Week 2- Evaluate existing approaches used to measure attachment in children and adults.

Question 1

plan

Answer 1

1. introduction
2. strange situation
3. q-sort
4. attachment interview

Question 2

1. Introduction

Answer 2

What is attachment?
Bowlby= a secure base from which a child can make sorties into the outside world (1988) . Usually aimed at one individual.
Variability in attachment
Ainsworth identified that “attachment relations are qualitatively different from one attached pair to another” (1970) . means there are individual differences in the quality to attachment between infant and caregiver
What can measure variability?
To explore this variability, we must employ attachment measuring designs. These look at either attachment behaviours or representations, accounting for a spectrum of ages.
Attachment behaviours
These are observable measures of attachment behaviours that results in a person attaining or maintaining proximity to a specific individual
Attachment representations
How we think about our close relationships
Overall, we will look into the effectiveness the Strange situation, Q-sort and attachment interviews. Looking at the differences between these measures can help in appropriate selection of future attachment designs

Question 3

2a. The strange situation procedure

Answer 3

Measures attachment behaviours from 12-20m,
- Ainsworth & Bell (1970) standardised lab setting, contrasting prev attachment studies that relied on naturalistic work.
Relies on emulating scenarios
- These are mildly stressful in attempt to elicit certain behaviours with PCG. Observing the behaviours that precede these e.g. PCG returning to infant after absence. The frequency and intensity of these behaviours would cluster together forming categories
The attachment categories
- Secure , avoidant , resistant , disorganized . hypothesised each category to reveal the child’s rep of their PCG. Secure= not upset when PCG leaves as they know PCG is responsive

Question 4

2b. The strange situation procedure

Answer 4

Evaluate
Lab setting
Standardised assessment that requires training. This training is reflective in the inter-rater reliability of the observers (85-100%) . Offering a unique insight into the validity of lab setting in emulating authentic attachment behaviours. In contrast, it could be argued taking children into an artificial unfamiliar environment for the “briefest possible periods of time” (Bronfenbrenner,1977) may not be most reflective measure of attachment, ultimately lacking in ecological validity. Though convergent reliability checks indicate a correlation between ID in attachment behaviours and other settings (Ainsworth et al. 1978) weakening the prev point
Consistency of the test
The Strange Situation has a narrow window for assessment, typically between 12–20 months of age, and it cannot be reliably used 2–4 weeks after the initial assessment. While test-retest reliability over a longer period (e.g., 12–18 months) remains moderate (Waters, 1978), short-term reliability is less clear. Research into test-retest reliability within shorter intervals (e.g., two weeks) often yields insignificant results. One possible explanation is that infants may no longer perceive the situation as stressful upon repeated exposure, as the novelty and uncertainty are diminished. This suggests that to assess the stability of attachment classification, a longer interval may be required to allow the infant’s memory of the situation to fade. However, this delay may also reduce the effectiveness of the test in tracking changes or consistencies in attachment over time .

Question 5

3a. Q-sort

Answer 5

Brief description
- Looks at the indiv differences in secure base behaviour with a broader range of 12-48 months
Compare
- Advancement of the SS in response to artificial nature , broadening the concept of secure attachment within home settings. It involves scoring and correlating a child’s attachment profile against a secure, prototype .

Question 6

3b. Q-sort

Answer 6

Evaluation
Why is it better than SS
- Can be used on repeat occasion with a test rest reliability of r=.5
- Provides a more ecologically valid solution to measuring attachment, cheaper? Accessible?
- Furthermore reflects SS in convergent validity when rated by observers ( Van Ijzendoorn et al 2004)
Where the Q-sort lacks
- Cadman et al. (2017) reviewed 50 studies comparing the AQS with measures of temperament. Although a significant correlation was found, the association was weak, suggesting some overlap. In contrast, the Strange Situation demonstrates high discriminant validity (Groh et al., 2017), indicating that it more effectively differentiates between attachment and temperament. This raises concerns that the AQS may be slightly more influenced by temperament than by the quality of attachment itself.
- Unlike SS, the AQS does not distinguish between different types of secure or insecure attachment and instead provides a continuous security rating. While this can offer a more nuanced, dimensional view of attachment, a key weakness is that it lacks diagnostic specificity. Without clear categorical distinctions (e.g., avoidant vs. ambivalent), it becomes more difficult to apply in clinical or intervention settings where identifying specific attachment styles can guide targeted support.

Question 7

4a. The attachment interview

Answer 7

Overview
- As we get older= less reliance on behavioural observations because e.g. language. Abilities grow more apparent and certain observable behaviours become less reliant as attachment indicators due to our regulation of emotion
- Mairy Maine (1980) developed the attachment interview for adults and focused on eliciting certain ideas surrounding attachment via standardised interviews
- Instead of behaviours we focus on reflection and coherence, added together to form a attachment rep .
- Gave classifications of secure,dismissing,preoccupied and unresolved

Question 8

4b. The attachment interview

Answer 8

How its better than Q-sort + SS
- Broader age range- developing a childs attachment interview = generlisability
In response to SS
- - similar to q-sort, it outshines SS in its test retest reliability (Van ijzendoorn, 1993), yielding same classification even with different interviewers. Shows they pick out similar things even when pt talking about different topics
In Response to Q-sort
- Could be argued that individual differences such as autobio memory and IQ influences the quantity of info you’re able to provide , driving the classification youre given. Comparable to Q-sort it may be slightly influences by these factors. But (Van Ijendoorn, 1993) no find classifications to be influenced by this , low on these aspects= still secure

Question 9

conclusion

Answer 9

whilst the attachment interview seems like the most effective choice in measuring attachment, considering a broad range of ages whilst also account for the SS and q sort’s limitations we may still want to pick q-sort for infants