When a Baby Acts Upset Because a Caregiver Is Leaving, the Baby Is Exhibiting

© 2008 – 2018 Gwen Dewar, all rights reserved

The Foreign Situation procedure: The original test of the infant-parent bond

We hear a lot about "secure zipper relationships." But what exactly do researchers mean by this term? Psychologist Mary Ainsworth kickoff devised the Foreign Situation process to assess the quality of an baby'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.

Information technology likewise considers an important question: To what extent has research over-emphasized the role of the mother? Shouldn't nosotros as well be talking about the function of fathers, grandparents, and other caregivers?

What is a secure attachment?

According to the theories of John Bowlby (1988), a kid is securely-attached if she is confident of her caregiver's back up. The attachment effigy serves as a "secure base" from which the child can confidently explore the globe.

Secure attachment is too associated with

• keeping track of the caregiver during exploration,
• approaching or touching the caregiver when anxious 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 can you know if researchers would classify your ain infant equally securely attached? How exercise they actually measure attachment security?

The original method, developed past the influential psychologist Mary Ainsworth, is the laboratory process called the "Strange Situation" (Ainsworth et al 1978).

Typically, the Strange Situation tests how babies or immature children respond to the temporary absenteeism of their mothers.

Here'due south how information technology works.

The Foreign Situation

To test a child's "zipper mode," researchers put the child and her mother (these studies almost always focus on the mother) alone 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. And then the stranger shifts attention to the kid. As the stranger approaches the child, the female parent sneaks abroad.

Later on several minutes, the female parent returns. She comforts her kid and then leaves again. The stranger leaves besides.

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

Finally, the mother returns and greets her child.

How children respond to the Strange Situation

As suggested by its proper noun, the Strange Situation was designed to present children with an unusual, merely non overwhelmingly frightening, feel (Ainsworth et al 1978). When a child undergoes the Foreign Situation, researchers are interested in two things:

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

2. How the child responds to the return of his female parent

Typically, a child's response to the Strange Situation follows i of iv patterns.

Securely-attached children:

Free exploration, and happiness upon the mother'southward return

The deeply-attached kid explores the room freely when his female parent is present. He may be distressed when his mother leaves, and he explores less when she is absent. Just he is happy when she returns.

If he cries, he approaches his mother and holds her tightly. He is comforted past being held, and, one time comforted, he is presently fix to resume his independent exploration of the world. His mother is responsive to his needs. As a result, he knows he can depend on her when he is nether stress (Ainsworth et al 1978).

Avoidant-insecure children:

Little exploration, and picayune emotional response to the mother

The avoidant-insecure child 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, great separation anxiety, and an ambivalent response to the mother upon her render

Similar the avoidant child, the resistant-insecure child doesnt explore much on his ain. But unlike the avoidant kid, the resistant child is wary of strangers and is very distressed when his mother leaves.

When the female parent returns, the resistant kid is clashing. Although he wants to re-institute close proximity to his mother, he is likewise resentful—fifty-fifty aroused—at his mother for leaving him in the kickoff place. As a consequence, the resistant child may turn down his mother'due south attempts at contact (Ainsworth et al 1978).

Disorganized-insecure children:

Little exploration, and a confused response to the mother.

The disorganized child may exhibit a mix of avoidant and resistant behaviors. But the main theme is one of confusion and anxiety (Main and Solomon 1986). Disorganized-insecure children are at risk for a diversity of behavioral and developmental bug

What causes secure attachments? What causes insecure attachments?

1. Parenting behavior and parenting style

Although parenting alone doesn't determine your child's zipper status, information technology may play a very important role. How tin we be sure? It's tricky because almost studies report mere correlations, leaving united states uncertain most causation.

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

Perhaps infants develop secure attachments considering they've inherited sure genes from their parents — genes that give ascent both to the tendency to develop secure attachments, and to the tendency to be sensitive and responsive toward infants.

A compelling argument against this possibility comes from adoption studies. Similar other babies, adoptive infants are more probable to develop secure attachments when their parents are sensitive and responsive (Verissimo and Salvaterra 2006).

And studies show that early intervention — teaching new parents how to increase their sensitivity — improves zipper security (Mount et al 2017).

What else exercise we know almost parenting and zipper?

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

In theory, children learn that their caregivers will not respond to their emotional needs. As a outcome, they gives up on trying to signal their needs.

The avoidantly-fastened child is relatively mutual in Western Europe (van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg 1988; see below). This prevalence of avoidant attachments may reflect traditional Western European child-rearing values, which de-emphasize concrete contact and discourage parents from comforting children who cry (e.grand., Suizzo 2002; Valentin 2005).

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

However—co-ordinate to popular theory—these parents tend to be inconsistent, and they aren't particularly sensitive. They offer comfort, simply in a mode that answers a child's needs.  on their ain terms, rather than according to a child'south needs.

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

Children who are abused or neglected are more likely to suffer from disorganized zipper (Barnett et al 1999). But babies don't have to exist abused or neglected to develop disorganized attachment.

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

If this sounds like you, is there anything you can practise nigh it? Research suggests you lot tin can. In studies where parents from at-take a chance families were coached on how to better read their children's cues, kids were less likely to develop disorganized attachments (Wright et al 2017).

2. Babe temperament

Like adults, infants differ in temperament, and these temperamental differences might play a role in the development of an baby'due south zipper relationships (Fuertes et al 2006; Seifer at al 1992).

For instance, when researchers tested oxytocin levels in eighteen newborns, they found that babies with higher oxytocin levels were more than likely to solicit parental soothing and show greater interest in social interaction (Clark et al 2013). Perhaps it'southward easier for such babies to acquire that they accept a secure base.

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

3. Stress

In theory, stress could cause insecure attachment past interfering with a child'south ability to perceive and interpret his mother'southward beliefs. Stress could also brand it difficult for a child to select the most appropriate, healthy response to existence separated from, and reunited with, his mother (Waters and Valenzuela 1999).

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

In addition, stress may interact with parenting and epigenetics — variations in the way our genes get expressed. In one study, children who experienced high levels of stress and low levels of maternal back up were more likely to develop anxious attachments — but only if they as well had a highly methylated NR3C1 gene (Bosmans et al 2018).

4. Genetic differences

Studies accept reported links between disorganized-insecure attachment and the variants of several genes, including the dopamine D4 receptor factor (e.grand., Lakatos et al 2000).

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

But do the data tell us a clear story? Not yet. Some studies take failed to replicate key findings (Roisman et al 2013). I possibility is that the effects of the cistron depend the presence or absence of sensitive maternal care, as 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 zipper. But it's possible that the run a risk increases when children spend an unusually long time away from parents.

In a study of mother-babe zipper security, researchers establish that babies were more likely to testify bear witness of disorganized attachment if they spent more than sixty hours per week in non-maternal care (Hazen et al 2015).

What most cultural differences?

International studies of the Strange Situation

In studies recognizing three attachment classifications (secure, avoidant-insecure, and resistant-insecure), about 21% of American infants have been classified equally avoidant-insecure, 65% as secure, and 14% as resistant-insecure.

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

However, there are local variations.

A written report conducted in Bielfeld, Federal republic of germany has reported relatively loftier rates of avoidantly-attached infants (52%–Grossman et al 1981).

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

Studies recognizing a fourth classification–disorganized attachment–likewise vary past local population. The prevalence of disorganized attachment among centre class, white American children is nigh 12% (Principal and Solomon 1990). Among the children of American boyish mothers, the charge per unit is over 31% (Broussard 1995).

Disorganized attachment has too been reported to exist relatively mutual among the Dogon of Mali (~25%, True et al 2001), infants living on the outskirts of Cape Town, S Africa (~26%, Tomlinson et al 2005), children from depression 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 zipper.

For instance, Israeli children raised in kibbutzim rarely meet strangers. Equally a result, their high rates of resistant beliefs 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 near never separated from their mothers (Miyake et al 1995). Nor practice Japanese people value independence and contained exploration to the same degree that Westerners do, with the result that otherwise securely-attached 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 style that children have attached to their mothers.

For example, researchers analyzing a diversity of attachment studies concluded that German and American infants perceived the Strange Situation in similar means (Sagi et al 1991).

So the relatively loftier incidence of avoidant-insecure attachments in Federal republic of germany may reflect real differences in the manner that some Germans approach parenting.

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

One criticism of the Foreign Situation procedure is that it has focused almost exclusively on the female parent-baby bond.

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

But in some families, fathers spend a smashing bargain 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, amongst some modern-mean solar day foragers, like the Aka and Efe of central Africa, infants spend the much of the day existence 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 important role in human evolution (Hrdy 2005). When infants have multiple caregivers, their mothers bear less of the cost of child-rearing. Mothers tin can afford to have more children, and their children can afford to grow up more slowly.

Interestingly, these life-history traits—higher fertility and an extended childhood—distinguish humans from our closest living relatives, the groovy 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 us to reproduce at faster rates than our nonhuman cousins.

If then, it's foolish to presume that human babies are designed for sectional attachments to a single, maternal caregiver.

While this bespeak doesn't detract from the importance of Strange Situation studies, information technology reminds usa that infants can bond with more than one person.

Enquiry confirms that infants form secure attachment relationships with both their mothers and their fathers (Boldt et al 2017). Studies show that toddlers can form secure attachments to their daycare providers (Colonnesi et al 2017). Schoolhouse children can 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 reading

For more readings most the importance of secure, personal relationships, come across these articles

• opens in a new windowThe health benefits of sensitive, responsive parenting
• opens in a new windowThe science 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 healthy
• opens in a new windowPreschool stress: What causes information technology, and how we can assist kids?
• opens in a new windowEducatee-teacher relationships: The overlooked ingredient for success

---

References: The Foreign Situation

Ainsworth, M. D. Due south., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, South. (1978).  Patterns of attachment: A psychological report of the foreign state of affairs. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Barnett D, Ganiban J, and Cicchetti D. 1999. Atypical attachment in infancy and early on childhood among children at developmental run a risk. V. Maltreatment, negative expressivity, and the development 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 K. 2017. Infant Zipper Moderates Paths From Early Negativity to Preadolescent Outcomes for Children and Parents. Child 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 G, Feldman H, Parker KJ, Penn AA. 2013. Neonatal CSF oxytocin levels are associated with parent written report of babe soothability and sociability. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 38(seven):1208-12.

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

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

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

Gedaly LR, Leerkes EM. 2016. The role of sociodemographic adventure and maternal behavior in the prediction of infant zipper disorganization. Attach Hum Dev. 18(6):554-569.

Grossman KE, Grossman K, Huber F and Wartner U. 1981. opens in a new windowGerman children'southward beliefs 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 care predicts mother-baby 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 intendance. Ann Arbor, MI: Academy of Michigan Press.

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

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

Lakatos 1000, Toth I, Nemoda Z, Ney K, Sasvari-Szekely Thou, and Gervai J. 2000. Dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) factor polymorphism is associated with zipper disorganization in infants. Molecular Psychiatry 5(6): 633-637.

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

Main M and Solomon J. 1986. Discovery of an insecure-disorganized/ disoriented attachment blueprint: Procedures, findings and implications for the nomenclature of beliefs. In T. B. Brazelton & One thousand. Yogman (eds), Affective Development in Infancy, 95-124. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Main M and Hesse E. 1990. Parents' unresolved traumatic experiences are related to infant disorganized attachment status: Is frightened and/or frightening parental behavior the linking mechanism? In: G Greenberg, D Cicchetti, and EM Cummings (eds), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, enquiry and intervention. Academy of Chicago Press; Chicago, pp. 161–184.

Miyake K, Chen S-J, and Campos J. 1985. Baby temperament and mother's mode of interaction and attachment in Japan; an acting report. In: I Bretherton and E Waters (eds), Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Lodge for Research in Child Development, l, Serial No 209, 276-297.

Mooya H, Sichimba F, and Bakermans-Kranenburg M. 2016. Infant-mother and infant-sibling attachment in Republic of zambia. Adhere Hum Dev. 18(6):618-635.

Mount K, Cahill J, Thorpe H. 2017. Sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood: A systematic review and meta-assay. Babe Behav Dev. 46:14-32.

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

Rothbaum F, Weisz J, Pott M, Miyake K, Morelli G. 2000. Attachment and culture. Security in the U.s.a. and Japan.Am Psychol. 55(10):1093-104.

Sagi A, Lamb ME, Lewkowicz KS, Shoham R, Dvir R, and Estes D. 1985. Security of baby-mother, begetter, metapelet attachments amid kibbutz-reared Israeli children. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 1985;l(1-2):257-75

Sagi A, Van IJendoorn, and Koren-Karie. 1991. Primary Appraisal of the Foreign Situation: A cross-cultural analysis of preseparation episodes. Developmental Psychology 27(4): 587-596.

Seifer, R., Schiller, K., Sameroff, A. J., Resnick, South. & Riordan, M. 1996. Attachment, maternal sensitivity, and babe 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: Academy of Chicago Press.

Solomon J and George C. 1999 Attachment Disorganization. New York, NY: Guilford Press

Suizzo Thousand-A. 2002. French parents' cultural models and child-rearing behavior. International journal of behavioral evolution 26: 297-307.

Tomlinson M, Cooper P, Murray L. 2005. The Mother-Infant Relationship and Infant Zipper in a South African Peri-Urban Settlement. Kid Evolution 76 (v): 1044–1054.

True MM, Pisani L, and Oumar F. 2001.Baby-female parent attachment among the Dogon of Mali. Kid Development 72(5):1451-66.

van den Blast DC. 1994. The influence of temperament and mothering on zipper and exploration: an experimental manipulation of sensitive responsiveness among lower-form mothers with irritable infants. Kid Dev. 65(5):1457-77.

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

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

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

Waters, E. 1995. The Attachment Q-Set. In E. Waters, B. E. Vaughn, G. Posada, and M. Kondo-Ikemura (eds), Caregiving, cultural, and cerebral perspectives on secure-base of operations behavior and working models. Monograph of the Lodge for Research in Child Evolution, 60(2/iii, serial No. 244, 247-254.

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

Wazana A, Moss E, Jolicoeur-Martineau A, Graffi J, Tsabari M, Lecompte V, Pascuzzo K, Babineau V, Gordon-Green C, Mileva V, Atkinson L, Minde One thousand, Bouvette-Turcot AA, Sassi R, St-André 1000, Carrey North, Matthews Southward, Sokolowski Grand, 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 maternal intendance in the prediction of disorganized zipper at 36 months of age. Dev Psychopathol. 27(four Pt 1):1145-61.

Wright B, Hackney L, Hughes East, Barry M, Glaser D, Prior V, Allgar Five, Marshall D, Barrow J, Kirby Northward, Garside M, Kaushal P, Perry A, McMillan D. 2017. Decreasing rates of disorganised attachment in infants and young children, who are at run a risk of developing, or who already take disorganised attachment. A systematic review and meta-analysis of early on parenting interventions. PLoS I. 12(seven):e0180858.

Zevalkink J, Riksen-Walraven JM, and Van Lieshout CFM. 1999. Zipper in the Indonesian Caregiving Context Social Development 8(1): 21–twoscore.

Content last modified 1/2018

Prototype credits for "The Strange Situation":

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

Photo of mother and babe by Chilobiamo_P

wendtbralis55.blogspot.com

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

Share this post