AINSWORTH’S STRANGE SITUATION
MARY AINSWORTH: KEY STUDY: THE STRANGE SITUATION 1971/1978
SPECIFICATION: Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’. Types of attachment: secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant.
Mary Ainsworth developed the Strange Situation in the 1970s as a research tool designed to measure attachment, much like IQ tests measure intelligence. Before this, attempts to assess attachment, such as Schaffer and Emerson’s Glasgow Study, failed to provide a standardised, replicable method for categorising attachment styles.
Ainsworth’s work was closely linked to John Bowlby, as they shared their research findings and notes and were friends and collaborators. While Bowlby focused on the universality of attachment, Ainsworth was more interested in understanding individual differences and sought to categorise attachment types through her studies.
The Strange Situation Procedure (SSP) was designed to observe and classify attachment behaviours in infants aged 9 to 30 months by analysing their responses to separations and reunions with their primary caregiver. This provided a more structured and reliable way of studying attachment compared to previous methods.
DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS
The Strange Situation was a structured observational study conducted in a controlled laboratory to assess infant attachment. The study followed a standardised procedure consisting of seven episodes, each lasting approximately three minutes, designed to measure separation anxiety, stranger anxiety, exploration, and reunion behaviours. The procedure lasts 21 minutes and recreates familiar and unfamiliar interactions in a child's daily life. The child’s behavioural responses are carefully monitored to determine their attachment style.
The participants were infants between 9 and 30 months, primarily from middle-class American families. They were recruited through volunteer sampling, often from parenting groups, child development centres, or through advertisements for research participation.
Observations were conducted through a one-way mirror, allowing researchers to unobtrusively record the infants' behaviours. Trained observers used a structured coding system to classify attachment behaviours, ensuring inter-rater reliability. This method helped control for observer bias and maintained the scientific rigour of the study.
The Strange Situation is a structured observational method designed to measure attachment by assessing an infant's responses to separations and reunions with their caregiver. There are seven episodes, each lasting approximately 3 minutes, and someplace the infants in conditions of mild stress in unfamiliar settings to observe their reaction.
THE PROCEDURE
The child experiences a series of situations where their caregiver and a stranger enter and leave the room. These variations in stress allow researchers to assess the child’s attachment-related behaviours.
THE PARENT AND INFANT ENTER THE EXPERIMENTAL ROOM.
1. PARENT AND INFANT ARE ALONE. THE PARENT DOES NOT PARTICIPATE WHILE THE INFANT EXPLORES.
The parent does not participate while the infant explores.
Observers assess whether the child:
Explores freely and uses the mother as a secure base → Demonstrates security in attachment.
Explores but does not use the mother as a secure base → Suggests avoidant attachment, as the child is used to being ignored.
Clings to the mother and does not explore → Suggests resistant attachment, where the child is uncertain about the mother’s availability.
2. STRANGER ENTERS, CONVERSES WITH THE PARENT, THEN APPROACHES THE INFANT. PARENT LEAVES CONSPICUOUSLY
This stage examines stranger anxiety and whether the stranger can console the child.
Secure children find it hard to be consoled by a stranger, as they have a strong primary attachment to their mother.
Avoidant children do not mind the stranger and can be easily consoled, as their attachment figure is no different from a stranger.
Resistant children show extreme distress and cannot be consoled.
3. FIRST SEPARATION EPISODE: STRANGER'S BEHAVIOUR IS GEARED TO THAT OF THE INFANT
The stranger gears their behaviour toward the infant, observing how the child copes without their caregiver.
4. FIRST REUNION EPISODE: PARENT GREETS AND COMFORTS INFANT, THEN LEAVES AGAIN.
The parent returns and comforts the infant before leaving again.
Observers assess how easily the child is consoled:
Secure children calm down quickly when their caregiver returns.
Avoidant children do not seek comfort and appear indifferent.
Resistant children remain distressed and cannot be consoled, even when the caregiver returns.
5. SECOND SEPARATION EPISODE: INFANT IS ALONE.
6. CONTINUATION OF SECOND SEPARATION EPISODE: STRANGER ENTERS AND GEARS BEHAVIOUR TO THAT OF THE INFANT.
The infant is left entirely alone.
Secure children become distressed.
Avoidant children do not appear to notice.
Resistant children may appear indifferent but are used to being left alone.
A stranger enters and attempts to comfort the child.
Researchers observe whether the child seeks reassurance from the stranger.
7. SECOND REUNION EPISODE: PARENT ENTERS, GREETS INFANT, AND PICKS UP THE INFANT; STRANGER LEAVES CONSPICUOUSLY.
The parent returns and reunites with the child.
The stranger leaves conspicuously.
Observers examine the child’s reaction to reunion, assessing the nature of their attachment.
BEHAVIOURAL ASPECTS OBSERVED
Throughout the procedure, four key attachment-related behaviours are assessed:
Exploration – The child’s willingness to explore the environment and interact with new toys.
Separation Anxiety – How the child reacts when the caregiver leaves.
Stranger Anxiety – How the child responds when left alone with the stranger.
Reunion Behaviour – How the child reacts when reunited with their caregiver.
FINDINGS: ATTACHMENT STYLES IDENTIFIED
Based on these behaviours, Ainsworth categorised infants into three primary attachment types:
Secure Attachment (Type B): ~65%
Insecure-Avoidant Attachment (Type A): ~20%
Insecure-Resistant Attachment (Type C): ~10-15%
CONCLUSIONS
Mothers who were consistently sensitive and responsive to their infant’s needs had children who developed secure attachments.
Mothers who were distant or unresponsive tended to have children with avoidant attachment.
Mothers who were inconsistent in their responses—sometimes attentive and sometimes neglectful—had children with resistant attachment.
Ainsworth emphasised that the quality of caregiving, not just the caregiver's presence, shaped attachment outcomes. She noted that securely attached infants used their mother as a safe base to explore their environment, reinforcing the idea that early attachment relationships influence later development.
ATTACHMENT TYPES
SECURE ATTACHMENT (TYPE B)
A securely attached child uses their caregiver as a secure base from which they feel safe to explore their environment. The key characteristics of securely attached infants include:
Freely exploring the environment when the caregiver is present.
Showing distress upon separation but reassurance upon reunion.
Interacting positively with a stranger but showing a clear preference for the caregiver.
Displaying confidence that the caregiver is available and responsive to their needs.
This attachment style is considered the most adaptive, allowing the child to explore their environment while maintaining emotional security. Secure attachment forms when caregivers consistently respond to the child’s needs in a sensitive and appropriate manner. However, the child’s temperament and other factors contribute to attachment security.
According to attachment theory, securely attached children learn from their caregiver's responses, which helps them develop effective coping strategies. When a caregiver assists in distress, the child not only regains emotional balance but also learns how to handle stress independently in the future.
INSECURE-AVOIDANT ATTACHMENT (TYPE A)
Children with avoidant attachment exhibit emotional detachment from their caregiver, appearing largely indifferent to their presence. Their key behaviours include:
Minimal distress upon separation and little interest upon reunion.
Avoiding or ignoring the caregiver, even when upset.
Failing to use the caregiver as a secure base.
Engaging less in exploration compared to securely attached infants.
This attachment pattern suggests that the child has learned to suppress their need for comfort because previous attempts to seek support were either ignored or rejected. Ainsworth’s narrative observations suggested that avoidant infants often had caregivers who were emotionally unavailable or dismissive of their needs.
Later research by Mary Main proposed that avoidant attachment represents a "conditional strategy"—a way for the child to maintain some proximity to an unresponsive caregiver while minimising the likelihood of further rejection. The child’s lack of distress does not indicate a lack of need; physiological studies (e.g., heart rate monitoring) suggest underlying stress masked by outward detachment.
INSECURE-AMBIVALENT/RESISTANT ATTACHMENT (TYPE C)
Anxious-ambivalent (also known as resistant) attachment is characterised by intense distress and difficulty being comforted. The child's behaviour includes:
Extreme distress upon separation, often before the caregiver leaves.
Clinging behaviour, with limited exploration of the environment.
Anger or helplessness upon reunion, making comforting difficult.
A strong desire for proximity but mixed reactions toward the caregiver.
This pattern develops when a caregiver's responses are inconsistent—sometimes being attentive and caring, but at other times neglectful or unavailable. The child learns that the caregiver’s availability is unpredictable, leading to heightened anxiety and hypervigilance about maintaining proximity. Researchers believe that the resistant attachment strategy controls interactions with the caregiver by exaggerating distress. This ensures that the caregiver remains present and attentive, even if their responses are not always reliable.
EVALUATION
ETHICS
The Strange Situation has also been criticised for ethical concerns, particularly regarding the emotional distress inflicted on infants during the study. Intentionally causing distress by separating young children from their caregivers raises issues surrounding the ethical principle of protection from harm. Observations indicated that around 20% of children cried desperately at some point during the procedure, demonstrating significant emotional distress.
Although the study provided valuable insights into attachment behaviours, it deliberately exposed children to a stressful scenario, which could be seen as ethically inappropriate. This goes against ethical guidelines in psychological research, which emphasise the need to minimise distress and ensure participants' well-being. While proponents argue that the distress was temporary, critics highlight that infants cannot consent. Their involuntary participation in a distressing situation raises questions about the ethical justification of such research.
MUNDANE REALISM AND ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY
The Strange Situation has been criticised for its lack of ecological validity due to its artificial laboratory setting. While useful for ensuring consistency, the controlled environment may not accurately reflect how children behave in real-world attachment interactions. In everyday settings, infants may respond differently to separation and reunion, particularly in familiar surroundings with lower stress levels.
Furthermore, the study’s reliance on short-term separations may not fully capture the complexities of attachment in naturalistic environments. In real life, separations can be longer, and children may experience a range of responses influenced by context, familiarity with caregivers, and prior experiences of separation. This raises concerns about whether the observed attachment classifications in the Strange Situation represent a child’s general attachment style or merely reactions to an unfamiliar, stressful scenario.
TEMPORAL AND INTERNAL VALIDITY AND LIMITATIONS
One major criticism of the Strange Situation study is that it was conducted in the 1970s when mothers were typically the primary caregivers. Today, caregiving roles have changed, with many fathers playing a more active role in child-rearing. This raises questions about temporal validity, as the original study may not accurately reflect modern attachment dynamics.
The study also measured attachment with one caregiver, usually the mother. Sometimes, the child may have been more attached to their father, meaning the results could be skewed. This challenges the study's internal validity, as it may not have assessed attachment with the child’s primary attachment figure.
To address this, some researchers argue that an aggregate score should be used, measuring attachment across multiple caregivers rather than assuming the mother is always the primary figure.
CRITICISM: KAGAN’S TEMPERAMENT HYPOTHESIS
Jerome Kagan (1984) challenged Ainsworth’s conclusion that attachment styles are solely the result of the caregiver’s responsiveness. He argued that the child’s temperament, or innate personality traits, plays a significant role in attachment formation rather than just the caregiver's behaviour. Some infants are naturally more sociable and adaptable, making them more likely to develop secure attachments regardless of their caregiver’s responsiveness. Others may be naturally anxious or difficult, making them more prone to insecure attachment styles even with sensitive parenting. This suggests that the strange situation may measure temperament rather than attachment quality, challenging its validity as a pure measure of attachment.
NATURE VS NURTURE: BIOLOGICAL INFLUENCES ON ATTACHMENT
Ainsworth’s strange situation is based on a nurture-driven explanation, assuming that attachment type is determined by caregiver behaviour. However, biological factors also play a role. Autism and neurodevelopmental differences can impact attachment. Infants with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often show atypical attachment behaviours, such as avoiding eye contact or struggling with social reciprocity, regardless of the caregiver’s sensitivity. This challenges the idea that attachment styles are purely a result of parenting, as some children may have neurological factors affecting their ability to form secure bonds.
Gender differences in attachment have also been observed. Research suggests that testosterone levels may influence attachment styles. Boys are statistically more likely to develop avoidant attachment, possibly due to higher testosterone levels, which are linked to lower social sensitivity and increased independence-seeking behaviours. Girls tend to have higher oxytocin levels, which promote bonding and may contribute to the greater prevalence of secure attachments among female infants.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE STRANGE SITUATION
If temperament and biology significantly influence attachment, then the strange situation may not be an accurate measure of caregiver quality, as Ainsworth originally intended. The interaction between nature, biological temperament, and nurture, such as caregiver responsiveness, should be considered rather than assuming that parenting entirely shapes attachment styles.
CULTURAL BIAS IN THE STRANGE SITUATION
The strange situation was developed within a Western cultural framework, where independence and exploration indicate secure attachment. However, this assumption may not apply across all societies, making the study ethnocentric.
The procedure is an etic tool, meaning it applies a research method developed in one culture (Western societies) to others without considering cultural differences. It assumes that securely attached infants should feel comfortable exploring their surroundings while using their mother as a safe base. However, exploration may not be encouraged in many non-Western cultures due to environmental risks. For example, in ancestral environments or regions where predators and poisonous plants pose a threat, remaining close to a caregiver would be a more adaptive survival strategy. In such cultures, the most appropriate response may be an attachment style classified as resistant in a strange situation—where the child clings to the caregiver and shows distress when separated.
Another Western assumption in the study is that it is normal for babies to sleep separately from their parents. In contrast, many cultures practice co-sleeping for extended periods. Historically, leaving a baby alone in a separate space would have been extremely dangerous, as it could have resulted in an attack by animals or abandonment. The idea that a secure attachment is linked to a child’s ability to tolerate brief separations may be a cultural construct rather than a universal measure of attachment security.
Because the strange situation was designed around Western parenting norms, its findings may lack population validity when applied to societies where different caregiving practices are the norm. The assumption that exploring independently is always a sign of security ignores the reality that in some cultures, remaining close to a caregiver is not an indicator of insecurity but an adaptive survival strategy. Therefore, attachment research should consider cultural context rather than treating Western norms as the universal standard.
Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg's (1988) research supports this criticism, showing significant cross-cultural variations in attachment types. For example, Japanese infants were more likely to be classified as resistant, while German infants were more likely to be avoidant. However, these differences may reflect cultural child-rearing practices rather than genuine attachment insecurity. In Japan, infants are rarely separated from their mothers, making the strange situation particularly distressing and leading to higher rates of resistant behaviour. In Germany, independence is encouraged early, possibly explaining the higher rates of avoidant attachment.
IMPLICATIONS FOR ATTACHMENT THEORY
The strange situation’s classification of attachment types may be culturally biased, failing to account for alternative but equally valid attachment patterns. What is considered "secure" in one culture may not be the same in another, meaning that attachment research should incorporate culturally sensitive methods rather than imposing Western norms as the standard for healthy attachment.
VALIDITY OF ATTACHMENT CLASSIFICATIONS
One major issue with the validity of attachment classifications is that insecure-resistant (also called ambivalent) attachment is poorly operationalised. The strange situation classifies these children as highly distressed when separated and difficult to console upon reunion. However, this classification raises the question: what exactly does it mean?
Are resistant children responding to an overprotective caregiver who prevents them from developing independence? Or is the caregiving style ambiguous, meaning the child does not know what response to expect? The strange situation does not clarify this distinction, making it difficult to determine the true cause of resistant attachment. Furthermore, as previously discussed, high parental proximity might not indicate insecurity in all cultures. In some environments, where external threats such as dangerous terrain or lack of safe supervision exist, remaining close to the caregiver may be the most adaptive behaviour for survival.
More critically, the meaning of attachment classifications changes depending on cultural context, suggesting the strange situation may lack validity. For example, when the study was conducted in Japan by Takahashi, many infants were classified as securely attached. Still, they displayed behaviour that would have been considered resistant in a Western context. This is because Japanese mothers typically co-slept, bathed, and maintained very close physical contact with their babies, making separation in the strange situation highly stressful. However, instead of questioning whether the peculiar situation was culturally appropriate, researchers initially interpreted the high distress during separation and strong attachment behaviours as evidence of anxious attachment rather than recognising them as a cultural norm.
Similarly, avoidant attachment is viewed differently in Germany. German infants are often classified as insecure-avoidant, but this is due to German parenting values, which encourage independence and self-reliance. In Germany, a child who does not seek comfort from a caregiver is not necessarily insecure but may display the expected cultural norm. This suggests that attachment classifications may not be universal but are somewhat shaped by specific societal expectations about how children should behave.
These inconsistencies raise an essential question: is the strange situation a valid tool for assessing attachment across cultures, or should attachment be studied emically? If attachment security is context-dependent, applying Western-based classifications to other cultures may produce misleading conclusions.
INTRODUCTION OF DISORGANISED ATTACHMENT
A significant limitation of the original Strange Situation study was that it did not account for all attachment types. For over a decade, children who did not fit neatly into secure (B), avoidant (A), or resistant (C) attachment were still placed into one of these categories, leading to misclassifications.
It wasn’t until Mary Main and Judith Solomon introduced the fourth category, disorganised attachment (D), in the 1980s that researchers recognised some children displayed contradictory behaviours that did not align with Ainsworth’s original framework. These children showed freezing, fear of the caregiver, contradictory approach-avoidance behaviours, or repetitive, disoriented movements such as rocking.
For over a decade, children with disorganised attachment were likely misclassified as resistant or avoidant simply because the attachment system did not recognise disorganised behaviour as a distinct attachment style. This means that many studies conducted before the 1980s were based on an incomplete understanding of attachment, potentially reducing the reliability of earlier findings.
However, it is also important to consider who was participating in these studies. The Strange Situation required parents to volunteer, possibly leading to a selection bias. Families with insecure or disorganised attachments—often associated with neglect, abuse, or high levels of stress—were unlikely to take part in attachment research. Low-income families, for instance, may have been underrepresented in these studies, meaning that insecure attachment patterns could have been underestimated or misrepresented.
Ultimately, the late introduction of disorganised attachment raises questions about the validity of the original research and suggests that, for a significant period, children were placed into the wrong categories simply because the classification system itself was incomplete.
The Strange Situation provided a highly replicable framework for studying attachment, a major strength of this laboratory-based study. The controlled environment allowed researchers to minimise extraneous variables, ensuring that observed differences in attachment behaviours were more likely due to the child-caregiver relationship rather than external influences. This high level of control increases the study's internal validity and allows for reliable comparisons across different studies.
Further supporting the reliability of attachment classifications, a longitudinal study by Main et al. examined whether attachment types observed in infancy remained stable over time. The study followed children assessed in Ainsworth’s Strange Situation before 18 months old and reassessed them at six years old. Their findings showed a high degree of consistency in attachment classification:
100% of children initially classified as securely attached remained securely attached at age six.
75% of those classified initially as avoidant were again classified as avoidant at age six.
These findings suggest that attachment types are relatively stable over time, supporting Bowlby’s theory of attachment as an enduring internal working model. However, the fact that some infants were reclassified suggests that attachment is not entirely fixed. Environmental factors such as parenting changes, life events, or shifts in family dynamics may influence attachment security over time, highlighting the interaction between nature and nurture in attachment development.
DISORGANISED ATTACHMENT (TYPE D)
Some children do not fit neatly into the secure, avoidant, or resistant attachment styles. Instead, they exhibit disorganised behaviour, which includes:
Conflicting actions, such as approaching the caregiver but freezing in place.
Uncoordinated, erratic movements or behaviours such as repetitive head-cocking.
Expressions of fear or distress toward the caregiver.
Disorientation or freezing when seeking comfort.
This category was later identified by Mary Main and her colleagues, who noticed that certain infants exhibited behaviours that did not fit the standard attachment patterns. These infants show both avoidant and resistant behaviours, often appearing fearful or confused about their caregiver’s presence.
Disorganised attachment is believed to arise in highly stressful or traumatic caregiving environments, such as those involving abuse, neglect, or severe parental distress. Studies have shown that mothers who have experienced unresolved trauma or significant loss are more likely to have children with disorganised attachment.
Some researchers have argued that disorganised attachment is too broad a category, as it includes a variety of behaviours. George and Solomon later suggested dividing disorganised behaviours into "strategies of desperation" (e.g., exaggerated attachment behaviours) and true disorganisation (e.g., freezing in fear).
MEASURING ATTACHMENT
A key debate in attachment research is whether infant attachment can be accurately represented using discrete categories or whether a continuous scale would provide a more precise measurement. In response to this issue, researchers have developed continuous measures of attachment security, showing strong psychometric reliability. Many studies have used these measures independently and alongside categorical classifications.
One of the most well-known continuous scales, developed by Richters et al. (1998), has demonstrated a strong correlation between secure vs insecure classifications, accurately predicting about 90% of cases. Similarly, Van IJzendoorn et al. (1990) research has supported the validity of continuous measures in attachment research.
For those interested in the ongoing categorical vs continuous debate, the work of Fraley and Spieker explores this issue in depth. Their research has sparked discussion among leading attachment theorists, including Jude Cassidy, Alan Sroufe, Everett Waters, Thomas Beauchaine, and Mark Cummings, who have contributed critical perspectives on whether attachment should be measured as distinct types or along a continuum.
SOCIAL SENSITIVITY IN ATTACHMENT MEASUREMENT
The debate over whether attachment should be measured using categorical classifications or a continuous scale raises important socially sensitive concerns. The Strange Situation and similar attachment studies often classify children into secure or insecure attachment types, yet these labels can have long-term implications for both research and parental perceptions.
A continuous scale may provide a more nuanced view of attachment security, avoiding the rigid placement of children into potentially stigmatising categories. For instance, a child classified as insecurely attached might be perceived as at risk for emotional or behavioural difficulties, even though attachment exists on a spectrum and is influenced by various environmental and cultural factors.
Richters et al. (1998) developed a continuous attachment security scale that has been shown to predict classifications with about 90% accuracy. However, its application remains limited compared to the categorical method established by Ainsworth. Similarly, Van IJzendoorn et al. (1990) found that attachment could be measured dimensionally, raising the question of whether traditional classifications oversimplify the complexity of attachment behaviours.
This issue is particularly relevant in clinical and social work settings, where attachment classifications can influence interventions, parenting support, and even legal custody decisions. Over-reliance on categorical classifications risks pathologising certain parent-child relationships without considering the broader social context. For example, a child who appears avoidant in the Strange Situation may not necessarily have an insecure attachment but may be responding to cultural expectations or previous experiences.
Fraley and Spieker have explored these concerns in depth, leading to further debate among attachment researchers, including Jude Cassidy, Alan Sroufe, Everett Waters, Thomas Beauchaine, and Mark Cummings. The ongoing discussion highlights the need for attachment research to balance scientific rigour with ethical responsibility, ensuring that attachment classifications do not become labels that define a child’s prospects without considering the full context of their environment and caregiving experiences.
REAL-WORLD APPLICATIONS
Attachment research has significant real-world applications, particularly in improving caregiver-child relationships and fostering secure attachments that contribute to healthy emotional and social development. Intervention programmes such as the Circle of Security Project (Cooper et al., 2005) have demonstrated the practical benefits of attachment theory. This programme educates caregivers on recognising and responding appropriately to infant distress signals and understanding the anxieties children may experience.
Research findings from the Circle of Security Project indicate that disorganised attachment classifications in children decreased from 60% to 15%, while secure attachment classifications increased from 32% to 40% after caregiver intervention. These findings suggest that attachment behaviours are not fixed and that caregivers can be taught to foster security, which has long-term benefits for children’s emotional regulation and relationship development in adulthood.
Mary Ainsworth’s pioneering research continues to shape the contemporary understanding of attachment, influencing parenting programmes, education, and social care policies. The application of attachment theory extends beyond psychology, playing a role in child welfare, early years education, and therapeutic interventions aimed at fostering healthier caregiver-child relationships.
POSSIBLE EXAMINATION QUESTIONS FOR THE STRANGE SITUATION
Outline and explain one form of attachment (2 marks)
Outline the Strange Situation procedure (4 marks)
Explain one limitation of using the Strange Situation to investigate attachment (3 marks)
Outline and evaluate the Strange Situation (12 marks AS, 16 marks A-leveA question into Ainsworth’s strange situation is almost certainly going to ask something along the lines of “discuss/outline research into” or “research findings”.
Read the question carefully - If it asks for “research into Ainsworth's strange situation” (or something very similar), then you can use this complete essay. However, it does not outline the procedure if it asks for research findings, as it will not score marks. They will usually shape the question so that the marks will be lower accordingly if you are not asked for the whole essay and a part of it (findings only, for example). However, creating and learning a full essay will cover all your bases and prepare you for any variation.
A01 ADVICE
When writing AO1 for an essay on the Strange Situation, you must first explain its purpose. The Strange Situation was developed by Mary Ainsworth (1970) to assess attachment types in infants using a structured observational method. Your description should briefly state that the procedure involved a series of seven episodes designed to measure an infant's separation anxiety, stranger anxiety, and reunion behaviour. Avoid describing all seven episodes in detail, as you only have 225 words and must balance AO1 and AO3.
Instead, please select one or two key episodes and explain their significance. For example:
The caregiver leaves the infant with a stranger in the first separation episode. This measures separation anxiety, as securely attached infants show mild distress, avoidant infants remain indifferent, and resistant infants become extremely upset.
In the first reunion episode, the caregiver returns. This measures reunion behaviour, revealing how the child responds. Secure infants seek comfort and calm quickly, avoidant infants ignore the caregiver, and resistant infants are difficult to soothe.
You should also include a key finding to demonstrate understanding. Ainsworth found that 65% of infants were securely attached, 20% were avoidant, and 15% were resistant, highlighting differences in attachment styles.
