the parent-child relationship. Child-Parent Psychotherapy (CPP), developed by Lieberman et al. (2005), is an example of this approach. It aims to improve the quality of the parent-child attachment, particularly in families that have experienced trauma or adversity.
4. Treatment of Attachment Disorders: Understanding attachment patterns has been crucial in developing treatments for attachment disorders. For instance, the Circle of Security intervention, mentioned earlier, has been adapted for use in clinical settings to treat children with attachment difficulties (Powell et al., 2014).
5. Trauma-Informed Care: Attachment theory has contributed significantly to trauma-informed approaches in child psychology. Recognizing that trauma can disrupt attachment relationships, therapists now often work to rebuild secure attachments as part of trauma treatment (Cook et al., 2005).

To illustrate how this works in practice, imagine a child who has experienced neglect and shows avoidant attachment behaviors. A therapist might use attachment-informed play therapy to help the child feel safe expressing needs and emotions. Simultaneously, they might work with the caregivers to help them respond more sensitively to the child’s cues. This dual approach aims to create new, positive attachment experiences for the child.

Use in Social Work and Child Welfare

Attachment theory has also had a significant impact on social work practice and child welfare policies. Here’s how it’s been applied in these fields:

1. Risk Assessment: Social workers often use attachment-informed frameworks to assess risk in child protection cases. For example, the UK’s Department for Education (2018) guidance on assessing children in need explicitly references attachment theory, encouraging social workers to consider the quality of parent-child attachments in their assessments.
2. Foster Care and Adoption: Attachment theory has greatly influenced practices in foster care and adoption. Social workers now recognize the importance of maintaining attachment relationships where possible and supporting the development of new secure attachments when children are placed in care. For instance, many agencies now provide attachment-focused training for foster and adoptive parents (Dozier et al., 2009).
3. Family Preservation Programs: Attachment principles underpin many family preservation programs. These interventions aim to keep families together by improving parenting skills and parent-child relationships. The Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-up (ABC) intervention, developed by Dozier et al. (2006), is an example of an attachment-based program used in child welfare settings.
4. Residential Care: In residential care settings for children, attachment theory has led to changes in practice. There’s now a greater emphasis on providing consistent caregivers and creating a family-like atmosphere to support the development of secure attachments (Smith et al., 2017).
5. Court Decisions: In family court proceedings, attachment assessments can inform decisions about child custody and visitation. Judges may consider the quality of attachment relationships when determining what’s in the best interest of the child (Crittenden & Baim, 2017).

To bring this to life, consider a social worker assessing a family where there are concerns about neglect. Using an attachment lens, they would observe not just the physical care provided, but also the emotional responsiveness of the parents to the child’s needs. They might look for signs of secure attachment behaviors in the child, such as seeking comfort from the parent when distressed. If they identify attachment difficulties, they might recommend an intervention like ABC to improve the parent-child relationship, potentially preventing the need for the child to be removed from the home.

In both child psychology and social work, the influence of attachment theory has led to a more relational, trauma-informed approach to working with children and families. Professionals in these fields now recognize that supporting healthy attachments is crucial for children’s wellbeing and development.

However, it’s important to note that while attachment theory provides valuable insights, it’s just one part of a comprehensive approach to child welfare and mental health. Professionals must also consider other factors such as cultural context, individual differences, and systemic influences when making assessments and planning interventions.

Comparison with Other Theorists

To fully appreciate Mary Ainsworth’s contributions to developmental psychology, it’s helpful to compare her ideas with those of other influential theorists in the field. This comparison allows us to see how different approaches complement or contrast with each other, providing a richer understanding of child development and learning.

Ainsworth and Piaget: Cognitive Development vs. Emotional Security

Jean Piaget, known for his theory of cognitive development, focused primarily on how children’s thinking and reasoning abilities evolve over time. While Piaget and Ainsworth both studied child development, their emphases were quite different.

Piaget’s theory centers on the idea that children actively construct their understanding of the world through stages of cognitive development. He proposed four main stages: sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational. Each stage represents a qualitative shift in how children think and reason (Piaget, 1952).

In contrast, Ainsworth’s work focused on the emotional and social aspects of development, particularly the importance of early relationships. Her Strange Situation procedure and the resulting attachment classifications highlight how early experiences with caregivers shape a child’s emotional security and future relationships.

Despite these differences, there are some interesting parallels. Both Piaget and Ainsworth viewed children as active participants in their own development. Just as Piaget saw children as “little scientists” exploring their world, Ainsworth observed how infants actively seek proximity and interaction with their caregivers.

Moreover, both theorists recognized the importance of the child’s environment. For Piaget, this meant providing experiences that challenge a child’s current understanding, promoting cognitive growth. For Ainsworth, the crucial environmental factor was the responsiveness and sensitivity of caregivers.

Read our in-depth article on Jean Piaget here.

Ainsworth and Vygotsky: The Role of Social Interaction

Lev Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory shares some common ground with Ainsworth’s work, particularly in emphasizing the importance of social interactions in development. However, their focus and approach differ significantly.

Vygotsky argued that higher mental functions develop through social interactions, with language playing a crucial role. He introduced the concept of the “zone of proximal development” (ZPD), which represents the difference between what a child can do independently and what they can achieve with guidance from a more skilled individual (Vygotsky, 1978).

While Ainsworth also recognized the importance of social interactions, her focus was on the quality of early attachment relationships rather than on broader social learning. The secure base concept in attachment theory does, however, share some similarities with Vygotsky’s scaffolding idea. In both cases, adult support enables the child to explore and learn.

A key difference is that Vygotsky’s theory applies more broadly to cognitive and cultural learning, while Ainsworth’s work centers on emotional development and relationship formation. Vygotsky might see an adult teaching a child as a cultural transmission, while Ainsworth would be more interested in how the emotional quality of that interaction affects the child’s sense of security.

Read our in-depth article on Lev Vygotsky here.

Ainsworth and Erikson: Psychosocial Stages vs. Attachment Patterns

Erik Erikson’s psychosocial theory of development shares some common ground with Ainsworth’s work, particularly in its emphasis on social relationships. Erikson proposed eight stages of psychosocial development across the lifespan, each characterized by a central conflict or crisis (Erikson, 1950).

The first stage in Erikson’s theory, “Trust vs. Mistrust,” aligns closely with Ainsworth’s concept of secure attachment. Both theorists recognized that early experiences with caregivers shape a child’s basic sense of trust in the world and others.

However, Erikson’s theory is broader in scope, covering the entire lifespan and addressing various aspects of psychosocial development beyond just attachment. While Ainsworth focused intensively on the quality of early caregiving relationships, Erikson considered a wider range of social influences across different life stages.

Another difference lies in their methodological approaches. Erikson’s theory was largely based on clinical observations and case studies, while Ainsworth developed a standardized experimental procedure (the Strange Situation) to systematically observe and classify attachment behaviors.

Read our in-depth article on Erik Erikson here.

Ainsworth and Bandura: Attachment vs. Social Learning

Albert Bandura’s social learning theory (later expanded into social cognitive theory) offers an interesting contrast to Ainsworth’s attachment theory. Bandura emphasized the role of observational learning and modeling in shaping behavior and personality (Bandura, 1977).

While both theorists recognized the importance of social influences on development, their focus and proposed mechanisms differ significantly. Ainsworth emphasized the quality of early caregiving relationships and their impact on emotional development and future relationships. Bandura, on the other hand, highlighted how children learn by observing and imitating others, not just parents but also peers, teachers, and even media figures.

Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy – one’s belief in their ability to succeed in specific situations – could be seen as somewhat related to the internal working models proposed in attachment theory. Both involve mental representations that influence behavior and social interactions. However, Bandura’s focus was more on cognitive processes and behavioral outcomes, while Ainsworth was primarily concerned with emotional bonds and relationship patterns.

In comparing these theories, we can see that while they sometimes overlap or complement each other, they also offer distinct perspectives on child development. Ainsworth’s unique contribution lies in her detailed exploration of early attachment relationships and their long-term impact on emotional and social development.

By considering these different theoretical approaches together, we gain a more comprehensive understanding of child development. Ainsworth’s work on attachment provides crucial insights into emotional development and relationship formation, while other theories offer valuable perspectives on cognitive growth, social learning, and broader psychosocial development across the lifespan.

This comparison highlights the complexity of human development and the value of integrating insights from various theoretical perspectives. It also underscores the enduring significance of Ainsworth’s work in providing a deep understanding of the emotional foundations of human development.

Read our in-depth article on Albert Bandura here.

Contemporary Research and Developments

Ainsworth’s groundbreaking work on attachment theory continues to inspire and inform contemporary research in developmental psychology and related fields. Let’s explore some of the recent studies that have built upon her work and examine modern interpretations and adaptations of attachment theory.

Recent Studies Building on Ainsworth’s Work

Ainsworth’s Strange Situation procedure laid the foundation for decades of research into attachment relationships. Recent studies have expanded on her work in several key areas:

1. Neurobiological Basis of Attachment: Advances in neuroscience have allowed researchers to investigate the biological underpinnings of attachment relationships. For instance, a study by Feldman et al. (2013) used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to examine brain activity in mothers as they viewed videos of their own infants. They found that certain brain regions associated with reward and emotion regulation were more active when mothers viewed their own infants compared to unfamiliar infants. This research helps us understand the neurobiological mechanisms that support the formation of attachment bonds.
2. Attachment Across the Lifespan: While Ainsworth focused primarily on infant-caregiver relationships, contemporary researchers have extended attachment theory to adolescence and adulthood. For example, the work of Mikulincer and Shaver (2007) has explored how early attachment experiences influence adult romantic relationships. They’ve found that attachment patterns established in childhood often persist into adulthood, influencing how individuals approach and experience intimate relationships.
3. Intergenerational Transmission of Attachment: Researchers have become increasingly interested in how attachment patterns are passed from one generation to the next. A longitudinal study by Verhage et al. (2016) found a moderate association between parents’ attachment representations and their children’s attachment security. This research highlights the potential for early interventions to break cycles of insecure attachment across generations.
4. Cultural Variations in Attachment: Building on critiques of the cultural limitations of early attachment research, contemporary studies have examined attachment patterns across diverse cultural contexts. For instance, Mesman et al. (2016) conducted a meta-analysis of attachment studies in non-Western countries. They found that while secure attachment was the most common pattern across cultures, there were significant variations in the distribution of attachment styles, emphasizing the importance of considering cultural context in attachment research.

Modern Interpretations and Adaptations of Attachment Theory

As our understanding of human development has evolved, so too has attachment theory. Here are some ways in which Ainsworth’s ideas have been reinterpreted and adapted in contemporary research and practice:

1. Attachment Network Perspective: Modern attachment researchers have moved beyond the focus on a single primary attachment figure (typically the mother) to consider the network of attachment relationships a child may have. For example, the work of Howes and Spieker (2008) has explored how children form attachment relationships with multiple caregivers, including fathers, grandparents, and childcare providers. This perspective recognizes the complexity of modern family structures and caregiving arrangements.
2. Dimensional Approach to Attachment: While Ainsworth’s original classification system categorized attachment into distinct styles, some contemporary researchers argue for a more dimensional approach. For instance, Fraley and Spieker (2003) used taxometric analyses to suggest that attachment patterns are better conceptualized as continuous dimensions rather than discrete categories. This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of individual differences in attachment.
3. Attachment and Emotion Regulation: Modern interpretations of attachment theory have placed increased emphasis on the role of attachment in emotion regulation. The work of Cassidy (1994) has been particularly influential in this area, proposing that secure attachment relationships provide a context in which children learn to effectively regulate their emotions. This perspective has important implications for understanding the development of mental health and resilience.
4. Attachment-Based Interventions: Ainsworth’s work has inspired the development of numerous attachment-based interventions. For example, the Circle of Security program, developed by Powell et al. (2014), translates attachment theory into practical strategies for improving parent-child relationships. These interventions often focus on enhancing caregiver sensitivity and responsiveness, key factors identified by Ainsworth as crucial for secure attachment.
5. Attachment in the Digital Age: As technology becomes increasingly prevalent in our lives, researchers are beginning to explore how digital media might influence attachment relationships. For instance, a study by Radesky et al. (2015) examined how mobile device use during parent-child interactions might affect the quality of these interactions. This emerging area of research raises important questions about how we maintain and nurture attachment relationships in an increasingly digital world.

These contemporary developments demonstrate the enduring relevance of Ainsworth’s work. By building on her foundational ideas, researchers continue to deepen our understanding of the complex dynamics of human relationships across the lifespan and in diverse contexts. As we move forward, it’s likely that attachment theory will continue to evolve, incorporating new insights from neuroscience, cultural studies, and other fields to provide an ever more nuanced picture of human social and emotional development.

To fully grasp these developments, it can be helpful to think about how they relate to Ainsworth’s original work. For instance, consider how the attachment network perspective expands on Ainsworth’s focus on the mother-infant relationship. How might this broader view change our understanding of attachment security? Or reflect on how the dimensional approach to attachment compares to Ainsworth’s categorical system. What might be gained or lost in moving from categories to dimensions?

Conclusion

Mary Ainsworth’s work on attachment theory and the Strange Situation procedure has left an indelible mark on the field of developmental psychology and continues to shape our understanding of child development today. Let’s summarize her lasting legacy and explore the ongoing relevance of her contributions.

Ainsworth’s Lasting Legacy

Mary Ainsworth’s impact on developmental psychology and related fields is profound and multifaceted. Her work has fundamentally changed how we think about early childhood relationships and their long-term effects on development. Here are some key aspects of her enduring legacy:

1. Empirical Foundation for Attachment Theory: Ainsworth’s Strange Situation procedure provided the first systematic method for observing and classifying attachment behaviors. This empirical approach lent credibility to attachment theory and paved the way for decades of research. As van IJzendoorn (1995) noted in his meta-analysis, the Strange Situation has demonstrated remarkable validity across diverse populations and contexts.
2. Emphasis on Individual Differences: By identifying different attachment patterns, Ainsworth highlighted the importance of individual differences in early social-emotional development. This perspective has influenced how we understand and approach variations in child behavior and development.
3. Focus on Caregiver Sensitivity: Ainsworth’s work underscored the crucial role of caregiver sensitivity in fostering secure attachments. This insight has had far-reaching implications for parenting practices, early childhood education, and interventions for at-risk families. For instance, the meta-analysis by Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. (2003) showed that interventions focusing on enhancing parental sensitivity were effective in improving attachment security.
4. Methodology in Developmental Research: The Strange Situation procedure not only provided a tool for assessing attachment but also set a new standard for observational research in developmental psychology. Its influence can be seen in the development of other structured observational measures across various domains of child development.
5. Interdisciplinary Impact: Ainsworth’s work has influenced fields beyond psychology, including education, social work, and pediatrics. For example, in the medical field, understanding attachment has informed practices around parent-infant bonding in neonatal intensive care units (Flacking et al., 2012).

The Continuing Relevance of the Strange Situation

Despite being developed over half a century ago, the Strange Situation procedure remains a valuable tool in understanding child development. Its ongoing relevance can be seen in several ways:

1. Predictive Validity: Longitudinal studies have consistently shown that early attachment classifications, as measured by the Strange Situation, predict various aspects of later development. For instance, Sroufe (2005) found that early attachment security was associated with better social competence, emotional regulation, and cognitive functioning in adolescence.
2. Cross-Cultural Insights: While the universality of attachment patterns has been debated, the Strange Situation has provided a framework for exploring cultural variations in caregiving and child development. This has led to a more nuanced understanding of both universal and culture-specific aspects of early social-emotional development (Mesman et al., 2016).
3. Clinical Applications: The Strange Situation continues to inform clinical practice, particularly in assessing and treating relationship difficulties in early childhood. For example, it has been adapted for use in diagnosing attachment disorders and planning interventions (Zeanah & Gleason, 2015).
4. Research Tool: The Strange Situation remains a widely used research tool in developmental psychology. It has been adapted for use with older children and even adults, allowing for the study of attachment across the lifespan (Fraley & Roisman, 2019).
5. Theoretical Refinement: Ongoing research using the Strange Situation has led to refinements in attachment theory. For instance, the addition of the disorganized attachment category by Main and Solomon (1986) emerged from careful observations of infants in the Strange Situation who didn’t fit the original classification system.

As we reflect on Ainsworth’s legacy and the continuing relevance of the Strange Situation, it’s worth considering how her work might inform future challenges in child development. For instance, how might attachment theory help us understand the impact of digital technology on parent-child relationships? Or how could the insights from the Strange Situation inform interventions for children who have experienced early adversity or trauma?

These questions highlight the dynamic nature of Ainsworth’s contributions. While rooted in careful observations of infants and caregivers in the 1960s and 1970s, her work continues to evolve, adapting to new contexts and challenges in child development. As we face the complexities of raising and educating children in the 21st century, Ainsworth’s insights into the fundamental importance of early relationships remain as relevant as ever.

In essence, Mary Ainsworth’s work reminds us that at the heart of human development lies the powerful bond between child and caregiver. By providing a scientific lens through which to view these early relationships, Ainsworth has given us invaluable tools for supporting healthy development and nurturing the next generation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Mary Ainsworth’s attachment theory?

Mary Ainsworth’s attachment theory is a framework for understanding the emotional bonds between infants and their caregivers. It posits that the quality of early attachment relationships significantly influences a child’s social, emotional, and cognitive development throughout life.

Ainsworth expanded on John Bowlby’s initial attachment theory by identifying specific patterns of attachment through her Strange Situation procedure. She proposed that infants develop different attachment styles based on their experiences with caregivers. These styles reflect the infant’s expectations about the availability and responsiveness of their caregiver.

Ainsworth’s theory emphasizes the importance of caregiver sensitivity in fostering secure attachments. Sensitive caregiving involves accurately perceiving and promptly responding to the infant’s signals. This responsive care helps infants develop a sense of security, enabling them to explore their environment confidently while using the caregiver as a ‘secure base’.

What was The Strange Situation Experiment?

The Strange Situation Experiment, developed by Mary Ainsworth, is a structured observational procedure designed to assess attachment patterns in infants aged 12 to 18 months. It involves a series of eight episodes where the infant experiences separations and reunions with their caregiver in an unfamiliar environment, with the introduction of a stranger.

During the procedure, researchers observe the infant’s behaviors, particularly how they balance their needs for comfort and exploration under varying levels of stress. The infant’s reactions to separation, their behavior upon reunion, and their interaction with the stranger are all carefully noted.

The Strange Situation allows researchers to classify infants into different attachment categories based on their observed behaviors. This standardized procedure has become a cornerstone in attachment research, providing valuable insights into early social-emotional development and the quality of infant-caregiver relationships.

What are Mary Ainsworth’s 4 attachment styles?

Mary Ainsworth initially identified three main attachment styles through her Strange Situation procedure. A fourth style was later added by researchers Main and Solomon. The four attachment styles are:

1. Secure Attachment: Infants use the caregiver as a secure base for exploration, show some distress when separated, and greet the caregiver warmly upon reunion. They are easily comforted by the caregiver.
2. Anxious-Ambivalent Attachment: These infants show limited exploration, become extremely distressed upon separation, and display ambivalent behavior upon reunion, seeking contact but also resisting it.
3. Avoidant Attachment: Infants in this category show minimal emotion when the caregiver leaves or returns, and actively avoid or ignore the caregiver upon reunion.
4. Disorganized Attachment: Added later by Main and Solomon, this pattern is characterized by contradictory, disoriented, or fearful behavior towards the caregiver.

These attachment styles reflect different patterns of infant behavior and are thought to develop based on the infant’s experiences with their caregiver. It’s important to note that these styles exist on a continuum rather than as discrete categories, and an individual’s attachment pattern can change over time with new experiences.

How does the Strange Situation procedure work?

The Strange Situation procedure consists of eight episodes, each lasting approximately three minutes, designed to gradually increase the level of stress experienced by the infant:

1. Parent and infant are introduced to the experimental room.
2. Parent and infant are alone. The parent does not participate while the infant explores.
3. A stranger enters, talks to the parent, then approaches the infant. The parent leaves inconspicuously.
4. First separation episode: The stranger’s behavior is geared towards that of the infant.
5. First reunion episode: Parent greets and comforts the infant, then leaves again.
6. Second separation episode: The infant is alone.
7. Continuation of second separation: Stranger enters and gears behavior to that of the infant.
8. Second reunion episode: Parent enters, greets the infant, and picks up the child; the stranger leaves inconspicuously.

Throughout these episodes, trained observers carefully note the infant’s behaviors, particularly their reactions during separations and reunions with the caregiver. The infant’s willingness to explore, their response to the stranger, and their behavior upon reunion with the caregiver are all crucial elements in determining their attachment style.

This procedure allows researchers to observe how infants balance their needs for comfort and exploration under varying levels of stress, providing insights into their attachment relationships.

How has attachment theory influenced child-rearing practices?

Attachment theory has significantly influenced child-rearing practices by emphasizing the importance of sensitive and responsive caregiving. Here are some key ways it has shaped parenting approaches:

1. Responsive Parenting: Parents are encouraged to promptly and appropriately respond to their infant’s cues, fostering a sense of security.
2. Physical Closeness: Practices like skin-to-skin contact and baby-wearing have gained popularity, supporting the formation of secure attachments.
3. Emotional Attunement: Parents are advised to be emotionally available and to help their children understand and manage their emotions.
4. Balancing Dependence and Independence: Attachment theory suggests that a secure base allows children to explore confidently, encouraging parents to support both comfort-seeking and independent behavior.
5. Consistent Caregiving: The theory has highlighted the importance of consistency in caregiving, influencing practices in childcare settings and adoption processes.
6. Positive Discipline: Discipline strategies that maintain a positive parent-child relationship are favored over punitive approaches.
7. Co-sleeping Debates: Attachment theory has influenced discussions about sleep arrangements, though practices vary widely across cultures.

While these influences are significant, it’s important to note that attachment theory is just one perspective on child development, and practices should be adapted to individual family contexts and cultural norms.

What criticisms have been made of Ainsworth’s attachment theory?

While influential, Ainsworth’s attachment theory has faced several criticisms:

1. Cultural Bias: The theory has been criticized for being based primarily on Western, middle-class families, potentially overlooking cultural variations in caregiving practices and attachment behaviors.
2. Overemphasis on Maternal Care: Early attachment research focused heavily on mother-infant relationships, potentially undervaluing the role of fathers and other caregivers.
3. Deterministic View: Some critics argue that the theory overemphasizes the impact of early experiences, potentially overlooking the potential for change in later life.
4. Methodological Concerns: The Strange Situation procedure has been critiqued for its artificial setting, which may not reflect real-world attachment behaviors.
5. Categorical vs. Dimensional Approach: The use of discrete attachment categories has been questioned, with some researchers advocating for a more dimensional approach.
6. Limited Age Range: The Strange Situation was designed for infants aged 12-18 months, limiting its applicability to other age groups.
7. Narrow Focus: Some argue that the theory focuses too narrowly on attachment relationships, potentially overlooking other important factors in child development.

These criticisms have led to ongoing refinements in attachment theory and research methodologies, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of early relationships and their impact on development.

References

• Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1967). Infancy in Uganda: Infant care and the growth of love. Johns Hopkins Press.
• Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to personality development. American Psychologist, 46(4), 333-341.
• Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Gold Medal Award for Life Achievement in the Science of Psychology: Mary D. Salter Ainsworth.
• Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Juffer, F. (2003). Less is more: Meta-analyses of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood. Psychological Bulletin, 129(2), 195-215.
• Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
• Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.
• Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. Basic Books.
• Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 759-775.
• Bretherton, I. (2003). Mary Ainsworth: Insightful observer and courageous theoretician. In G. A. Kimble & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Portraits of pioneers in psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 317-331). American Psychological Association.
• Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2-3), 228-249.
• Cook, A., Spinazzola, J., Ford, J., Lanktree, C., Blaustein, M., Cloitre, M., DeRosa, R., Hubbard, R., Kagan, R., Liautaud, J., Mallah, K., Olafson, E., & van der Kolk, B. (2005). Complex trauma in children and adolescents. Psychiatric Annals, 35(5), 390-398.
• Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., Powell, B., & Marvin, R. (2000). The Circle of Security intervention: Differential diagnosis and differential treatment. In G. P. Koocher, J. C. Norcross, & S. S. Hill III (Eds.), Psychologists’ desk reference (2nd ed., pp. 363-367). Oxford University Press.
• Crittenden, P. M., & Baim, C. (2017). Using assessment of attachment in child care proceedings to guide intervention. In L. Dixon, D. F. Perkins, C. Hamilton-Giachritsis, & L. A. Craig (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of what works in child maltreatment: An evidence-based approach to assessment and intervention in child protection (pp. 385-402). Wiley Blackwell.
• Department for Education. (2018). Working together to safeguard children: A guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. HM Government.
• Dozier, M., Lindheim, O., & Ackerman, J. P. (2006). Attachment and biobehavioral catch-up: An intervention targeting empirically identified needs of foster infants. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Young children and trauma: Intervention and treatment (pp. 178-194). Guilford Press.
• Dozier, M., Stovall, K. C., Albus, K. E., & Bates, B. (2009). Attachment for infants in foster care: The role of caregiver state of mind. Child Development, 72(5), 1467-1477.
• Elfer, P., Goldschmied, E., & Selleck, D. (2012). Key persons in the early years: Building relationships for quality provision in early years settings and primary schools. Routledge.
• Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Feldman, R., Zagoory-Sharon, O., Weisman, O., Schneiderman, I., Gordon, I., Maoz, R., Shalev, I., & Ebstein, R. P. (2013). Sensitive parenting is associated with plasma oxytocin and polymorphisms in the OXTR and CD38 genes. Biological Psychiatry, 72(3), 175-181.
• Flacking, R., Lehtonen, L., Thomson, G., Axelin, A., Ahlqvist, S., Moran, V. H., Ewald, U., & Dykes, F. (2012). Closeness and separation in neonatal intensive care. Acta Paediatrica, 101(10), 1032-1037.
• Fraley, R. C., & Roisman, G. I. (2019). The development of adult attachment styles: Four lessons. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 26-30.
• Fraley, R. C., & Spieker, S. J. (2003). Are infant attachment patterns continuously or categorically distributed? A taxometric analysis of strange situation behavior. Developmental Psychology, 39(3), 387-404.
• Groh, A. M., Fearon, R. P., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Steele, R. D., & Roisman, G. I. (2014). The significance of attachment security for children’s social competence with peers: A meta-analytic study. Attachment & Human Development, 16(2), 103-136.
• Havighurst, S. S., Wilson, K. R., Harley, A. E., Prior, M. R., & Kehoe, C. (2013). Tuning in to Kids: Improving emotion socialization practices in parents of preschool children – findings from a community trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(12), 1342-1350.
• Hoffman, K. T., Marvin, R. S., Cooper, G., & Powell, B. (2006). Changing toddlers’ and preschoolers’ attachment classifications: The Circle of Security intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(6), 1017-1026.
• Howes, C., & Spieker, S. (2008). Attachment relationships in the context of multiple caregivers. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 317-332). Guilford Press.
• Jernberg, A. M., & Booth, P. B. (1999). Theraplay: Helping parents and children build better relationships through attachment-based play. Jossey-Bass.
• Kennedy, H., Landor, M., & Todd, L. (2011). Video Interaction Guidance: A relationship-based intervention to promote attunement, empathy and wellbeing. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
• Lieberman, A. F., Van Horn, P., & Ippen, C. G. (2005). Toward evidence-based treatment: Child-parent psychotherapy with preschoolers exposed to marital violence. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 44(12), 1241-1248.
• Lyons-Ruth, K., & Jacobvitz, D. (2008). Attachment disorganization: Genetic factors, parenting contexts, and developmental transformation from infancy to adulthood. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 666-697). Guilford Press.
• Main, M. (2000). The organized categories of infant, child, and adult attachment: Flexible vs. inflexible attention under attachment-related stress. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 48(4), 1055-1096.
• Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of an insecure-disorganized/disoriented attachment pattern. In T. B. Brazelton & M. W. Yogman (Eds.), Affective development in infancy (pp. 95-124). Ablex.
• Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 121-160). University of Chicago Press.
• Mesman, J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Sagi-Schwartz, A. (2016). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: Universal and contextual dimensions. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (3rd ed., pp. 852-877). Guilford Press.
• Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. Guilford Press.
• Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press.
• Powell, B., Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., & Marvin, B. (2014). The Circle of Security intervention: Enhancing attachment in early parent-child relationships. Guilford Press.
• Radesky, J. S., Kistin, C. J., Zuckerman, B., Nitzberg, K., Gross, J., Kaplan-Sanoff, M., Augustyn, M., & Silverstein, M. (2015). Patterns of mobile device use by caregivers and children during meals in fast food restaurants. Pediatrics, 133(4), e843-e849.
• Rose, J., McGuire-Snieckus, R., & Gilbert, L. (2019). Attachment Aware Schools: The impact of a targeted and collaborative intervention. Pastoral Care in Education, 37(2), 162-184.
• Smith, M., Cameron, C., & Reimer, D. (2017). From attachment to recognition for children in care. British Journal of Social Work, 47(6), 1606-1623.
• Sroufe, L. A. (2005). Attachment and development: A prospective, longitudinal study from birth to adulthood. Attachment & Human Development, 7(4), 349-367.
• Target, M., Fonagy, P., & Shmueli-Goetz, Y. (2003). Attachment representations in school-age children: The development of the Child Attachment Interview (CAI). Journal of Child Psychotherapy, 29(2), 171-186.
• van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1995). Adult attachment representations, parental responsiveness, and infant attachment: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the Adult Attachment Interview. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 387-403.
• van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Kroonenberg, P. M. (1988). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: A meta-analysis of the Strange Situation. Child Development, 59(1), 147-156.
• Verhage, M. L., Schuengel, C., Madigan, S., Fearon, R. M., Oosterman, M., Cassibba, R., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2016). Narrowing the transmission gap: A synthesis of three decades of research on intergenerational transmission of attachment. Psychological Bulletin, 142(4), 337-366.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
• Zeanah, C. H., & Gleason, M. M. (2015). Annual research review: Attachment disorders in early childhood – clinical presentation, causes, correlates, and treatment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56(3), 207-222.

Further Reading and Research

Recommended Articles

• Belsky, J., & Fearon, R. M. P. (2002). Early attachment security, subsequent maternal sensitivity, and later child development: Does continuity in development depend upon continuity of caregiving? Attachment & Human Development, 4(3), 361-387.
• Granqvist, P., Sroufe, L. A., Dozier, M., Hesse, E., Steele, M., van IJzendoorn, M., Solomon, J., Schuengel, C., Fearon, P., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M., Steele, H., Cassidy, J., Carlson, E., Madigan, S., Jacobvitz, D., Foster, S., Behrens, K., Rifkin-Graboi, A., Gribneau, N., … Duschinsky, R. (2017). Disorganized attachment in infancy: A review of the phenomenon and its implications for clinicians and policy-makers. Attachment & Human Development, 19(6), 534-558.
• Groh, A. M., Fearon, R. P., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Roisman, G. I. (2017). Attachment in the early life course: Meta-analytic evidence for its role in socioemotional development. Child Development Perspectives, 11(1), 70-76.
• Madigan, S., Atkinson, L., Laurin, K., & Benoit, D. (2013). Attachment and internalizing behavior in early childhood: A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 49(4), 672-689.
• Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 71(3), 684-689.

Suggested Books

• Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
  • This comprehensive handbook covers the breadth of attachment theory, research, and applications, making it an essential resource for students and practitioners alike.
• Golding, K. S., & Hughes, D. A. (2012). Creating Loving Attachments: Parenting with PACE to Nurture Confidence and Security in the Troubled Child. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
  • This book offers practical strategies for parents and caregivers to help children with attachment difficulties, based on the PACE model (Playfulness, Acceptance, Curiosity, and Empathy).
• Holmes, J. (2014). John Bowlby and Attachment Theory (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  • This book provides an accessible introduction to John Bowlby’s life and work, offering insights into the development of attachment theory.
• Powell, B., Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., & Marvin, B. (2016). The Circle of Security Intervention: Enhancing Attachment in Early Parent-Child Relationships. Guilford Press.
  • This book describes the Circle of Security intervention, which is designed to help parents and caregivers support children’s attachment needs.
• Siegel, D. J., & Hartzell, M. (2013). Parenting from the Inside Out: How a Deeper Self-Understanding Can Help You Raise Children Who Thrive. TarcherPerigee.
  • Drawing on neuroscience and attachment research, this book offers insights into how parents’ own attachment experiences influence their parenting.

Recommended Websites

• The Attachment Research Community (ARC)
  • This website provides resources for researchers, practitioners, and students interested in attachment theory and research, including conference information and research updates.
• Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University
  • This site offers evidence-based information on child development, including resources on attachment and its impact on brain development.
• Circle of Security International
  • This website provides information about the Circle of Security intervention, including training opportunities for professionals and resources for parents.
• The International Association for the Study of Attachment (IASA)
  • IASA’s website offers resources on attachment theory and its applications, including information about conferences and training opportunities.
• Zero to Three
  • This organisation’s website provides a wealth of resources on early childhood development, including information on attachment and its importance in early relationships.

Download this Article as a PDF

Download this article as a PDF so you can revisit it whenever you want. We’ll email you a download link.

You’ll also get notification of our FREE Early Years TV videos each week and our exclusive special offers.

Get your PDF Download and FREE Early Years TV Updates

To cite this article use:

Early Years TV Mary Ainsworth Strange Situation Experiment Attachment Theory. Available at: https://www.earlyyears.tv/mary-ainsworth-strange-situation-experiment (Accessed: 21 May 2025).

Kathy Brodie

Kathy Brodie is an Early Years Professional, Trainer and Author of multiple books on Early Years Education and Child Development. She is the founder of Early Years TV and the Early Years Summit.

Kathy’s Author Profile