One in _____ Mothers Return to Work During Their Babies First Year of Life.

© 2008 – 2018 Gwen Dewar, all rights reserved

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

We hear a lot about "secure attachment relationships." Simply what exactly practice researchers hateful by this term? Psychologist Mary Ainsworth get-go devised the Strange Situation process to appraise the quality of an infant'due south attachment to his or her mother.

This article

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

It too considers an important question: To what extent has research over-emphasized the role of the mother? Shouldn't we also exist talking most the role of fathers, grandparents, and other caregivers?

What is a secure attachment?

Co-ordinate to the theories of John Bowlby (1988), a child is securely-fastened if she is confident of her caregiver's support. The attachment figure serves equally a "secure base" from which the child can confidently explore the world.

Secure attachment is too associated with

• keeping track of the caregiver during exploration,
• approaching or touching the caregiver when broken-hearted or distressed;
• finding comfort 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 cognitive.

But how tin can you lot know if researchers would allocate your own babe as securely fastened? How exercise they really mensurate attachment security?

The original method, adult by the influential psychologist Mary Ainsworth, is the laboratory process chosen the "Strange Situation" (Ainsworth et al 1978).

Typically, the Foreign State of affairs tests how babies or young children answer to the temporary absence of their mothers.

Hither's how information technology works.

The Strange State of affairs

To test a child's "attachment style," researchers put the child and her mother (these studies nearly always focus on the female parent) lonely 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 ain.

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

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

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

Finally, the mother returns and greets her kid.

How children answer to the Strange Situation

Every bit suggested by its name, the Foreign Situation was designed to present children with an unusual, but not overwhelmingly frightening, experience (Ainsworth et al 1978). When a kid undergoes the Foreign Situation, researchers are interested in ii things:

1. How much the child explores the room on his ain, and

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

Typically, a child'due south response to the Strange Situation follows one of four patterns.

Securely-attached children:

Costless exploration, and happiness upon the mother'south return

The deeply-attached child explores the room freely when his female parent 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 mother and holds her tightly. He is comforted by being held, and, once comforted, he is shortly gear up to resume his independent exploration of the world. His female parent is responsive to his needs. Equally a issue, he knows he can depend on her when he is under stress (Ainsworth et al 1978).

Avoidant-insecure children:

Petty exploration, and piffling emotional response to the female parent

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

Resistant-insecure (also called "anxious" or "ambivalent") children:

Little exploration, nifty separation feet, and an ambivalent response to the mother upon her return

Similar the avoidant child, 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 child is ambivalent. Although he wants to re-institute close proximity to his mother, he is also resentful—even angry—at his mother for leaving him in the commencement place. As a consequence, the resistant child may reject his female parent's attempts at contact (Ainsworth et al 1978).

Disorganized-insecure children:

Little exploration, and a confused response to the mother.

The disorganized child may showroom a mix of avoidant and resistant behaviors. Simply the main theme is one of defoliation and anxiety (Main and Solomon 1986). Disorganized-insecure children are at run a risk for a variety of behavioral and developmental problems

What causes secure attachments? What causes insecure attachments?

1. Parenting behavior and parenting style

Although parenting alone doesn't determine your child's attachment status, information technology may play a very important role. How can nosotros be sure? It's tricky because most studies report mere correlations, leaving us uncertain about causation.

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

Maybe infants develop secure attachments because they've inherited certain genes from their parents — genes that requite rise both to the trend to develop secure attachments, and to the tendency to be sensitive and responsive toward infants.

A compelling statement 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 prove that early on intervention — teaching new parents how to increase their sensitivity — improves attachment security (Mount et al 2017).

What else do we know nearly parenting and attachment?

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

In theory, children acquire that their caregivers will non respond to their emotional needs. As a result, they gives up on trying to signal their needs.

The avoidantly-attached child is relatively common in Western Europe (van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg 1988; see beneath). 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 (eastward.yard., Suizzo 2002; Valentin 2005).

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

Nonetheless—according to pop theory—these parents tend to be inconsistent, and they aren't particularly sensitive. They offer condolement, simply in a way that answers a child's needs.  on their ain terms, rather than according to a child'southward needs.

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

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

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

If this sounds like you lot, is in that location annihilation you lot tin can exercise near information technology? Enquiry suggests yous tin. In studies where parents from at-hazard 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 evolution of an baby'south zipper relationships (Fuertes et al 2006; Seifer at al 1992).

For instance, when researchers tested oxytocin levels in 18 newborns, they found that babies with higher oxytocin levels were more likely to solicit parental soothing and show greater interest in social interaction (Clark et al 2013). Possibly information technology's easier for such babies to larn that they accept a secure base.

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

three. Stress

In theory, stress could cause insecure attachment by interfering with a child'southward ability to perceive and translate his mother'south behavior. Stress could also make information technology difficult for a child to select the almost advisable, healthy response to beingness separated from, and reunited with, his mother (Waters and Valenzuela 1999).

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

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

4. Genetic differences

Studies have reported links betwixt disorganized-insecure zipper and the variants of several genes, including the dopamine D4 receptor gene (east.g., Lakatos et al 2000).

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

Just do the information tell usa a articulate story? Non withal. Some studies have failed to replicate key findings (Roisman et al 2013). Ane possibility is that the effects of the factor depend the presence or absence of sensitive maternal care, every bit well as other characteristics of the child (Wazana et al 2015).

5. Very long hours in not-parental child care

Studies have consistently failed to find that time spent in daycare is linked with insecure attachment. But it'southward possible that the take a chance increases when children spend an unusually long time away from parents.

In a report of mother-babe attachment security, researchers institute that babies were more than likely to show evidence of disorganized zipper if they spent more 60 hours per calendar week in not-maternal care (Hazen et al 2015).

What about cultural differences?

International studies of the Strange Situation

In studies recognizing three attachment classifications (secure, avoidant-insecure, and resistant-insecure), nearly 21% of American infants have been classified equally avoidant-insecure, 65% every bit secure, and fourteen% as resistant-insecure.

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

However, there are local variations.

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

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

Studies recognizing a fourth nomenclature–disorganized attachment–also vary by local population. The prevalence of disorganized attachment among center class, white American children is about 12% (Principal and Solomon 1990). Among the children of American adolescent mothers, the rate is over 31% (Broussard 1995).

Disorganized attachment has also been reported to exist relatively common among the Dogon of Republic of mali (~25%, Truthful et al 2001), infants living on the outskirts of Cape Town, Southward Africa (~26%, Tomlinson et al 2005), children from low income families in Zambia (~29%, Mooya et al 2016), and undernourished children in Republic of chile (Waters and Valenzuela 1999).

Why local populations differ

In some cases, these outcomes may reverberate differences in the way infants perceive the Foreign Situation, rather than real 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 take had more to do with heightened fear 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 do, with the result that otherwise securely-fastened babies may explore less (Rothbaum et al 2000).

But in other cases, results of the Strange Situation may reveal 18-carat cultural differences in the way that children have attached to their mothers.

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

So the relatively high incidence of avoidant-insecure attachments in Germany may reverberate existent differences in the style that some Germans approach parenting.

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

One criticism of the Strange Situation procedure is that it has focused almost exclusively on the female parent-babe bail.

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

Just 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–even crucial–contributions to childcare.

In fact, among some modern-mean solar day foragers, like the Aka and Efe of central 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 about the exclusivity of the mother-infant relationship" (Hrdy 2005).

For instance, anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy has argued that non-maternal caregivers may have played an of import office in human being evolution (Hrdy 2005). When infants have multiple caregivers, their mothers bear less of the cost of child-rearing. Mothers can beget to take more children, and their children tin can beget to abound up more slowly.

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

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

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

While this point doesn't detract from the importance of Strange Situation studies, it reminds u.s.a. that infants tin can bond with more than ane person.

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

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

More than reading

For more than readings near the importance of secure, personal relationships, run across these articles

• opens in a new windowThe health benefits of sensitive, responsive parenting
• opens in a new windowThe scientific discipline of attachment parenting
• opens in a new windowMind-minded parenting
• opens in a new windowStress in babies: An evidence-based guide to keeping babies calm, happy, and emotionally salubrious
• opens in a new windowPreschool stress: What causes it, and how nosotros can help kids?
• opens in a new windowStudent-instructor relationships: The overlooked ingredient for success

---

References: The Strange Situation

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, G. C., Waters, Eastward., & Wall, S. (1978).  Patterns of attachment: A psychological report of the strange situation. Hillsdale, North.J.: Erlbaum.

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

Boldt LJ, Kochanska Yard, Jonas 1000. 2017. Infant Attachment Moderates Paths From Early Negativity to Preadolescent Outcomes for Children and Parents. Kid Dev. 88(2):584-596.

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

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

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

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

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

Fuertes M, Santos PL, Beeghly M, and Tronick Eastward. 2006. More than maternal sensitivity shapes attachment: babe coping and temperament. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1094:292-6.

Gedaly LR, Leerkes EM. 2016. The function of sociodemographic risk and maternal beliefs in the prediction of infant attachment disorganization. Adhere Hum Dev. eighteen(6):554-569.

Grossman KE, Grossman M, Huber F and Wartner U. 1981. opens in a new windowGerman children'south behavior towards their mothers at 12 months and their fathers at 18 months in Ainsworth's Foreign Situation. International Periodical of Behavioral Evolution four: 157-181.

Hazen NL, Allen SD, Christopher CH, Umemura T, Jacobvitz DB. 2015. Very extensive nonmaternal intendance predicts mother-infant attachment disorganization: Convergent evidence from two samples. Dev Psychopathol. 27(3):649-61.

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

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

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

Lakatos K, Toth I, Nemoda Z, Ney K, Sasvari-Szekely M, and Gervai J. 2000. Dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) cistron polymorphism is associated with zipper disorganization in infants. Molecular Psychiatry 5(half-dozen): 633-637.

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

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

Chief M and Hesse E. 1990. Parents' unresolved traumatic experiences are related to baby disorganized attachment condition: Is frightened and/or frightening parental beliefs the linking machinery? In: Thou Greenberg, D Cicchetti, and EM Cummings (eds), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research and intervention. Academy of Chicago Press; Chicago, pp. 161–184.

Miyake 1000, Chen S-J, and Campos J. 1985. Babe temperament and female parent's mode of interaction and attachment in Nippon; an interim study. In: I Bretherton and E Waters (eds), Growing points of zipper theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, Serial No 209, 276-297.

Mooya H, Sichimba F, and Bakermans-Kranenburg M. 2016. Babe-female parent and baby-sibling zipper in Zambia. Attach Hum Dev. 18(half-dozen):618-635.

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

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

Rothbaum F, Weisz J, Pott Grand, Miyake M, Morelli Chiliad. 2000. Zipper and culture. 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, father, 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. Principal Appraisal of the Strange Situation: A cross-cultural analysis of preseparation episodes. Developmental Psychology 27(4): 587-596.

Seifer, R., Schiller, 1000., Sameroff, A. J., Resnick, S. & Riordan, Chiliad. 1996. Zipper, maternal sensitivity, and infant temperament during the beginning 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 Zipper Disorganization. New York, NY: Guilford Press

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

Tomlinson Yard, Cooper P, Murray L. 2005. The Mother-Infant Relationship and Infant Zipper in a South African Peri-Urban Settlement. Child Development 76 (five): 1044–1054.

True MM, Pisani 50, and Oumar F. 2001.Infant-mother attachment among the Dogon of Republic of mali. Kid Development 72(5):1451-66.

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

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

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

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

Waters, E. 1995. The Attachment Q-Prepare. In E. Waters, B. E. Vaughn, G. Posada, and G. Kondo-Ikemura (eds), Caregiving, cultural, and cognitive perspectives on secure-base of operations behavior and working models. Monograph of the Social club for Inquiry in Child Development, 60(2/3, serial No. 244, 247-254.

Waters Due east and Valenzuela M. 1999. Explaining disorganized attachment: Clues from research on mildly to moderately undernourished children in Chile. In: J. Solomon and C. George (eds), Zipper disorganization. New York: Guildford Printing.

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

Wright B, Hackney L, Hughes East, Barry Thou, Glaser D, Prior V, Allgar V, Marshall D, Barrow J, Kirby N, Garside K, Kaushal P, Perry A, McMillan D. 2017. Decreasing rates of disorganised attachment in infants and young children, who are at risk of developing, or who already have disorganised attachment. A systematic review and meta-analysis of early parenting interventions. PLoS One. 12(7):e0180858.

Zevalkink J, Riksen-Walraven JM, and Van Lieshout CFM. 1999. Attachment in the Indonesian Caregiving Context Social Development viii(ane): 21–40.

Content final modified 1/2018

Image credits for "The Strange Situation":

Championship paradigm by opens in a new windowMaria Grazia Montagnari / flickr

Photo of mother and infant by Chilobiamo_P

One in _____ Mothers Return to Work During Their Babies First Year of Life.

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

Share this post