3.4.2 Types of Attachment: Secure, Insecure-avoidant and Insecure-resistant

• There are three types of attachment: secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure resistant

Secure attachment

• This was found to be the most common attachment type in the Strange Situation experiment conducted by Ainsworth and has been found to be the most common attachment type globally

Secure attachment (Type B)

• Between 66-70% of infants are classified as secure
• The infants were happy to explore the room and play, using the Primary Care Giver (PCG) as a safe base
• They were distressed when left by the PCG so demonstrated separation anxiety
• The infant avoided the stranger and so showed stranger anxiety
• On reunion with the PCG, they were happy and any upset disappeared very quickly

Insecure-avoidant attachment

• This was found to be the second most common attachment type in Ainsworth's experiment but this does vary in follow-up studies. (See Culture and Attachment)
• However, it is never the dominant attachment type in any culture where the strange situation has been used

Insecure attachment: Avoidant (Type A)

• 18-20% of infants were found to be insecure avoidant
• The infants were happy to explore the room and play but did not refer to the PCG as they did this
• They showed no sign of distress when left by the PCG: There was no separation anxiety
• The infant treated the stranger as they would the PCG, ignoring them, and so showed no stranger anxiety
• On reunion with the PCG, they tended to ignore them and carried on with what they were doing

Insecure resistant attachment

• This was found to be the least common of the three attachment types identified by Ainsworth
• Again, this varies culturally, but it is never the dominant attachment style in any culture studied so far

Insecure attachment: Resistant (Type C)

• Around 10-12% of infants were classified as insecure resistant
• Sometimes referred to as Insecure Attachment Ambivalent
• The infants did not explore the room and were reluctant to leave the PCG's side, in case they were left
• They were distressed when left by the PCG so demonstrated separation anxiety
• The infant avoided the stranger and so showed stranger anxiety
• On reunion with the PCG, they were not able to be calmed down and protested at the PCG as comfort was offered
• They resisted the PCG's attempt to calm them, often arching their back to move away from them, even though they were upset when left and clearly wanted the PCG to return

The comparison between the three types of Attachment- a quick guide

Type	%age	Exploration	Stranger	Separation	Reunion
B	66-70%	Plays and explores the room using the PCG as a safe base	Does not like the stranger	Cries when left	Joy on the reunion and is easily comforted by PCG
A	15-22%	Plays and explores but does not refer back to the PCG	No fear of the stranger	Does not cry when left and does not react to being left	Ignores PCG on the reunion
C	10-12%	Will not play or explore the room, unless PCG is with them	Does not like the stranger	Cries when left	Is upset about the reunion and cannot be comforted

Why does an Infant have the Attachment type it has?

What are the implications of this?

The question still remains, why does an infant develop the attachment type it does?  

What happens in those early months of development to cause this?

Psychologists have argued that this is the result of the relationship (dyad) between the PCG-Infant

This also has implications for later relationships

Attachment Type	Explanation for why this has happened	Implications for later relationships
Insecure Avoidant Type A	PCG has been unresponsive to the infant's needs and has often ignored them The infant has learned not to cry or seek attention as it does not work They will learn to hide their emotions from others	Type A's may be seen as aloof as they try not to show their emotions to others They fear rejection and so may reject first if they think a relationship is ending or becoming too difficult
Secure Type B	This is an infant who has had a responsive PCG who has been there for the child when needed They are secure in the knowledge that they are loved and use this as a basis to explore, play and form other relationships	Type B's tend to have stable relationships with others as they are secure in themselves If someone rejects them or a relationship ends they are stable and secure enough to realise that it is not always their fault and nothing could be done about it They know they are lovable and deserving of love/friendship
Insecure Resistant Type C	This is an infant who has been treated ambivalently by their PCG: They have been changeable One day they may have been caring and the next rejecting The infant does not know what to expect so they act in a clingy manner to ensure they get the loving/caring PCG as much as possible This explains why they will not explore as they fear being left It also explains their anger at the reunion: once again they were scared they had been rejected	Type C's will internalise this and in later relationships, they will be looking for signs of rejection They fear rejection and so will cling to the other person to prevent this: Although ultimately this makes it more likely that the relationship will end

Evaluation of Attachment Types

• Other researchers around the world have found very similar to Ainsworth in terms of attachment types
• There is strong evidence for the impact attachment types have on later relationships: Bowlby's Continuity Theory, Hazan and Shaver's Love Quiz, and Sroufe's study of institutionalised women are just a few

However:

• Is it too reductionist to assume that the whole population fits into one of the three attachment styles?
• Main et al (1986) found a fourth type of infant who did not fit into the criteria for the existing three types
• These infants often froze in the strange situation or displayed completely random behaviours that the existing categories from Ainsworth did not cover
• Main categorised them as Type D: Disorganised and it was found that these were children who had suffered some form of abuse in early infancy
• The fact that a 4th category was found some 16 years after the original raises issues about what else may have been missed