Skip to main content
Social Sci LibreTexts

15.2: What are Ainsworth’s key constructs and target phenomenon?

  1. Last updated
  2. Save as PDF
  • Page ID
    9344

    • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    The building blocks, or key constructs, of Ainsworth’s theory and their definitions are presented in an example of an “understanding paper” on Ainsworth, which appears in Table 4.1. The target phenomena of Ainsworth’s theory are the different qualities of attachment, as shown in Figure 4.1.

    Table 4.1.Example Paper: “Understanding Ainsworth”

    1. Theoretical question:

    What is the basis for individual differences in the quality of attachment relationships, and how do these individual differences shape infants’ subsequent development?

    2. Theoretical context:

    Built on John Bowlby’s evolutionary ethological perspective.

    3. Key constructs

    Different qualities of attachment:

    • Secure attachment relationship (Group B): “use their [caregivers] as a secure base form which to explore in the pre-separation episodes; their attachment behavior is greatly intensified by the separation episodes so that exploration diminishes and distress is likely; and in the reunion episodes they seek contact with, proximity to, or at least interaction with their [caregivers]” (Ainsworth, 1979, p. 932)
    • Ambivalent/ Resistant attachment relationship (Group C): “show some signs of anxiety even in the pre-separation episodes; they are intensely distressed by separation; and in the reunion episodes they are ambivalent with the [caregiver], seeking close contact with her and yet resisting contact or interaction” (Ainsworth, 1979, p. 932)
    • Avoidant attachment relationship (Group A): “rarely cry in the separation episodes and, in the reunion episodes, avoid the [caregiver], either mingling proximity-seeking and avoidant behaviors or ignoring her altogether” (Ainsworth, 1979, p. 932)

    Different qualities of caregiver behavior:

    • Sensitive responsive caregiving: contingent and appropriate responding to infant signals about their needs (e.g., food, stimulation, tiredness, wet diaper), letting infant behavioral cues determine the onset, pacing, and termination of interactions. Chapter 4. Contrasting Theories: Bowlby, Ainsworth, and Gewirtz 3
    • Rejecting, angry caregiving: Insensitive, unresponsive caregiving; painful rebuff when infant seeks bodily contact; restricted in expression of affect.
    • Neglectful caregiving: Insensitive, unresponsive caregiving; disregarding signals or responding in grossly inappropriate fashion.

    Internal working model of attachment figure: “inner representation”

    • Secure internal working model: inner representation “of his or her [caregiver] as generally accessible and responsive to him or her” (Ainsworth, 1979, p. 933).
    • Insecure working model: anxious inner representation. Outcomes: Exploration, learning, interactions with environment.
    4. Target phenomena: Individual differences in quality of attachment relationships.

    5. Explanation: Antecedents, consequences, and mechanisms.

    Antecedents: Individual differences in maternal behavior: “in our sample of normal babies there is a strong case to be made for differences in attachment quality being attributable to maternal behavior” (Ainsworth, 1979, p. 933).

    Consequences: healthy development: “the way in which the infant organizes his or her behavior toward the mother affects the way he or she organizes behavior toward other aspects of the environment, both animate and inanimate” (Ainsworth, 1979, p. 936).

    • Securely attached: More exploration and learning from the environment, healthy self-reliance; more cooperative, affectively positive; more competent, sympathetic in peer interactions; longer bouts of exploration, more exploratory interest, problem-solving, more enthusiastic and persistent; better able to elicit and accept help from mother; more curious, self-directed, ego resilient, better scores on developmental tests and language development.
    • Avoidant: more aggressive, non-compliant, and avoidant.
    • Ambivalent: more easily frustrated, less persistent, generally less competent.

    Mechanisms:

    • Between caregiver behavior and formation of attachment: History of (in)sensitive (un)responsive interactions.
    • Between quality of attachment and healthy development: Construction of secure or insecure internal working models of attachment figures.

    6. Optimization:

    Optimal attachment: Secure. To optimize attachment, improve quality of caregiver-infant interactions, by helping caregivers become more sensitive, more responsive, and more comfortable with bodily contact.

    7. Meta-theoretical assumptions:

    Biological basis, but context and social interactions critical to the quality of the attachment that will be formed.

    This page titled 15.2: What are Ainsworth’s key constructs and target phenomenon? is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Ellen A. Skinner, Thomas A. Kindermann, Robert W. Roeser, Cathleen L Smith, Andrew Mashburn & Joel Steele (Portland State University Library) .