13.5.3: Attachment Security

Learning Objectives

1. Describe the Strange Situation procedure and its role in assessing attachment styles in infancy.
2. Identify and compare the four types of attachment based on infant responses to separation and reunion.
3. Discuss the distribution of attachment styles in U.S. children and the cultural considerations in attachment assessment.
4. Explain the concept of continuity of care.

Mary Ainsworth and the Strange Situation

Developmental psychologist Mary Ainsworth, a student of John Bowlby, continued studying the development of attachment in infants. Ainsworth and her colleagues developed a laboratory test that measured an infant’s attachment to their parent. The test is called the Strange Situation because it is conducted in a context that is unfamiliar to the child and therefore likely to heighten the child’s need for their parent (Ainsworth, 1979).

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): An infant crawling on the floor with toys around as done in the Strange Situation. Image by Petr Kratochvil is in the public domain.

During the procedure, which lasts approximately 20 minutes, the parent and the infant are first left alone while the infant explores the room filled with toys. Then a strange adult enters the room and talks to the parent for a minute, after which the parent leaves the room. The stranger stays with the infant for a few minutes, and then the parent again enters and the stranger leaves the room. During the entire session, a video camera records the child’s behaviors, which are later coded by the research team. The investigators were especially interested in how the child responded to the caregiver leaving and returning to the room, referred to as the “reunion.” Based on their behaviors, the children are categorized into one of four groups, each reflecting a different kind of attachment relationship with the caregiver. One style is secure, and the other three styles are referred to as insecure.

Table \(\PageIndex{1}\). Types of Attachment by Behaviors

Attachment Style	Behavior During Caregiver's Presence	Behavior During Caregiver's Departure	Behavior Upon Caregiver's Return
Secure	Explores freely, may engage with the stranger, plays with toys, and occasionally brings toys to the caregiver to show and describe.	May become upset, but recovers after the caregiver's departure.	Happy to see the caregiver return, seeks comfort and reassurance.
Ambivalent (Resistant)	Wary, stays close or clings to the caregiver, avoids exploring toys.	Extremely distressed, may cry and show anxiety.	Ambivalent reaction, rushes to the caregiver but may resist comfort, remains angry or upset.
Avoidant	Avoids or ignores the caregiver, shows little emotion, and does not explore much.	Shows little emotion, does not seem distressed.	Ignores or avoids the caregiver, shows no emotional reaction.
Disorganized/Disoriented	Inconsistent, may seem confused or fearful, may alternate between seeking closeness and avoiding the caregiver.	May cry during the separation, but shows confusion.	May avoid the caregiver upon return or show contradictory behaviors (e.g., approaching but freezing or falling).

How common are the attachment styles among children in the United States? It is estimated that about 65 percent of children in the United States are securely attached. Twenty percent exhibit avoidant styles, and 10 to 15 percent are ambivalent. Another 5 to 10 percent may be characterized as disorganized.

Keep in mind that methods for measuring attachment styles have been based on a model that reflects middle-class, U.S. values and interpretations. Newer methods for assessing attachment styles involve using a Q-sort technique, in which a large number of behaviors are recorded on cards and the observer sorts the cards in a way that reflects the type of behavior that occurs within the situation (Waters, 1987). There are 90 items in the third version of the Q-sort technique, and examples of the behaviors assessed include:

• When the child returns to their mother after playing, they may become fussy for no apparent reason.
• When a child is upset or injured, they will accept comfort from adults other than their mother.
• The child often hugs or cuddles against their mother, without her asking or inviting the child to do so.
• When the child is upset by the mother’s leaving, the child continues to cry or even gets angry after she is gone.

At least two researchers observe the child and parent in the home for 1.5 to 2 hours per visit. Usually, two visits are sufficient to gather adequate information. The parent is asked if the behaviors observed are typical for the child. This information is used to test the validity of the Strange Situation classifications across various age groups, cultures, and clinical populations.

Secure Attachment and Continuity of Care

Continuity of care refers to the consistent presence of caregivers who provide stable, reliable emotional and physical support throughout a child’s early development stages. The idea of continuity of care is neither new nor innovative. The term was first noted in published medical research dating back to the 1950s. It shifted by the 1970s to a more modern definition that included uninterrupted and coordinated care (Uijen, Schers, Schellevis, & van den Bosh, 2012). In the newer multidimensional models, continuity of care has expanded to consider the quality of care over time (Gulliford, Naithani, & Morgan, 2006), focusing on the relationship between patient and caregiver, communication, flexibility, and accessibility to the services provided (Uijen et. al., 2012).

In an early childhood environment, continuity of care focuses on many of these same aspects. When infants experience consistent caregiving over time, they are more likely to develop a secure attachment, which leads to a stable sense of trust, safety, and confidence in their environment. For example, in childcare settings or foster care, maintaining a consistent caregiver or a small group of familiar caregivers is crucial. When infants experience frequent changes in caregivers, their emotional needs may go unmet or be inconsistently addressed, leading to feelings of insecurity and distress. A lack of continuity can contribute to attachment disruptions, such as ambivalent or avoidant attachment styles, which manifest in behaviors such as excessive clinginess, resistance to comfort, or emotional distancing (Ainsworth et al., 1978).

Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\). Continuity of care in early learning programs is when one or multiple caregivers transition with a group of children to the next classroom. Image by Heather Carter is used with permission.

Figure \(\PageIndex{3}\). This teacher "looped" with the same classroom, transitioning from the infant room to the toddler room, and remained with the same group for two years. Image by Heather Carter is used with permission.

In the case of early learning program settings, maintaining continuity of care means having consistent caregivers who are responsive to the infant's needs and are familiar with the child’s temperament, preferences, and routines. Research has proven that interactions and relationships directly support children’s learning through exploration, expression of feelings, and the ability to solve problems (Sparks, 2019). Additionally, the effects of such positive relationships, specifically concerning cognitive development and children’s behavior, are long-lasting, well into the 3rd grade (MaldonadoCarreño & Vortruba-Drazl, 2011).

References, Contributors and Attributions

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1979). Infant-mother attachment. American Psychologist, 34(10), 932–937. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.932

Gulliford, M., Naithani, S., & Morgan, M. (2006). What is 'continuity' of care? Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 11(4), 248–250. https://doi.org/10.1258/135581906778476490

Maldonado-Carreño, C., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2011). The role of early child care in children's development: A review of the research. Child Development Perspectives, 5(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00151.x

Sparks, S. (2019). The importance of relationships in early childhood education. National Association for the Education of Young Children. https://www.naeyc.org/resources/pubs...-relationships

Uijen, A. A., Schers, H. J., Schellevis, F. G., & van den Bosh, W. J. H. M. (2012). How unique is continuity of care? A review of continuity and related concepts. Family Practice, 29(3), 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmr104

Waters, E. (1987). The development of attachment: A Q-sort technique for the assessment of attachment in infancy. In S. J. R. J. H. M. P. J. L. (Ed.), Assessing attachment: A guide to the assessment of infant–mother attachment (pp. 17–32). Erlbaum.